Journal des débats 1984-avril-10 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr. Speaker: I would like to make a statement and share with all members some thoughts I have had with regard to the situation that took place yesterday.

I have been giving further thought to the difficulty that arose last week with respect to the statement of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay) concerning which the member for Rainy River (Mr. T. P. Reid) was given unanimous consent to make a statement last week and again yesterday.

The suggestion was made that this matter should be referred to the procedural affairs committee so that some provision might be made for a member to have an opportunity to reply under similar circumstances. While I was inclined to agree with that suggestion, on further thought and study of the standing orders I have come to the conclusion that the matter is amply covered by the standing orders as they exist.

Difficulty arose from allegations made in his ministerial statement by the Minister of Labour concerning the member for Rainy River. I draw the attention of the House to standing order 26(a), which says, "Statements may be made by ministers relating to government policy, ministry action and other similar matters of which the House should be informed." This sets out very clearly the restrictions on such statements and, I suggest, precludes any allegation against any other member.

The question of a member having a right of reply would then not arise. The statement by the minister, even if answering a previously asked question as provided by standing order 27(a), should confine itself strictly to a statement of the facts and should not make allegations concerning another member. Any disagreements between members should be dealt with in debate and not by way of a minister's statement.

ACADEMY AWARD

Mr. Sheppard: Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to make a brief announcement, and I hope all members of the Legislature will share in my joy for the great achievement of Janice Platt.

Miss Platt comes from Brighton township, near Morganston, in the great riding of Northumberland. She is the daughter of Les and Wynn Platt, and I am proud to say this young lady has won an Oscar for the best live-action short for Boys and Girls, a segment of Sons and Daughters.

NUCLEAR WEAPONS FREE ZONE

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order or as an announcement: I would like to join with the member for Sarnia, the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Brandt), in congratulating the city of Sarnia, which recently unanimously declared itself a nuclear weapons free zone.

As a result of that, I have moved a motion today in the House that, as this movement develops across the province, we in this House will all join together to support the Peace Petition Caravan Campaign to make Canada a nuclear weapons free zone.

BIRTH OF MEMBER'S GRANDCHILD

Mr. Bradley: Speaking of important announcements, Mr. Speaker, this is an extremely proud and important day for the House leader of the Ontario Liberal Party, the member for Brant -- Oxford -- Norfolk (Mr. Nixon). He has reached a milestone in his life -- or is it a millstone? -- because at long last, at the age of 44, he has become a grandfather.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Well done, Bob.

Mr. Nixon: It was easy.

Mr. Bradley: I should explain it was a boy. He did want to say that. They knew that even before the child was born. I am not supposed to tell more, other than to offer congratulations.

Mr. Nixon: More important, it is a Liberal.

Mr. Speaker: And with nary a grey hair.

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

NIAGARA RIVER POLLUTION

Hon. Mr. Brandt: Mr. Speaker, yesterday legal representatives for my ministry filed documents with Judge John T. Curtin of the Federal Court of western New York in opposition to the proposed agreement on the cleanup of the Occidental Chemical Corp. S area site in Niagara Falls.

Details of this agreement between the chemical company and the US Environmental Protection Agency were released in mid-January, about a month before Ontario won intervener status in the court proceedings. I announced at the time that my staff would review the various proposals in the court settlement and would make our views known to Judge Curtin. That review is now complete. We are definitely not satisfied that the proposed cleanup measures are adequate and we are expressing that dissatisfaction in the strongest possible terms to Judge Curtin.

The court has scheduled a hearing starting on April 30 to allow all parties involved to state their views before any final decision is made on ratification of the proposed settlement. I can assure members Ontario's concerns will be expressed in detail in the courtroom.

The basis of the settlement is a plan to contain the wastes in the S area site. We do not accept that containment for several decades, possibly even hundreds of years, provides adequate protection for the very important Niagara River. We shall, therefore, request physical removal of the S area contaminants. In a case such as this, where a drinking water source for so many people may be at risk, a permanent solution is needed. We cannot simply pass our problem on to the next generation.

Unfortunately, the proposed agreement does not provide adequate remedies for, or protection against, the effects of the contaminants migrating offsite. For the area between the S area site and the Niagara River, we shall insist on a remedial program being developed quickly to deal with the contaminants that are known to have left the site.

Contaminants from the waste site are also believed to be in the bedrock under the Niagara River. Occidental Chemical Corp. should, therefore, be required to study the river bottom to identify areas that could permit the contaminants in the bedrock to rise and enter the river. The company should also carry out contaminant surveys in the bedrock on the Ontario side of the river to identify any contaminant migration that may have reached Canadian territory.

2:10 p.m.

There must be liability imposed on the company now for any offsite effects of the contaminants. It is also imperative that strict provisions be imposed requiring remedial treatment of contaminants where any hazard to health or the environment is identified. As is evidenced by our actions yesterday, Ontario is committed to protecting the Great Lakes from chemical contamination from the S area. Our commitment also extends to the other Niagara River waste sites and, indeed, to any other identifiable source of toxic contaminants.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ARTICLE IN NEWSPAPER

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege. I refer to the Cobourg Daily Star of April 3 of this year. In an article referring to a speech made by the member for York Centre (Mr. Cousens), it says the following. "He added that though he's part of the government party, he doesn't consider himself part of the government. 'It's far more important to be tied into the free enterprise community than the government community,' he said. 'We want to fly with the eagles. We do not want to sit with the turkeys."

I rise in my place to defend the two or three members of the cabinet to whom that title is not applicable.

Mr. McClellan: Which turkeys did he mean?

Mr. Sweeney: They haven't decided which ones though.

Mr. Speaker: Oral questions, the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Smile, Bill. It is just a little joke.

Mr. McClellan: You can dish it out but you can't take it.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Martel: It was fun yesterday.

Hon. Mr. Davis: It is already unbearable, the self-righteousness of the NDP.

Mr. Rae: Where is Don Cousens?

Mr. Eakins: Gobble, gobble, gobble. Let's talk turkey.

Mr. Speaker: We have lost almost a minute, thank you.

[Later]

Mr. Cousens: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: I take offence that any honourable member would think this is a bird sanctuary. There are blue jay lovers and there are cardinal lovers, but on this side of the House I know there are many great people and we are all flying to the highest and the very best. There are no turkeys on this side. We have not been plucked.

Mr. Rae: I should say that turkeys with two right wings always fly around in circles.

HYDRO RATES

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Energy with respect to today's announcement by Ontario Hydro to seek a 9.1 per cent rate increase. The minister will be aware that the rate increase allowed last year was 7.8 per cent, above inflation, and this year it was 8.4 per cent. Again, a request is put in for Hydro rate increases greater than inflation. It is substantially greater than any projected inflation rate at the present time.

How can the minister, with any kind of a conscience, representing a government that stood for wage guidelines in this province to keep incomes low, pass that recommendation on to the Ontario Energy Board? Surely he is not keeping the promise he made to keep Hydro rates in line with inflation this decade.

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised the Leader of the Opposition had time to pay attention to such pressing matters this morning. I thought he was busy and preoccupied with other issues. I want to tell him the other contender for that spot sends his regards and hopes the leader's caucus will be as supportive of him.

The Ontario Hydro board will be submitting a request to me, which I will submit to the Ontario Energy Board for review, for a rate increase of 9.1 percent in 1985. As the member is aware, the Ontario Energy Board will hold a public review of that request and will report back to me. I would remind all members that built into this rate increase is an approximate one per cent for the cost of retubing at Pickering, our cost for a number of units that will be coming into that rate base in 1984-85, and the usual costs for inflation increases that will necessarily have to be built into that base.

Mr. Peterson: The minister is aware this rate suggestion today will add at least $50 to the average hydro bill of the average consumer in Ontario this year. The minister talked about a review of the rates by the energy board but is he aware that the Ontario Energy Board does not review one of the major components of that price increase, and that is the systems expansion?

Will the minister instruct the Ontario Energy Board to review the systems expansion, including all the capital expenditures that have been incurred in the past, many of which have yet to hit the rate structure and have yet to be incorporated in the rates?

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: If we were to accept the most recent growth in demand projections by the federal Department of Energy, Mines and Resources in Ottawa, we would be encouraging Ontario Hydro to examine its systems expansion program, because at its present rate it would not be adequate to meet electricity demand in the 1990s.

All the data and information the board requests during the rate hearings will be supplied by Ontario Hydro as it has been in the past, generally governed by rules of confidentiality. The matter of the systems expansion program was a matter of concern by board counsel, and it was not a matter of concern alluded to in the board's report.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, the minister knows perfectly well that in dealing with Ontario Hydro the board is basically a eunuch when faced with the need to make certain decisions. First, it cannot consider Ontario Hydro's capital expansion plans. Second, anything the Ontario Energy Board says is simply advisory.

Perhaps the minister would like to note that in its last decision the board said, "The board considers the fight against inflation to be of such paramount importance that Hydro, in its own interest as well as Ontario's, ought to champion the taming of inflation."

If the minister is interested in taming inflation, will he please do two things? First, make the decisions of the energy board binding on Ontario Hydro. Second, give the energy board the power to deal with the questions of capital expansion and retubing, which are the reasons Hydro itself has given for the unacceptable increases. Will the minister at least do that?

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: Mr. Speaker, to answer the latter part of the leader of the third party's question, any questions and any detail required by the board in its study will be provided by Ontario Hydro. It has done so in the past and it always will.

Mr. J. A. Reed: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: The Minister of Energy should correct the record because he knows very well that Hydro is under no compulsion --

Mr. Speaker: Order. The minister.

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: Mr. Speaker, I have completed my answer.

Mr. Peterson: The minister is absolutely incorrect in the information he has given this House. In fact, he has specifically instructed the Ontario Energy Board not to consider systems expansion. I assume the minister will want to rise in his place to correct immediately the misinformation he has given this House.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Peterson: Perhaps he will take the opportunity to correct the record. I am sure he does not want to deliberately mislead the members of this House. I am sure he will want to take the occasion to assume responsibility for his own actions.

Mr. Speaker: Is that a question?

Mr. Peterson: If he would like to do that now, I will sit down and ask the supplementary in a moment.

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: The instructions with respect to the Ontario Energy Board and the letter of transmittal have been very clear in the past that the board will not examine the systems expansion program. That does not preclude the board asking any details about systems expansion, and those details have been and will be provided by Ontario Hydro to the board for its consideration.

Mr. Speaker: New question, the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Peterson: No. it is not a new question, Mr. Speaker; it is a supplementary to the minister.

Mr. Speaker: No.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I clearly pointed out to you --

Mr. Speaker: Order. With all respect, that was the final supplementary.

Mr. Peterson: You may want to change your mind again tomorrow, sir; I stood on a point of privilege.

Mr. Speaker: Order. New question, please.

Mr. J. A. Reed: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I do not know how we get the minister to correct his statement, but the way it has been left he is misleading the House.

Mr. Speaker: Order. New question.

Mr. Roy: It should not be a new question. The member did not ask the supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: Yes, he did.

2:20 p.m.

CASE LOAD AT CHILDREN'S AID SOCIETIES

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Drea), I would like to direct my question to the Provincial Secretary for Social Development.

I know the provincial secretary will be aware of the increasing demands being placed on children's aid societies across Ontario. I know he is also aware that many have experienced dramatic case load increases, and I would like to remind him of Sudbury, where the case load has gone from 725 families in 1980 to 950 families in 1983.

In Ottawa -- Carleton, referrals increased by 20 per cent last year and in Toronto, because of public awareness campaigns endorsed by the Minister of Community and Social Services, the Children's Aid Society of Metropolitan Toronto saw an increase in child abuse cases of almost 20 per cent. Other children's aid societies have followed the same pattern.

What supportive funding steps is the minister using to ensure that the children's aid societies can financially meet these increased demands?

Hon. Mr. Dean: Mr. Speaker, as the honourable member is aware, that is really a direct responsibility of the Minister of Community and Social Services, who is making provision through the distribution of the allocation. This will be made plain when the budget is presented.

Mr. Wrye: I really hope this minister has some responsibilities, because he claimed in his riding that he was providing leadership. I would like to know what leadership he is providing.

I would like to review the case of the Family and Children's Services of the Waterloo Region, which demonstrates the problem. The society experienced an increase of 48 per cent in the number of families it helped last year. This year, that number is expected to go up by another 14 per cent.

That society was underfunded by $300,000 in 1982 and last year, after receiving five per cent in 1982, received only another five per cent. This was in spite of a child welfare review committee that recommended an increase of 16 or 17 per cent. The Ministry of Community and Social Services was represented on that committee. The administration of this agency expects a deficit of almost $1 million this year. Other societies in the north, in Thunder Bay and in Sudbury, experience the same problems.

In view of the fact that child welfare and services to families is a priority of this province, according to the governing party, why does the provincial secretary not recommend to the minister responsible that the social services maintenance tax, which provided $170 million in revenue last year and which will provide double that amount this year, be used to provide the funds needed by the societies? Why do we not use the social services maintenance tax to start helping the people who really need it?

Hon. Mr. Dean: I am sure that question can be answered in more detail by the Minister of Community and Social Services. I would just say that if the member would look carefully at what has been done over the past years, he would see that the amount of funding committed by this government to social programs in Ontario is second to none among the various jurisdictions.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, is the Provincial Secretary for Social Development not aware that many of the children's aid societies are having to reduce their staffs through attrition to meet the cutbacks in provincial government funding? Is he not aware that prevention programs in Ottawa, Toronto and other areas are being cut back and cut out because of lack of government funding from the province at the time of highest need?

Workers are saying that children are at risk in Ontario and that the Minister of Community and Social Services will not even meet with them to discuss their concerns. Is the provincial secretary not even aware of that? Does he not think it is part of his responsibility to make sure this minister takes more appropriate action to help the poor families of this province cope with their difficulties?

Hon. Mr. Dean: Mr. Speaker, although it certainly is within the purview of the secretariat that I head, I can assure the honourable member and all members of this House that the Minister of Community and Social Services needs no prompting from me to be concerned about the needs of children and other people in this province.

Mr. Wrye: I am sure the minister is aware that one of the cornerstones of this government has been a discussion of preventive programs. In the words of the new director of the Ontario Child Abuse Prevention Centre, the centre will enhance the work being done "in the area of child abuse prevention." It is specifically in these areas where there are going to have to be cutbacks, however, as my friend alluded to, if this government does not put up some dollars to match its rhetoric.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Wrye: The Ottawa society, for example, reports a 20 per cent decrease in the level of preventive services for this year -- not for last year but for this year -- and the reporting of sexual abuse in that community increased by 70 per cent in 1983 over 1982.

I want to repeat my question to this minister. The social services maintenance tax -- and it is his name, not mine -- was supposed to provide $170 million last year and more than $300 million this year. Why does the minister not put some of that funding into the children's aid societies and give them a chance to do the job he claims he wants them to do?

Hon. Mr. Dean: I believe I did answer that question before, but I will repeat it, since apparently it did not quite get to the essential part of the cranium of the member.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Dean: The amount of funding the government has provided not only this past year but also in years previous, an amount that will be obviously apparent to all members when the budget is presented, is not in the position of taking second place to that of any other jurisdiction in Canada.

EXTRA BILLING

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, the Treasurer will know, because he reads the papers regularly, that the federal Parliament has now unanimously passed the Canada Health Act.

Mr. McClellan: Unanimously.

Mr. Foulds: Why is the Premier (Mr. Davis) leaving?

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Do not leave, Bill.

Mr. Rae: Have a nice time in Ireland.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Rae: The Treasurer will also know that the incomes of doctors are six times the average industrial wage in Ontario. Given this fact, how can the minister possibly justify going around this province saying the average taxpayer is going to be taxed more to subsidize doctors, who are already very well off in comparison to everybody else?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, if the honourable member has studied the report of Justice Hall's commission and if he has studied the remarks some days of Monique Begin, he will have found out that they as well as other admirers of the new system brought in by the Canada Health Act have all said --

Mr. Bradley: As supported by Brian Mulroney.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- that if the doctors are opted in, they will have to be paid more money. This is not a fiction on this side of the House or in this Legislature; it is something that has been said by every single person who has recommended the Canada Health Act changes, from a study standpoint and from a governmental standpoint.

If that happens, then obviously even the member opposite will have to acknowledge that if they are paid out of the Ontario health insurance plan schedule, this means the average taxpayer has to pick up the bill; there is no magic to that.

I repeat that this is not a fiction made up by anyone on this side; it is contained in the Hall report and in Monique Begin's statements. Everyone is agreed that this will be the impact of these changes.

Mr. Rae: The Treasurer will also know, and if he does not know he should know, that, according to the Department of National Revenue, doctors' income taxes as a proportion of their total income have fallen from 37.8 per cent in 1971 to 32 per cent in 1981, over 10 years. At the same time, in Ontario the total provincial tax bill of the average family increased by 190 per cent between 1974 and 1983.

Given what is happening in this province with the number of unemployed there are and the sense that all is not perfectly fair in Ontario, how can the Treasurer justify a tax increase on the average family, which is already overtaxed, and a direct transfer payment to doctors, who are well off? How can he possibly justify that redistribution from the poor to the wealthy at this time?

2:30 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: It is because we share that concern that we on this side oppose the amendments to the Canada Health Act, which will have the direct impact the member is suggesting should be avoided. Let us make no mistake about it. The member can give all the fancy explanations that look pretty good about extra billing being banned, but the net impact of the Canada Health Act is exactly what he is complaining about. That is why -- let us be clear -- in the federal House and in this House only one group of people has had the courage to stand up and speak for the little people in society who are going to be punished by the Canada Health Act.

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, will the Treasurer take his concern for the little people into consideration in the preliminary discussions surrounding his budget? Will he guarantee that there will be no increase in Ontario health insurance plan premiums, which would hit out at those who are least able to pay, that is, the 20 per cent of those who pay directly and who really do not have the ability to pay in this squeezed economy?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, no.

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, why is the Treasurer confusing this issue and trying to suggest that allowing extra billing is some Tory tax reform system that is well thought out? Why does he not understand that incomes of doctors can be dealt with at the negotiating table? The issue before the legislators in the House of Commons, and now here in the Ontario Legislature, is either supporting or banning extra billing. Why does the government not take the position of outlawing extra billing in this province and deal with doctors' income at the negotiating table?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member will forgive me if I do not bow to him in understanding the problems and intricacies of negotiating with the medical profession in the provision of what is perhaps our most important service–

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I understand how uncomfortable the leader of the third party is defending the rich at the expense of the poor. He is going to have to answer for that. We are not.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The member may consider it is clouding the issue when we say on this side of the House that the cost of looking after the three or four per cent of the public who are extra billed in the course of a year will be borne. He does not understand the numbers. He is going to have to do a lot more. Even the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan) understands the figure and if the member asks him, he will explain it to him. If he does not explain it to him, there are 70 people on this side who can explain it to him.

When the member has an opportunity to speak with his predecessor and understand the figures, he will understand the reality. Three per cent of the population will be better off in terms of financial impact and 100 per cent of the population will be worse off, because someone is going to have to pay the costs of the Canada Health Act; it is either all the population or only that portion that is currently extra billed. Since that means a shift from the rich to the poor, we object to it on this side of the House.

GRANT TO STEEP ROCK

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Natural Resources concerning the misspending of Board of Industrial Leadership and Development funds. Does the minister recall that last August he handed to Steep Rock Resources, formerly Steep Rock Iron Mines, a grant of $1.35 million to help pay for a $7-million expansion of Steep Rock's calcite plant in Perth? Does he think it is appropriate that the taxpayers of Ontario will have paid for approximately 20 per cent of the cost of that plant, considering that Steep Rock is a subsidiary of Canadian Pacific Enterprises?

Hon. Mr. Pope: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I do.

Mr. Laughren: When the minister handed out that $1.35 million in a period of restraint, was he aware that Steep Rock had already declared a special dividend of $3.75 a share and later, after it got its $1.35 million, declared another dividend of $2.65 a share, for a total of $6.40 a share? That was a special dividend because it claimed its treasury was cash-rich and it would not be expanding in the iron ore field in the next decade. When he handed out that award, was the minister aware of that?

Was he aware as well that the main beneficiary of that more than $51 million was Canadian Pacific, which got about $41 million by what I would call blatantly stripping the treasury of Steep Rock? Was he aware of those facts when he gave that grant with absolutely no guarantee that a single new job would be created?

Hon. Mr. Pope: The honourable member is about eight months behind the member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy), who raised these matters last summer. I am aware that the corporate sector pays dividends to shareholders. I am also aware that it is very important for the corporate sector to invest in plant expansion in the industrial minerals sector in this province, because Ontario is importing $120 million a year of industrial minerals and it is time we became self-sufficient. The BILD program is helping make that happen.

Mr. Laughren: The minister's arrogance is exceeded only by his ambition. Has the minister not had second thoughts since that time? Despite what he says, he could not have known that Steep Rock was going to declare its second special dividend. I do not think he would have known. If he did know that, it is even more outrageous that he went ahead with the grant.

Does he not understand that this is the same company that walked away from Atikokan, the same company that says it is not going to need the resources at Bending Lake, despite the fact the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Bernier) has been spending millions on the road? Steep Rock says it is not going to need that for the next decade.

Has the minister not had any second thoughts at all about subsidizing Canadian Pacific Enterprises, a company that made $94 million in 1983 and $150 million in 1982? Does he think that is an appropriate use of taxpayers' money in Ontario at a time of supposed restraint on the part of this government?

Hon. Mr. Pope: I am aware that this company invested $7 million in an expansion in the industrial minerals sector in Ontario, and that is what we want in this province.

PENSION REFORM

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Provincial Secretary for Social Development. This government has not yet moved on private pension reform, and the group most disadvantaged by the delay is women. He will know that in 1980, of the 14,586 pension plans across Canada, 91 per cent provided no widows' pensions.

Bearing in mind that the role of the Provincial Secretary for Social Development, through the Minister of Community and Social Services, vis-a-vis the guaranteed annual income system for seniors is extremely important, I wonder whether the secretary could comment on the largess of his government. I understood him to say in answer to a previous question that this government has done more for social services than any other across Canada. I wonder whether he might comment on the provincial government's record with respect to Gains increases between 1980 and 1984.

2:40 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Dean: Mr. Speaker, I think that question would be more appropriately addressed to the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Drea). I could add that the matter of pension reform and augmentation is under constant review.

Ms. Copps: I just want to refresh the superminister memory of the Provincial Secretary for Social Development. He may not be aware of the fact that between 1980 and 1984 there were no increases in Gains to senior citizens in that category.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Ms. Copps: How can the minister justify his government's record in this regard when increases to ministers without portfolio in that same period were in the neighbourhood of $15,243? There were no dollars for senior citizens' Gains increases across this province, but there was $15,243 for ministers without portfolio. For those with a portfolio, such as the secretary, the increases were $15,407. Is that a record of which the government should be proud?

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Dean: I think the honourable member should also refresh her super memory. Any increases that took place for members of this side of the House were shared in the same proportion by all members on the other side of the House. I think the two items she is trying to compare are strictly unrelated.

Interjections.

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: I think my privileges as a member of this House are being abused. I have been trying to hear the answers to the last several questions, but the members opposite are shouting so loudly I cannot hear a thing that is going on in the chamber. I would ask you to keep order, Mr. Speaker.

PROTECTION OF WORKERS

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour. I am sure the minister is aware that, effective this Friday, 133 workers at Canadian General Electric's Davenport plant in Toronto will be laid off indefinitely. The minister may not be aware that 4,000 jobs were lost in the electrical industry in the Metro region between 1975 and 1980. There is a haemorrhaging going on in some of our older industries. A lot of older workers are being devastated by this loss of jobs that has taken place over time.

Will the minister please introduce some reforms, some measures with respect to employment standards, retraining and relocation to ensure that workers who are affected by this industrial change finally get some protection? Will he please start taking the security interests of the workers of this province more seriously? We see so many of them being devastated by these changes.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member would like the audience in attendance today to think he and his colleagues are the only ones who are concerned about the problem out there.

Mr. Martel: What audience is the minister talking about?

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Who warned the minister about the closing of the six Canadian General Electric plants?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I can only repeat what I have said on other occasions when similar questions have been asked. In my opinion, the type of legislation the members opposite suggest would not resolve the situation.

Mr. Rae: I would like the minister to put himself in this situation. There are workers at the CGE plant who have been there for more than 40 years. They have received one week's notice with respect to the events that have taken place at the Davenport plant.

I would like to ask the minister to think about the position of those workers and say: "Should we not be doing more for the older worker in this province who is being devastated by these kinds of changes? Should we not be giving him something in terms of early retirement? Should we not be moving in terms of the security legislation in the interests of those workers?"

How can the minister justify doing nothing when faced with that kind of change in our older industries? How can he justify just sitting back and not providing the workers in those industries with any security at all when the workers are trying to provide for themselves and for their futures?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: The honourable member feels that by raising his voice he can resolve every problem. It is just not as easy as that.

As far as getting my attention, these matters are brought to my attention each and every day and not by long distance.

Mr. Foulds: Why does the minister not do something about them then?

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Well, do something then. I told the minister about the CGE closings a year ago. There are six of them now that are going to close down.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I am exposed to it on a daily basis, face to face, unlike the leader of the third party.

Mr. Rae: Does the minister think we do not see it every day?

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Speaker, we understand the government is not going to move with any further progressive legislation. We know that, but can the minister assure us that he will undertake to track the workers who have been laid off to find out exactly what happens to them and to their families. Are they able to obtain other jobs? Do they end up on welfare? I want him to track this and report to the House whether or not these people lose their homes and properties.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Mancini: I want to know also the type of retraining his government has offered each worker. Can he give us that information?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: The honourable member suggested further progressive legislation. By that I assume he is referring to the legislation in place at present. It is more extensive than that in any other jurisdiction on the North American continent.

I would also have to remind the member -- and I do this with some reluctance because even though the figures are vastly improved, they are still disastrous -- the number of plant closures and the number of people affected by plant closures in 1983 over 1982 has improved by some 60 per cent. I am not going to say that is great until there is not a single plant closure; nevertheless, there is an improvement.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Will the member for Essex South please resume his seat?

Mr. O'Neil: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Solicitor General.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Fort William was on his feet and I did not see him.

2:50 p.m.

APPLICATION FOR LIQUOR LICENCE

Mr. Hennessy: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to remind you that last night a woman who is four feet, nine inches in height won an Academy award. Remember that.

I would like to pose my question to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. The Otava Male Choir and the Fort William Male Choir are holding a joint spring concert and dance at the Lakehead Exhibition Coliseum in Thunder Bay on May 5, 1984, and are hoping to attract an audience of up to 800 persons. The local Liquor Licence Board of Ontario office has advised that, in light of the numbers expected, they must forward their licence application to the Toronto office.

Why does the application have to go to the LCBO in Toronto? Is everybody in Thunder Bay dumb? I would just like to get the answer. Are the liquor laws not the same in Thunder Bay as they are in Toronto? I think a delay of any kind could cause financial hardship.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure and delight to respond to the seven-foot-tall member for Fort William. Those of us who sit with him in caucus sometimes think of him as eight feet tall, as a matter of fact.

He asked me directly what I thought of the people in Thunder Bay. I have the same high regard for them as the member does, and I know I say that on behalf of all members of this House.

Second, the issue raised relates basically to the number of people likely to attend an occasion which requires a special occasion permit. The practice of the board over the years has evolved to the point that, where there are to be large crowds, the board, in conjunction with the municipalities, had come to an understanding that perhaps the board in its central location should evaluate the facility and its capacities in a standard way in relation with the departments of health and the police.

This has simply been a practice that has evolved over the years. I am sure it is not one about which the board has fixed and rigid views. Since the member has raised the issue, it is a matter I would quite happily refer to the board for reconsideration because, if there are no valid reasons in his community for the referral to Toronto, I think it certainly should be looked at.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Hennessy: From what I understand, we have inspectors up in Thunder Bay. They are as qualified as the inspectors down in Toronto; they take the same examinations and follow the same rule book. Is it not possible for the minister to look into this and give the people in Thunder Bay the necessary authority that the people have in Toronto?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I have indicated the way the practice has evolved with the board. I have also indicated I am pleased to ask the board if it will review its practices in areas where municipalities, their police departments and their departments of health feel this central referral is no longer necessary. I am certainly prepared to have those discussions with the board.

Mr. Eakins: Mr. Speaker, rather than deal with the question of alcohol use and abuse in Ontario in an ad hoc manner, does the minister not think the time has come to have a complete review of the policies of the Liquor Control Board of Ontario, the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario and everything connected with alcohol consumption in this province?

Mr. Speaker: Interesting as it may be, I do not think that question was supplementary.

Mr. Eakins: Oh, yes, it is.

Mr. Riddell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: In view of the fact that you did not consider that question a supplementary, would you allow me a supplementary on the question?

Mr. Speaker: No, because the supplementary was used.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: The time was used.

APPOINTMENTS TO POLICE COMMISSIONS

Mr. O'Neil: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Solicitor General and it concerns what we consider political appointments to police commissions across this province. So the minister might have some background, a recent article appearing in the Belleville paper said:

"The Quinte Labour Council Tuesday passed a resolution condemning the political appointments of the two newest members of the Belleville police commission, saying that they were made solely due to both new commissioners' former and current affiliation to the Progressive Conservative Party."

Can the minister tell me whether it is his policy and that of his government to appoint to police commissions across Ontario active elected members of the executive of the local Progressive Conservative Party? It appears the recent appointments that have been made across the province have been made bearing in mind the appointees' political affiliation.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. G. W. Taylor: Am I on now, Mr. Speaker? An awful lot of other people seem to have the floor.

I think there was a question there, although there was a lot of rhetoric preceding it. In appointing members to the police commissions and in making recommendations to cabinet, I follow the process of trying to find the best people to fill those positions. Overall, I think we have done an admirable job in that process.

There was a piece of legislation in this House late last year increasing the numbers. I can assure members I have not had the same difficulties in seeking out capable people with integrity and ability who want to serve on these commissions as I have noticed some of the municipalities have had in trying to fill their role in putting in their members.

I do not recall even receiving a recommendation from the honourable member for his area when he knew full well there were appointments open there. I have no apologies for the first-rate and capable individuals I recommend to cabinet, and the Lieutenant Governor in Council makes the final appointments. If some of them happen to have had some association, or even may have voted at some time for the Progressive Conservative Party, that speaks very highly of their capabilities and their position for these jobs. If the member were to check his brethren at the federal level, I am sure he would find there is some affiliation in the appointments made by the Liberal government from time to time.

Mr. O'Neil: I can appreciate the minister's comments, and I understand sometimes there are political appointments to different boards. But when we have what has happened over the last couple of months, where the minister has appointed political hacks, and especially people who are actively involved in the executive of a political association, this is a very dangerous situation. I think the minister is infiltrating the police commissions of this province with political hacks, and that is very dangerous.

Would the minister supply for this Legislature the names of the people who have been appointed to police commissions across this province who are actively engaged in and are elected members of their local Progressive Conservative associations?

Hon. G. W. Taylor: Since that is not a qualification, I do not know which ones are actively engaged and have the qualifications the member suggests. If he would be more specific and name the individuals he thinks are not qualified for office, I will be delighted to review the appointments and see if any of them need to be impeached. I would be delighted if he would put a motion on the floor impeaching those individuals he thinks are not qualified to serve as members of the police commissions of Ontario.

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health.

Interjections.

3 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I thought that maple sugar would sweeten everybody's disposition.

PRIVATE SECTOR ROLE IN HOSPITALS

Mr. Cooke: I have a question for the Minister of Health. The minister will be aware that Stratford General Hospital has been trying to obtain funding approval from the Ministry of Health since 1970 for a renovation and replacement program.

The first phase of this project involves replacement of the rehabilitation and extended care units of the hospital. The minister will understand that the normal funding ratio has been one third local and two thirds from the Ministry of Health, but that ratio seems to have gone out of whack in the last couple of years.

The hospital board at Stratford has been told by the ministry that if it wants government assistance it should look to the private sector for private sector involvement as well and that the two-thirds portion from the ministry is out of the question until at least after 1990.

Why is this government telling the public hospital system in this province it must have private sector involvement and eliminating the option most hospitals in this province want to maintain, that is, to have hospitals publicly run by boards at the local level without private sector control over their hospitals'?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, there are, as usual, a number of implicit misconceptions in the question that has just been raised. First, the ministry is not in the practice of directing hospitals on how they might approach the construction or the raising of funds for the construction of the facilities they have identified as needed or required.

In the course of discussions with staff from the ministry, ministry staff might well have had occasion to suggest a variety of alternatives that have been tried, and very successfully so, in other instances across the province. I want to make it clear we are not directing what may happen but simply pointing out a variety of options they might choose to explore.

The second point the member has clearly misunderstood is the situation that arises in those few instances where there has been private sector involvement in the construction and perhaps even in the management of chronic care facilities, for example. That does not in any way replace the responsibility of the board of a hospital to which the operator is responsible. It is merely an alternative approach to the management of the operation that is open to any hospital corporation in this province and always has been. It does not mean the hospital board's responsibility for the policy and the accountability in the operation of that facility is in any way diminished.

Mr. Cooke: If hospital boards are to have the options available to them, does the minister not understand that more capital is going to have to be put in the system? It is my understanding that right now approximately $4 billion worth of capital work needs to be done in the public hospital system in this province. At the rate of capital being allotted by the ministry, it will take nearly 20 years to meet the capital requirements that are in place now.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Cooke: How can the minister say he is giving hospital boards the option when he is not putting the capital into the system and when he has said to the Stratford hospital that if it wants the renovations to be done in its hospital it is going to have to go to the private sector, because it is not going to get the two thirds from the Ministry of Health until at least after 1990? How can he say this at a time when sections of that hospital have actually been condemned as a firetrap by the public inspection panel in Perth county?

Hon. Mr. Norton: We are trying to be helpful, not only to that particular hospital but to others that come before us with requests. I would venture to say the member or any of the people in his caucus are unaccustomed to establishing real priorities at a time of financial and economic difficulty, as has been the case over the last couple of years in this province and across the country -- in fact, throughout the western world -- which only serves to show they would be totally unable to cope with the realities of office at a time like this.

We are accustomed to trying to struggle with the question of priorities. If we talk only about the requests we know are emanating from within the health care or hospital sector across this province, I suggest his $4-billion estimate is low-balling it substantially. I think it might even be as much as 50 per cent higher than that over the next decade. Nevertheless, we have to address the reality of priorities and we are attempting to do that.

When a hospital such as the one the member cites is faced with a recognized need to replace a facility, we simply encourage it to recognize the economic difficulties being faced across the province and suggest that it explore other alternatives to ensure the facility is replaced in an appropriate period of time.

FOREST MANAGEMENT AGREEMENTS

Mr. J. A. Reed: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Natural Resources. I would like to know why the minister is now planning to remove close to 12,000 acres from the proposed Brightsand River candidate park area, a park area identified in the Ignace district land use guidelines, in the Graham planning area and so on.

Here we have a situation where the ink is barely dry on his district land use guidelines, he does not even have a process for amending district plans, but he is entering into a forest management agreement called the Brightsand River forest management agreement, which would remove these 12,000 acres.

Do these plans and guidelines really mean anything to the minister? Why is he not taking his own advice and recognizing that he is going to have to follow some guidelines, preferably his own?

Hon. Mr. Pope: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the Brightsand River FMA. I am also aware of the prescriptions for harvest activities and the exclusions to protect other resource values. I am also cognizant of the provisions for reforestation in that FMA. I think in drafting the FMA and in drafting the 20-year and five-year plans under the FMA, we have taken account of the land use guidelines and the other resource values we are striving to protect.

We indicated we had 155 candidate parks. We moved on the six wilderness parks last year. This year we are moving on the waterway parks. I think our initiatives in parks creation and development are second to none in North America.

Mr. J. A. Reed: The minister has said in his land use guidelines that forest availability is fully manageable up to the end of the century. Why is he undertaking now to circumvent what amounts to about 10 years and $300 million worth of effort, and to short-circuit that before he even gets the proposed parks on the road and before he gets anything going? He said in that report the lumber supply is fully manageable. Why would he now completely reverse himself?

Hon. Mr. Pope: I do not think the honourable member understands the situation.

Mr. J. A. Reed: I am trying to.

Hon. Mr. Pope: I do not know if he is.

We are talking about an area that has already been licensed. It is already licensed for harvesting. The FMA is going on to that licensed area to accelerate reforestation programs. The FMA is going on to that area to exclude some of the previously licensed areas for other resource values to protect the natural environment. There are prescriptions on the harvesting techniques to protect other resource values. That follows the district land use guidelines precisely.

3:10 p.m.

The member knows as well as I do that elements of practice for the Ministry of Natural Resources emanating from the district land use guidelines are being applied in the field. There are directives going out to the district and regional offices, and they implement those policies and procedures laid out in the land use guidelines.

I do not think the member understands all of the things that are happening. There has been no circumventing of the district land use guidelines; there has been no circumventing of the strategic land use planning program. We have put forest management agreements in place over an extended time in this province and we amended them in 1981 --

Mr. Speaker: That is a very complete answer.

Thank you very much.

ORGANIZED CRIME

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Attorney General. The government has declared this to be Community Justice Week, with special emphasis on the theme "Justice for Victims: Let's Care and Share." Later today, I will be introducing for the third time my bill entitled An Act to prevent Unjust Enrichment through the Financial Exploitation of Crime.

The Attorney General will recall that Chung Yim Kuan, aged 41, was killed on May 4, 1977, when an early morning dynamite blast rocked the building housing the Wah Kew Chop Suey House restaurant on Elizabeth Street. Kuan, a cook, was working in the kitchen when the explosion occurred. Four other people were hurt. The dynamite was planted by Cecil Kirby, a mob enforcer who was given immunity for past crimes, including the Kuan murder, in return for testimony against organized crime figures.

On Tuesday, March 6, on the Canadian Broadcasting Corp. program Fifth Estate, a discussion about organized crime in Canada took place with Cecil Kirby, a former contract killer who became a police witness.

Will the Attorney General advise this House of the particulars of the financial and contractual arrangements between the CBC and Cecil Kirby, to confirm whether or not it is accurate that Cecil Kirby received upwards of $200,000 for his appearance on that program?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, this is the first I have heard of any suggestion that Mr. Kirby received anything from the CBC for his appearance on that program. It has not been suggested to me that he did, so all I can say is this is something I have not heard anything whatsoever about.

MOTION

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that the following substitutions be made in the order of precedence for private members' public business: Mr. McClellan for Mr. Samis as number 18; Mr. Cooke for Mr. McClellan as number 27; Mr. Samis for Mr. Cooke as number 63; and that Mr. Stevenson and Mr. Gillies exchange positions in the order of precedence.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

TOWNSHIP OF FAUQUIER-STRICKLAND ACT

Mr. Piché moved, seconded by Mr. Gordon, first reading of Bill Pr20, An Act to continue the Corporation of the Townships of Shackleton and Machin under the name of the Corporation of the Township of Fauquier-Strickland.

Motion agreed to.

LIFELINE ACT

Mr. Sargent moved, seconded by Mr. Newman, first reading of Bill 32, An Act to provide for a Basic Residential Power Rate Applicable to the Essential Energy Needs of Residential Households in Ontario.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, this is the fifth time this bill has been presented. It is not Hydro lines, not party lines and it will not affect the average citizen, but it will help the poor, those on fixed incomes, the small home owner, the apartment dweller and low-power users. It is called the Lifeline Act.

It is a legislative proposal to provide a low, fixed, fair price for the amount of electricity a family needs for basics such as lighting, refrigeration and electrical necessities. The amount is about 500 kilowatts per month and should cost about two cents per kilowatt. A user of 500 kilowatts would have a monthly bill of about $10.

Every member of the government speaking to me personally supported this bill, but when they came to vote on it they did not have the guts to vote for it. They voted party line. It is important this bill be passed this year.

PROFITS FROM CRIME ACT

Mr. Renwick moved, seconded by Mr. Martel, first reading of Bill 33, An Act to prevent Unjust Enrichment through the Financial Exploitation of Crime.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, this is the third occasion on which I have introduced this bill in the House, endeavouring to seek support from the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) for its passage by the assembly.

In substance, it provides a method by which any funds payable with respect to the exploitation of a crime to a person defined in the act as a person accused of the crime, may be diverted to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board for a period of time. This will permit those persons who have been injured by acts of that person to make a claim to the board for those funds. At the end of that time, if no claims have been made or if there is any balance left, it is payable to the person who had received the money pursuant to the contract.

It is a carefully designed bill consistent with the right of everyone to freedom of expression and opinion. I ask that this year this bill receive the consideration of the House.

3:20 p.m.

ONTARIO FARM OWNERSHIP CONTROL ACT

Mr. Swart moved, seconded by Mr. Philip, first reading of Bill 34, An Act to control Nonresident Ownership of Agricultural Land in Ontario.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, this bill is intended to replace the present Nonresident Agricultural Land Interests Registration Act. Instead of simple registration, it places a 10-hectare limit on nonresident ownership of Ontario farm land, and it provides for compliance by an order of the Ontario farm ownership board, which could be enforced with an order of the Supreme Court. Nonresidents are required to report all their holdings of farm land and to divest more than 10 hectares within five years.

The Ontario farm ownership board may under certain circumstances permit nonresident applicants to acquire or hold more land than the 10-hectare limit, and it may impose terms and conditions on its permission. It is an offence to exceed the 10-hectare limit except with the board's permission. The maximum fine is $100,000. The maximum fine for furnishing false information or obstructing an inspector is $5,000, and for failing to file a required report, $25,000.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

COUNTY COURTS AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. McMurtry moved second reading of Bill 1, An Act to amend the County Courts Act.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Attorney General has some comment he would like to make.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, I have a brief statement.

This bill, as the members know, will increase the monetary jurisdiction of the county court from $15,000 to $25,000. This proposed increase already forms part of the Courts of Justice Act. However, we are proceeding with this parallel amendment to the County Courts Act at this time because we do not anticipate the Courts of Justice Act will come into force before the end of this year.

Increasing the monetary jurisdiction of the county court at this time will permit an early start to be made on reducing the trial work load of the High Court. This is desirable because the Courts of Justice Act will give the Divisional Court, which is composed of High Court judges, new jurisdiction over appeals where the amount in issue is less than $25,000.

The relatively short time between the launching of an appeal and the hearing of it will produce an early impact on the work load of the Divisional Court once the Courts of Justice Act comes into force. However, since the time between the commencement of an action and the trial of the action is considerably longer, reduction in the High Court trial work load as a result of the increase in the county court's jurisdiction will take much longer to be felt. Accordingly, it is desirable to have the monetary jurisdiction of the county court changed before the appeal route change comes into force.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, as the Attorney General has mentioned, the bill is complementary to what is already included in Bill 100, the Courts of Justice Act, which we will also be dealing with at the committee stage this afternoon. The increase from $15,000 to $25,000 certainly can be accepted on the basis that the court backlog may not otherwise be reduced. That is the way it is sold and, as a result, there may be some merit in it.

The other side of the coin, of course, is that putting any particular monetary jurisdiction does seem to separate, as the sheep and the goats are separated in holy scripture, those in the Supreme Court and those in the county court. I know my friend and colleague the member for Ottawa East (Mr. Roy) may wish to speak on that theme. The jurisdictional differences may cause some judges to feel they are less than qualified compared with the responsibilities their brethren have.

The bill is brought forward with the understanding that we require this particular change in case Bill 100 does not come fully into play within the next few months. I hope our passage of Bill I will be superfluous in that Bill 100 will be well in place. However, I can see the reason for going ahead with this bill at this time.

I expect the bill will be dealt with readily by the House this afternoon so royal assent can be obtained and the mechanics put in place that would allow these jurisdictional changes to occur.

I am most impressed with the need to speed up, as best we can, the opportunities for prompt trials, particularly in monetary jurisdictional areas such as this. There are a number of counties within our province that have most of their backlog of cases in good hand. However, the Supreme Court backlog could well be substantially cut if this kind of change is made. There is also the benefit in that it allows not only a speedier but also a less expensive trial for litigants whose financial claims fall within these guidelines of being less than $25,000.

Accordingly, I am prepared to accept the legislation based on the statement the Attorney General has made.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of our caucus, let me say that we have no particular concern about the bill. We understand the intention of the bill and the reason for its introduction at this time. The County Courts Act, as amended by this bill, will be repealed in due course when Bill 100, which we will be dealing with in committee of the whole House, comes into force.

As to the question of jurisdiction, I think the increase in the dollar amount of the civil jurisdiction of the county courts is long overdue.

We will support the bill. We see no reason why it need go to committee for consideration.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, I must say I disagree with the proposition put forward by the Attorney General. I have heard my colleagues make certain comments about why the legislation to increase the jurisdiction of the county court is desirable. I have some very strong views about why that should not be done.

First of all, I want in no way to demean the useful and very competent role played by the High Court in this province and the capacity, competence and good service given by all members of that court, nor do I wish to demean the Supreme Court judges who travel from one county to the next and service an area I know very well, the Ottawa area. We have been very blessed by the competence of the Supreme Court judges who adjudicate in our area. I hope none of my comments will be translated as wanting in any way to demean the competence of the individuals who serve on that court, because I have nothing but the highest respect for all the individuals on the court.

What I am saying is that I find the change increasing the monetary jurisdiction from $15,000 to $25,000 for the county court somewhat insulting to that bench.

What is happening now? I can tell this to the House from first-hand experience in the Ottawa -- Carleton area, and I know it is a fact in other areas of the province. For instance, London, Ontario, is another area where this goes on.

3:30 p.m.

The county court bench, led by their senior judge, are servicing their areas very well. Their court lists are up to date. In fact, I know in Ottawa -- Carleton, if a trial is set on the ready list of trials, it will be heard within a matter of a month or two, whereas if one happens to go to the Supreme Court and put one's case on the Supreme Court list as ready, it may well take a year, a year and a half or longer. I am talking about Ottawa -- Carleton; I do not know what it is like in Toronto.

I cannot speak too much for Toronto, because the High Court is situated here. I can speak for Ottawa -- Carleton or other areas of the province, where there are terrible delays at the Supreme Court level. I think the Attorney General will agree with me that all levels of the administration of justice have been trying their very best to remedy the situation where there are such lengthy delays, especially at the criminal and civil levels.

The circumstance of there being such delays at the Supreme Court level is often abused by lawyers who act for insurance companies, large corporations and others. The minute a lawyer starts a county court action that may exceed the former $15,000 and will now exceed $25,000 -- in this world there are many actions, and it does not take a very serious motor vehicle accident to exceed $25,000 today -- the lawyer will shove the case on to the Supreme Court list, knowing full well that by so doing the case will be delayed for a year and a half longer than it would be in the county court. This is a frequent abuse.

We say to the county court bench, "You are competent enough as judges to hear a rape case," which involves the liberty of the individual and issues that are in many ways far more important than any monetary jurisdiction. We say to county court judges: "You are bright and competent enough to listen to a case like that. You can even adjudicate a robbery case where there has been violence." I think many people in this province will agree that kind of case is far more important than a case involving $25,000. I am not saying it is more important to the individual involved, but if we were to look at objective standards, we might say, "I think it is important that we get competent adjudication in matters involving serious criminal offences, such as rape and robbery."

It is somewhat insulting to say to the same judges, "You are competent enough to hear those cases, but you are not competent enough if a case exceeds $25,000." The county court can hear a case involving more than $25,000 if all parties agree to the jurisdiction, but that is not what is happening. In many cases where lawyers act on behalf of insurance companies, in civil actions where insurance companies are involved, inevitably the lawyers will shove the cases up to the Supreme Court.

In the process they are saying to the county court bench, and we are acquiescing this afternoon, "Unfortunately, if the matter exceeds $25,000 and the parties do not agree, we do not think you are competent enough or capable enough to listen to this case, and it is going to have to go to the High Court." I really think that is somewhat insulting to the county court bench.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Does my friend want to leave it at $15,000?

Mr. Roy: I suggest either it should be left at $15,000, if the minister is just propagating the insult, or he should take away the monetary jurisdiction completely. Some law associations have suggested to the Attorney General in connection with the next bill on the agenda, Bill 100, some alternative to the present administration of justice.

Many very competent individuals who are prime candidates to sit on the bench are not prepared, for instance, to accept a Supreme Court appointment because it means they have to move to Toronto. Some of these people may enjoy living in Thunder Bay, Windsor, London, Ottawa, Kitchener or wherever; they may not particularly care to move to Toronto. They are very competent people but they accept the county court appointment. By so doing, we are saying to them, "If you happen to be on the county court, we consider you to be somewhat inferior, less competent, and we are going to limit your jurisdiction to less than $25,000."

The Attorney General asked me whether I think we should leave it at $15,000. I say if he is going to continue this superficial demarcation of one jurisdiction with the next, he might as well leave it at $15,000.

Frankly, I have a suggestion to make to the Attorney General, and I want to be constructive in this process. He should increase the jurisdiction of the small claims court to $5,000 and he should take away the monetary jurisdiction of the county court completely. That would be a way of making the demarcation if he wants to continue this superficial distinction between the High Court and the county court, but he should not play around with this superficial distinction on a monetary level.

I understand why the Attorney General is doing this. He is saying: "It looks as though, in most cases, the county court lists are up to date. We have to give them more work. The Supreme Court lists are too long. They are overburdened. There are too many delays. By increasing the monetary jurisdiction from $15,000 to $25,000, we are going to give more work to the county court.

When one considers the competence -- there may be some exceptions -- of county court judges who are entrusted to hear cases involving very serious criminal matters, very often and with the consent of the parties they have been known to make awards involving more than $100,000. If that is the situation, why do we bother having a monetary jurisdiction at all? The Attorney General should give that some consideration.

He should agree with me that it is wrong to say to a county court judge, "We trust you to be competent and to give adjudication up to $25,000, but for more than $25,000 we should take that jurisdiction away." I disagree with that. When we discuss Bill 100, I may explain why I think there should be some fundamental changes and why we should remove this distinction between the High Court and the county court and look at some interesting proposals made by county law associations to deal with that problem.

I repeat, in commenting on the county court judges and the very excellent work they are doing in many jurisdictions of this province, that I want in no way to demean the competence and the excellent service that has been given by the High Court judges coming from Toronto. All I am saying is that in 1984 Ontario it is time to look seriously at the setup and ask, "Should we really be imposing a $25,000 jurisdiction on the county court bench?" I say we should not.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I agree with the member for Ottawa East when he reflects on the competence of the county court bench in this province. It is a highly qualified bench. The form of merger he is proposing is one that has been proposed in other quarters, and it is obviously a matter that will continue to be the subject of a good deal of debate.

One has to accept the fact that there have been historical differences in this province in relation to the jurisdiction of these courts. This matter was reflected upon by the Ontario Law Reform Commission under the very distinguished leadership of the former Chief Justice of the High Court, Mr. Justice McRuer. After considering the matter very carefully, he decided to recommend that we should maintain the distinction of jurisdictions between the county court and the Supreme Court.

At the same time, I realize this is not an issue about which one can be an absolutist, because in this province we are very fortunate in the quality of the judiciary. We do have a very highly qualified county court bench as well as a very highly qualified Supreme Court bench, as the member for Ottawa East has readily conceded.

Tinkering with these jurisdictions without knowing just what the end result will be can be a risky business. For example, his proposal that the county court be given an unlimited jurisdiction, basically meaning a concurrent jurisdiction with the Supreme Court, apart from any other concerns that have been expressed, would be, among other things, taking a major gamble as to just what would happen with the court lists around this province. One could readily see where the court lists would get completely out of whack because it would be impossible to predict what the end result would be.

I do not expect the debate to end with the passage of this legislation or with the passage of Bill 100. It is an issue the profession will continue to address. But it is very clear tome that the consensus within the profession now -- I am most concerned about the public interest, but I think the consensus does reflect the proper or appropriate public interest -- indicates that at this point in our history some differences in the monetary jurisdiction can still be justified.

Again, one must relate to what I would refer to as the bottom line. The bottom line is that the people in this province are well served by the judges who are dealing with these cases at all levels of the courts. When one makes changes, one should make changes relatively cautiously in dealing with a system that functions very well at the present time.

3:40 p.m.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for third reading.

JUSTICES OF THE PEACE AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. McMurtry moved second reading of Bill 18, An Act to amend the Justices of the Peace Act.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, this legislation was just introduced for first reading the other day, and I do not think I have anything to add to the statement I gave at that time.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, recently I was reading a book by Anthony Sampson called The Changing Anatomy of Britain. It is a book he has published four times now, I believe, as he has looked at changes in the British scene over the past 20 or 30 years. I was interested in the couple of pages he devoted to a portion of the court system dealing particularly with magistrates, because the provincial judges, the justices of the peace and the others we have developed within our province relate to the English traditions.

I was quite surprised to read that the origins of the justices of the peace go deep into the Middle Ages, before any legal bureaucracy existed. They were established in 1361, the first English institution set up by statute. The function of that office was to provide three of four people in each English county to keep the peace and punish offenders.

It will be of interest to know that for several centuries justices of the peace ran the whole local government as the instruments of the monarchy. Many of them, of course, served both as JPs and as members of Parliament. I suppose a goodly number of them were somewhat arbitrary and eccentric. They controlled the local constables and dealt rather ruthlessly from time to time with various miscreants, vagrants and poachers.

It was an interesting institution. It is one Mr. Sampson refers to. There are a couple of quotations I think will be of interest. He writes:

"After the Second World War the magistrates were still very unrepresentative and often eccentric: a quarter were aged over 70 and 14 over 90." Then there is one small, four-word sentence that reads, "Nearly all were Tories."

He goes on to say, "In the county, many were large land owners, as they had been 600 years earlier." There is another small quotation:

"Magistrates are still predominantly middle class, selected by secretive local advisory committees, which sometimes tend to perpetuate organized groups such as Rotarians and Freemasons."

Naturally, I do not think we have all those aspects in Ontario. I know that at least there are no serving JPs over 90. Whether they are still all Tories is yet to be proved, but I suppose some day the records may be entirely open. How they are appointed may still have some secretive connections, but I do not necessarily think to groups such as Rotarians and Freemasons.

Interestingly enough, this basic function of what became a development of the court system and of the local government system was part of Ontario's framework over these past 200 years. Perhaps in this bicentennial year we can refer, at least for a moment, to the traditions of the JP system which were part of our own heritage from the earliest days of the development of the English common law.

The legislation before us dates, during this past year, from a number of incidents that called into question the possibility of the independence of justices of the peace, who were particularly concerned about some infringement of that independence because of certain requirements that might see them compromised, not only through the setting of their salaries but also with respect to continuing after the normal retirement time on a year-by-year basis at the pleasure of the Attorney General. As a result, to clear the air, we have the bill that is before us now.

The object of the bill is to give a greater level of independence to justices of the peace. It is going to ensure that removal from the bench can only be for cause and only after an investigation of whatever event may be complained of by the Justices of the Peace Review Council.

We are also aware that is the kind of practice that has occurred, but it is time to bring it into a clear legislative framework, and the Attorney General is to be commended for doing that.

Retirement at 65 and continuation to the age of 70 will now be at the discretion of the Chief Judge on a year-by-year basis. That, too, sets a framework which removes it from any political presumption or any burden of difficulty as to independence, which at least some of the JPs saw as a possible development. Finally, the use of JPs, their calendar of how they do their tasks, will be under the control of the Chief Judge.

3:50 p.m.

Those three themes will go a long way to satisfy the requirement of independence. It is not only the requirement that it exists; it is the requirement, as in so many other things, that it be seen to exist.

The Attorney General has come to grips with this concern. I am pleased to see at least a press quotation from Mr. Morris Manning, the solicitor who represents the association, that "the matter of security of office and the other proposals which have been brought forward in the bill are acceptable to the justices of the peace." Accordingly, we can support them as well.

The various proposals before us do clear up an area of some concern that was a bit murky. I commend the Attorney General for dealing promptly with this matter; the questions that have arisen in the past will be attended to for the future.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity last evening to be reading Letters of Junius. There is some very instructive information with respect to the office of the justice of the peace in his letters to Chief Justice Mansfield in England. They were highly critical of the chief justice for exceeding his authority in a question of bail when a person had been caught in flagrante vindicto.

Mr. McClellan: Delicto.

Mr. Renwick: Delicto. I thank the member for Bellwoods.

In those letters, Junius goes at some length into the history of the office, its origin and its development. It is probably the finest synoptic statement of the history of the office up to that time that exists anywhere. I would, at some point, commend the two letters to the Attorney General.

I find always when the Attorney General takes this course that it is one of the most frustrating things about him as Attorney General. We get a bill that deals with justices of the peace only when the pressure is on the Attorney General to satisfy a problem that has arisen. The problem, of course, is the one to which the member for Kitchener (Mr. Breithaupt) has alluded, the question of whether or not they are independent persons in exercising their function in accordance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

We are aware of the case which is still, as I understand it, before the courts on the question of the independence of the justices of the peace. That accounts for the clause in the bill that specifically reserves that question until it is decided by the courts, and quite properly so.

My frustration relates not to the content of the bill, the attempt to provide for the kind of security of tenure and protection for justices of the peace in the multitudinous duties they perform in the system of the administration of justice. We have in this assembly heard little, if anything, in a direct way about the report to the Attorney General in 1982 on the office and function of the justices of the peace in Ontario. That report reviews in a scholarly and detailed way all the problems with that office in the province, as they are perceived.

The frustration always arises when one finds that the McRuer report dealt with many very substantial questions related to the position of the justices of the peace in the administration of justice system in Ontario.

Of course, the Ontario Law Reform Commission also reported and repeated a great deal of what the McRuer commission had to say. There have been some incremental changes, but that kind of plodding change at that level of the administration of justice system is quite inadequate.

I suppose it can only be reflected in the paragraph at the top of page 14 of Professor Mewett's report, where he is speaking about the five classifications. Having dealt with the five classifications of justices of the peace and the authority granted within those particular classifications by reason of the directions that are given to them, which are, of course, (a) expanded, (b), (c) and (d) and the references made in this paragraph to those classifications, he has this to say:

"As can be seen, the 'classification' of justices of the peace is chaotic, as are the various methods and levels of remuneration. Some are full-time, some fee-paid. A few have annual retainers, some are civil servants. Some are public servants. 'Per diem justices of the peace' seem to be justices of the peace only a couple evenings a week. Some are sitting justices of the peace, some are signing justices of the peace. Some have (a) expanded directions, some only (d) direction and the rest are anywhere in between. The system is hopelessly confused and unnecessarily complex."

Further on in his report, he deals with the question of the remuneration of justices of the peace. He states in no uncertain terms how much he deplores the question of the piecework method of remuneration of the great bulk of JPs. He gives some figures in his report, and yesterday I spoke with the appropriate member of the minister's department to be brought up to date.

Of the 800 justices of the peace in the province at present, approximately 600 are on a fee basis. That fee may vary from next to nothing, depending on the level of services performed, up to the point where, as I understand it, they may well earn more in fees than a salaried justice of the peace. Out of the 800, as I have said, 600 are on a fee basis; at present only about 80 are salaried -- Professor Mewett indicates 83 -- and the balance are in various stages of inactivity, living out the period of their appointment.

The Legislature and our caucus simply have to convey to the Attorney General that it is all very well to devote a great amount of time to the ethereal levels of the justice system, but one of the areas where many people come in touch with the judicial system is the office of the justice of the peace. Anyone can read in this bill the specific changes that are being made and might ask: "Why in 1984 do we have to pass this kind of bill? Why was the status and the position of justices of the peace not reviewed long ago?"

We certainly have few, if any, objections to the individual provisions of the bill. They seem to fit within the technical requirements of the precise kind of legislative amendment designed to achieve the purposes set out in the explanatory notes to the bill. For that reason, we see no use in putting the bill into committee of the whole House. But it is our hope, considering the McRuer report, the Ontario Law Reform Commission report, and the Mewett report, this office will be the subject of a complete overhaul reasonably soon.

4 p.m.

I do not know the criteria under which the Attorney General decides to recommend to the executive council whether or not by order in council an appointment of a person to the office of justice of the peace should be made. I hope there has been significant progress in that ministry to ensure that those who are now appointed are persons who have the capacity and background to exercise the duties of the office.

The classification system seems to me to be an unworkable method of determining which justices can perform which functions. There is no way, except by trial and error, a member of the public can decide whether a person who has the title of justice of the peace can answer the inquiry a person may want to make of him. He is dependent entirely on the ministry supplying justices at particular points in the justice system to determine whether that person has the authority.

There are no people in the riding of Riverdale who understand there are five classifications of justices of the peace when they go to the old city hall or to College Street for the purpose of swearing out some kind of an information because of an allegation with respect to some offence that has been committed against them.

They do not have any idea which justices of the peace are restricted to only some signing authority.

The whole question of justices of the peace issuing warrants with respect to searches on application by crown attorneys is a matter that has been up front and centre in this assembly as recently as the execution of the search warrants in the matter of Litton Systems and the police in the pursuit of their investigation into that matter, and again with respect to the search warrants obtained something over a year ago that resulted in the massive police raid on the Church of Scientology and the taking away of some 900 cases of material.

These are men who are vested under our system with very significant and substantial positions to play. We should get to a point where (a) they are independent; (b) they are properly remunerated on a uniform scale in accordance with their years of service; (c) there is an adequate and proper training facility and program for training, retraining and continuing education of the justices of the peace, and a method by which the fee for service is abolished, except if that method is used to provide for funds going into the consolidated revenue fund as in many other branches of the administration of the justice system.

Those things are all in the report. I only express a sort of political sense of frustration about this creeping and incremental method which the Attorney General disguises as being real progress. I do not think it is beyond the wit of the members of his staff in the policy development field or in any other field to get on with the business of a revised, updated Justices of the Peace Act, and an adequate, fair and proper transitional system for the retirement of those who may not be qualified to continue in office.

I was surprised, as I am sure others were, that there are about 800 around the province who can perform varying degrees of duties and responsibilities. I do not believe we can rely on an emasculated position of the justice of the peace. I think it is a fundamental bottom layer of the justice system and those who hold those offices deserve dignity, standing and respect within the judicial system itself, let alone in the eyes of the public.

I do not know how long we would have had to wait had there not been a Charter of Rights that led to the challenge which led to this bill coming into the assembly. I suppose there are always reasons why the Ministry of the Attorney General is slow. I do not understand it; none of us has ever understood it. From the time of the McRuer report to the present is a long time for the gestation of the kind of interest and concern by the ministry in this level of the justice system that is so important.

I have not taken upon myself to speak about the second volume of the Mewett report dealing with justices of the peace in remote areas or justices of the peace in native communities. I have not had the opportunity to go north and to study all the implications of Professor Mewett's report. I certainly saw a lot of coverage in the press when the Attorney General himself was there not so long ago dealing with some of the police and justice problems in that part of the province. My colleague the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Stokes) is certainly much better qualified than I ever will be to try to bring home to the attention of the Attorney General the inconveniences in that part of Ontario with respect to the administration of justice at that level.

I do want to emphasize the very specific point Professor Mewett made that the native communities to be served are not necessarily and conclusively in remote areas. The largest native community is right here in Metropolitan Toronto, and the services that are required with respect to this community, let alone in other parts of the province, at a time when the question of the recognition of native people's rights is up front and centre for constitutional purposes, would lead us to believe there is an obligation on this government to get on with drafting the kind of legislation that will support the kind of policies, programs and financing that will implement to as large an extent as possible the recommendations that have been made by the three studies to which I have referred.

I close by saying it may well be that to provide this kind of status for that office could be one of the major tributes to the Attorney General before he leaves this place to go wherever else he may go, to Ottawa or elsewhere. To re-establish this office properly in this province would be a model for the administration of justice in any part of the world.

I have said until I am relatively sick and tired of saying it, that so far as the people of Riverdale are concerned the esoteric question of whether the county courts have a $25,000 jurisdiction or an unlimited jurisdiction and the esoteric question of whether or not the Supreme Court and county courts should be unified are not matters that touch upon their day-to-day lives. But certainly the provincial court system in all of its ramifications and the office of the justice of the peace are areas that touch upon the ongoing lives of the law-abiding citizens of the great riding of Riverdale in endeavouring to bring to their aid the justice we all believe to be somewhere inherent, although many times difficult to find, in the justice system of Ontario.

As I say, I just wanted to vent my particular frustration about having to deal with this kind of bill. We are not going to oppose the bill and we are certainly not going to ask that the bill go into committee.

With those few remarks, I appreciate the opportunity to communicate to the Attorney General on these matters. As I began, I commend the letters of Junius to Chief Justice Mansfield in England for his light reading.

4:10 p.m.

Mr. Stokes: Mr. Speaker, I am going to run afoul of you, sir, and I will try to be as brief as I can, because I think the observations I will make with respect to the functions of justices of the peace throughout Ontario, wherever people may choose to live, will be very important.

My colleague the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) made reference to a trip the Attorney General made to the real north of Ontario, journeying up the west side of James Bay and around Cape Henrietta Maria and up to Winisk. I am not sure whether the Attorney General got to Fort Severn. If he did, so much the better. My colleague the member for Riverdale --

Mr. Piché: And Attawapiskat and Fort Albany.

Mr. Stokes: Pardon?

Mr. Piché: That is where I met the minister, at Kashechewan.

Mr. Stokes: Did he take the member for Cochrane North (Mr. Piché) to visit those communities and not extend the same courtesy to the member for Lake Nipigon when he visited the most northern community in the province, namely Fort Severn? It was an oversight on the part of the Attorney General, I am sure.

Mr. Piché: No, you misunderstand me. I was not with the Attorney General. I met him there. Our paths crossed in Fort Albany.

Mr. Stokes: When any minister of the crown visits the real north of Ontario it makes good sense to bring the one person who sits in this Legislature who knows more about the ongoing and real problems of the north --

Mr. Piché: Thank you for the compliment.

Mr. Stokes: No. The member has a lot to learn, he is a johnny-come-lately. If he wants to know about the real problems, I would be quite happy to talk to him about them

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Back to the debate.

Mr. Stokes: I want to go back to the Report to the Attorney General of Ontario on the Office and Function of the Justices of the Peace in Ontario, part II, Native Communities and Remote Areas. This was authored by Alan Mewett. It was in the hands of the Attorney General on April 2, 1982, two years and a week ago. It took the Attorney General almost two years to get there to see what Professor Mewett was talking about. I know he has a very busy schedule.

I have had communications with the Attorney General on jurisprudence and the way we conduct our courts in northern communities. In fairness to the Attorney General, notwithstanding the work of Stan Jolly and his group, it is only of recent vintage that the natives in the province, particularly those in remote areas, have busied and concerned themselves about the way in which court proceedings go.

This is an excellent report. I do not think I have ever read a better one in terms of putting the real problem of justice in the proper perspective. While I welcome the halting step the Attorney General has taken in appointing Stan Jolly as a special projects co-ordinator to assist the Chief Judge in coming to grips with the problem of justices of the peace, when one looks at the statistics contained in that report, there is only about one full-time justice of the peace dealing wholly and solely with the responsibilities in native communities.

While there are some who are part-time and those who act in a variety of roles, there is not enough to keep them going. They are not being used in an appropriate way. Towards that end, I want to quote a couple of paragraphs of the report:

"Natives (i.e. as I use the term, status Indians, nonstatus Indians and Metis) make up some two per cent of Ontario's total population. The most recent statistics show that natives made up 11 per cent of the total male admissions and 30 per cent of the total female admissions for sentences of less than 30 days, and 17 per cent of the total male admissions and 53 per cent of the total female admissions for liquor offences. Some 20 per cent of male non-native admissions were subsequently released on bail and 21 per cent of non-native female admissions; only 10 per cent native male admissions and nine per cent native female admissions were so released."

Professor Mewett goes on to state the present position of jurisprudence and the way in which we deal with these relatively minor offences. He says:

"It is probably accurate to say that the most serious and least understood part of the adjudicative process that involves natives is not the determination of guilt, but the imposition of the appropriate sanction. Factually, most of these cases are neither difficult nor serious, but finding the right sentence is as important when natives are involved as in any other case, and considerably more complex. This is true whether one is talking about a native justice of the peace sentencing a native on a reserve or a non-native justice of the peace sentencing a native off the reserve. An examination of any of the statistics incontrovertibly shows an inordinately high proportion of natives are incarcerated in our penal institutions -- in most cases for what the general public would regard as tending towards the less serious offences. The reasons for this disturbing fact are not easy to discover. It may be because native culture is such that natives more often commit offences; it may be because their social or economic background tends to involve them in criminal activities more than others; it may be because those involved in the sentencing process do not understand the individual needs of native offenders; it may, of course, be because of blatant discrimination. The reasons are not important because whatever the reasons, it must stop. If the causes go deeper than can be remedied by improving the criminal justice system for natives, such as by improving educational opportunities and standards of living for natives, this is no reason why we cannot at least make a start by improving the criminal justice system."

In fairness to the Attorney General and to put it in a proper balance, I want to quote one brief paragraph.

Professor Mewett says: "Lest it bethought that I am singling out Ontario for criticism of its handling of the criminal justice system for native people, it is as well to make it clear that I am far from convinced the situation is any better in any of the other provinces. Indeed, in some cases, it may be far worse."

The Attorney General did journey to those remote communities with a judge. He had an opportunity to see it in action with all its imperfections. Perhaps when the minister responds to our comments on second reading, he might just elaborate a little bit because I am not absolutely convinced the Attorney General could have done all that should have been done to redress some of these problems.

The Attorney General has had two years to study the Mewett report as it deals with remote communities, particularly native communities, in the hinterlands of Ontario. A lot of the things Stan Jolly will be doing in his new position will be to second-guess what Professor Mewett said.

4:20 p.m.

One of the main thrusts of the Mewett report was, first of all, an acceptance by the government and the chief law officer of the crown of the fact that we need justices of the peace in those remote communities; not only because native people have to see that their leaders are an integral part of the justice system in Ontario, they have to see them taking an active part in it instead of having people fly in on a regular basis or flying the culprits out and having them go through routine proceedings covering offences of a very minor nature elsewhere. If there is anything that will frustrate a group in society, it is the way we have handled these very numerous yet very minor offences, which are not really criminal in nature but which are offences that our first citizens do get caught up in.

I think it is important to listen very carefully to what Professor Mewett says. If you agree with the conclusions he has arrived at, it is absolutely essential that native people get involved in the system. If we accept that fact, then a corollary to it is that we must make it possible for native people to become sufficiently familiar with the Criminal Code and with all of the other statutes and minor offences under the Liquor Control Act, whether they be bylaws enforced under the Indian Act or bylaws imposed by a band council where, to maintain some semblance of order, somebody has to be there to do the enforcing.

I have no idea how many millions of dollars it costs us as taxpayers to do what we are doing to bring culprits to justice. I know it costs us a bundle to maintain the kind of surveillance and police presence we have in the flying police force we have stationed in places like Timmins, I believe it is, in northeastern Ontario, and in Kenora and Sioux Lookout in northwestern Ontario.

Similarly, I have no idea how much it costs the system, and therefore us taxpayers, either to fly the judiciary in there to try these relatively minor cases or, conversely, to fly those people charged out to some place like Sioux Lookout, Geraldton, Kenora, Timmins or Moosonee. I know it costs us a lot of money, and I do not think the system works well.

I have not had an opportunity to discuss this with Stan Jolly; I have not had an opportunity to discuss it privately with the Attorney General. But it seems to me that, given just an excellent report, which has been in the hands of the Attorney General for more than two years, it is not enough simply to have taken one halting step and say, "We are going to appoint Stan Jolly to assist one of the judges to look at the implications of this report," and not to have gone much farther than that and to involve band councils in a much more direct way.

I am not going to suggest that we should have a justice of the peace appointed for every little hamlet or Indian reserve in the north. But let me say that I hope we will get the process finely tuned enough so we can find those native people who are most capable of getting involved in this kind of system. I hope the minister just does not go the purely political route, because I do not think it will work in those circumstances; he has to get advice from the best people possible to attract the best people possible.

One of the recommendations was to consult with the band councils. Professor Mewett even suggests that the Attorney General might want to go so far as to consult with the member of the Legislative Assembly who represents that area. I am not saying that in a partisan way. He has to make use of all the knowledge and experience he can get hold of to make the system work in the way in which we all hope it will.

Even on a trial basis, I would ask the Attorney General to say, "All right, let us try to appoint somebody from Fort Albany, from Fort Hope, from Big Trout Lake or from Sandy Lake, where the numbers of people resident and the number of satellite communities close by would warrant the appointment of native justices of the peace, at least on a trial basis to see how the system works."

It is going to require a lot of patience on our part, it is going to require a lot of education and it is going to require a good deal of innovation. The Attorney General has been up there and has had a good length of time to study the Mewett report, which everybody speaks highly of. It is an excellent place to start.

I am not going to dwell on the question, but we have sufficient evidence to prove that the status quo is no longer acceptable. The whole process has to be meaningful to our first citizens so that the system of justice not only is fair but also is seen to be fair. The Attorney General is going to get a much greater degree of acceptance and co-operation from those people if he involves them in a very significant and meaningful way. I think the Attorney General has the basis for it here in the report. In talking privately with him, I have found he has convinced himself that the status quo is no longer acceptable and something must be done, so I am right back to where I started.

I want to thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your indulgence, because normally on second reading one cannot discuss something not in the bill but only something in the bill. I think the bill is deficient because we have had sufficient time to study the thing; now is the time for action. I thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for your patience and indulgence.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to read the Mewett report some time ago when it was made available to us, and I was impressed by it.

I am curious, as my colleague the member for Riverdale was curious, about why the majority of the recommendations from the Mewett report have not been incorporated in the bill before us. I would hope that I could at least raise this question with the Attorney General during second reading debate so we do not have to send the bill to committee to pursue it at length.

I want to raise the question specifically of why the Attorney General has not chosen to deal with the matter of appointments to the office of justice of the peace. The Attorney General will recall that Professor Mewett has made a number of very helpful suggestions with respect to the appointment process. I am referring to pages 69 and 70 of the report.

4:30 p.m.

Professor Mewett points out, first, that it is hard to get the best candidate coming forward for the office of justice of the peace when nobody knows there is a vacancy in the first place. One of the very sensible recommendations the Mewett report makes is that applications for vacancies be advertised. This is surely not a staggering reform notion. The notion that vacancies should be advertised is not something that should threaten the government.

Professor Mewett states on page 69, "The plain fact of the matter is that so long as proposed appointments are mooted by word of mouth, the opportunity to apply tends to be limited only to those who are in the know and they tend to be limited to friends or associates of those making the initial input." It is fairly clear what Professor Mewett is saying, and his suggestion is entirely sensible.

Second, he sets out procedures for making appointments to the office that would stand us in good stead. As I understand the suggestion, the local senior provincial court judge would make the preliminary determination with respect to whether there is a vacancy and whether there is a need in a particular area. This would be reviewed with other officers of the court within the judicial system and then relayed to the associate chief judge. There would be advertising and some publicity. People would have the opportunity to apply for any vacancies that had been determined.

Third, there would be a much more independent selection process, which would involve the associate chief judge making recommendations in a review to the Justices of the Peace Review Council. Let me read Professor Mewett's observation on the current process and why he is recommending a change.

"Some such scheme" -- that is, the scheme he is proposing -- "seems to me to be the best way of ensuring that the ultimate decision to appoint remains with the cabinet (through the Attorney General) but also of ensuring that political input never becomes undue and that every effort is made to find the most suitable person, though the success of such a scheme will very much depend on there being adequate training and education programs that I shall discuss in the next section." And he goes on to make very helpful suggestions with respect to upgrading the office through education and training.

We have here a bill that establishes security of tenure for justices of the peace. The present method of appointment, which is essentially a patronage method of appointment, remains intact. As I understand it, the selection process continues to involve "political input," to use the words of Professor Mewett. It is passing strange that the government has chosen to ignore his recommendations for a more independent appointment process. The Attorney General does not like any kind of discussion that involves ways and means of making appointments to the judicial system more independent and free of "undue political input."

The day when these kinds of decisions can be left to the Lieutenant Governor in Council are coming to an end, if I may offer an unlettered lay view. The sooner this government realizes that, the better; and the sooner it adopts the very sensible and straightforward suggestions set out in the Mewett report, the better. Then the concern so often expressed with respect to the appointment of justices of the peace can be laid to rest.

If the Attorney General does not think most people think justices of the peace are political appointees, he lives in some kind of fools' paradise. It is the popular view of the office. Everybody knows that. It is part of the law and mythology of Ontario after a single party has been in office for 40 years. If the Attorney General thinks this popular understanding of a key component of the judicial system does anything in aid of respect for the law, he lives in a different world from mine.

My question, which I hope he will address in his reply at the conclusion of this debate, is why has he apparently failed to accept the recommendations of the Mewett report? Perhaps I misunderstand and he intends at some point in the future, I hope in the near future, to bring in a more comprehensive bill. Perhaps he could share his plans with us, because I think the reforms recommended in the Mewett report are long overdue and would be enthusiastically supported by all sides in this House.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: It would appear that some of the members opposite were not in the House when I introduced this legislation, because I indicated clearly we were going to introduce, and I am quoting from my statement, "a complete revision of the Justices of the Peace Act later this session." That was clearly stated. I regret some of the members were, I guess, absent for that statement.

The Mewett report of two volumes is a very important report. Long before the Charter of Rights came into existence, I asked Mr. Alan Mewett to do a careful report in relation to the justices of the peace system as a whole, recognizing as we all do that the justices of the peace system represents a very important component of the administration of justice in this province.

The number of recommendations was significant and far-reaching. There has been a careful analysis of those recommendations. As I indicated when I introduced this legislation for first reading, this represents only a first step. Comprehensive legislation will be introduced later in the session.

There were some references to the slowness with which the policy development division of the Ministry of the Attorney General operates. I would like to state emphatically that the record of the productivity of that branch of my ministry proves quite the opposite. I doubt that the policy development branch of any ministry of justice in the English-speaking world has produced as much important reform legislation as this branch has. It certainly has done so during the eight and a half years I have been privileged to serve with the very able individuals who comprise the policy development division. Their record in relation to important law reform is truly outstanding. I do not think there is any branch anywhere that can come close to it.

4:40 p.m.

With respect to the importance of the justices of the peace system to native justice in this province, I concur with most of the comments made by the member for Lake Nipigon. The native justice system in this country is clearly in an unsatisfactory state. Obviously, as a society we have not effectively come to grips with the challenges facing native justice in our province.

As important as the visits of the court party are to these various -- some very remote -- communities, they do not provide an adequate understanding of their justice systems on a day-to-day basis. This is something many of the ministry people have been wrestling with for a long time. I do not think there is any doubt that Stan Jelly's involvement in the process is very crucial to any likelihood of success.

I agree with the member for Lake Nipigon that the status quo is totally unsatisfactory. Mr. Jolly is not working with just "another judge," as the member for Lake Nipigon may have made reference to, but is, in fact, working directly with the Chief Judge of the provincial court, criminal division. His mandate is to develop the system. He is working directly and is in daily contact with the Chief Judge of the provincial court, criminal division, of our province.

Mr. Jolly would welcome, without question, any input the member for Lake Nipigon would like to give as we pursue the development of the native justice system. I will communicate with Mr. Jolly the desirability of his meeting with the member for Lake Nipigon. I would hope such a meeting could take place very soon. Mr. Jolly's door, as the member for Lake Nipigon can appreciate, would always be open to him to discuss any of these issues.

The solutions in the area of native justice are not going to be easily found. I recognize the more direct involvement of the native community in the justice system is a prerequisite. Native justices of the peace are a very vital initiative if we are going to make any progress in this area. This will remain a high priority, quite apart from the more comprehensive legislation that will be dealing with justices of the peace generally with respect to appointment as well as all the other matters that are so important to the justices of the peace system.

I hope we will make some very significant progress in the area of native justices of the peace in the months ahead. I look forward to further discussions in this area.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for third reading.

House in committee of the whole.

COURTS OF JUSTICE ACT

Consideration of Bill 100, An Act to revise and consolidate the Law respecting the Organization, Operation and Proceedings of Courts of Justice in Ontario.

The Deputy Chairman: Bill 100 is now before us. Is there any particular section we would like to begin with?

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Chairman, the only sections, in so far as I am aware, in which there were some outstanding comments to be made on my part were sections 61, 88 and 91. A variety of other items had been attended to in committee, and members will see in the bill before us many amendments that have been sorted out and dealt with in committee.

There were just those three outstanding matters to be discussed in so far as I was concerned; with one further addition, and that is with respect to section 208, the matter of the Quieting Titles Act. It is just on those four items that I will have any comment. It may be that the sections before section 61 can otherwise go quite quickly.

The Deputy Chairman: Can sections 1 to 60, inclusive, then carry? Is that the agreement?

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, very briefly, I personally said all I can or want to say about the bill in committee. The bill had a thorough canvassing at that time. I do not have any sections I feel compelled to speak on in this committee of the whole House.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make just a few comments on part II of the bill, District Court of Ontario, starting with section 25.

Sections 1 to 24, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 25:

Mr. Roy: Some of the comments I have to make I have made in relation to Bill 1 about the merger of the courts. What I have to say I have said before in committee during the estimates of the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry). In fact, I may have made some comments on this bill before it went off to committee, and the committee has had the benefit of certain submissions made by a variety of law associations, among them the proposal from the County of Carleton Law Association.

My comments are related basically to a proposal made by the County of Carleton Law Association on the subject of the merger of the High Court of Justice and the county and district courts of Ontario. I want to emphasize again in these very brief comments that when I talk about merger and about the work done by our county or district court judges and when I talk about the Supreme Court, in no way do I want to demean or undermine, nor do I have any reservations about, the competence and the effectiveness of the members of the High Court in Ontario.

In Ontario the Attorney General has said, and I have supported him on this, we are very fortunate to have very competent people serving at all levels, and certainly at the Supreme Court level. We in Ottawa -- Carleton, and I am sure my colleagues in other counties would agree with me, have received excellent service and we are fortunate to have very competent people serving or adjudicating at that level.

If I have any comments to make about merger of the courts and the county courts and if I emphasize jurisdiction and things of this nature, I want to make it very clear I have nothing but the highest regard and the greatest respect for the members of the High Court in Ontario.

4:50 p.m.

Some of the comments I have to make date back to my very early days of practice. It struck me at the time, even going back to the late 1960s, that the distinction that existed in our courts between the county court and the High Court was not necessary.

I know the Attorney General has said that when the administration of justice serves the community as well as it has in Ontario, one must be cautious about making changes, radical changes or changes for just change's sake, but I think it is important that the public of Ontario perceive and understand the administration of justice in this province.

It is very difficult sometimes to explain to the public of Ontario our system of courts, our division of courts and things of this nature. I know there has been an attempt over the last 10 years.

Mr. Mancini: It is impossible.

Mr. Roy: My colleague tells me it is impossible. It should not be impossible. He is probably right in that the public of Ontario would have great difficulty in understanding the different divisions of the court.

Mr. Boudria: Ninety per cent of the members would not know.

Mr. Roy: For instance, if it is a particular criminal case, then it may be dealt with in a provincial court with criminal jurisdiction. If it deals with children or something similar, it may end up in the family court. If it is a more serious case, then it may be dealt with in the county court with or without a jury. If it is more serious than that, if it is a murder case at this level or if it is treason or something similar, then it goes to the High Court. I am talking now about criminal jurisdiction.

If it is under civil jurisdiction, it will depend on the type of case. If it is just monetary, it could be dealt with in small claims court, county court or in the Supreme Court, the High Court as we call it.

I understand there are reasons for some of these divisions. It is important to build up an expertise to be able to deal effectively with different problems -- family, criminal or civil. I understand that, but in my opinion such a distinction does not have to be made. I think the distinction between the county court and the Supreme Court or the High Court is not necessary.

In the early days of justice in this province, with the talent available, the competence of a local judge, or the issues that were involved locally, I could understand it was important that the administration of justice appeared to be impartial. This was the reason circuit judges were travelling around and administering justice in different areas.

But I ask the Attorney General, does it make sense in Ontario in 1984? A $30,000 motor vehicle accident case may involve a relatively serious whiplash with some permanent injury, but the insurance lawyer will say to the county court judge, "It is past your jurisdiction." He will bump it up to the Supreme Court because it will delay it some more.

At that point he says, "The adjudication for this particular case has got to come from Toronto." The judge has to go and sit during the limited sessions. Be it in L'Orignal, Waterloo or London, Ontario, he is going to come down and adjudicate on those cases.

Mr. Boudria: He is going to descend from Toronto upon L'Orignal.

Mr. Roy: In some ways that process is not only demeaning to the county court, but it is sometimes demeaning to the Supreme Court.

Sometimes that does not happen. To the great credit of many of the judges, both at the county court and at the Supreme Court level, they are not adjudicating those cases because they are being settled by way of a pre-trial, etc.

The fact remains that we continue to have these artificial divisions which, in many cases, are abused by certain members of the profession. I am talking about lawyers acting on behalf of insurance companies and corporations, who will always say, "It is a High Court jurisdiction case and we have to put it up there." The motivation for doing it sometimes is that it is delayed and sometimes the fees are higher. One reports back to one's client and says: "This is a High Court matter and, of course, the fees are higher. It is far more complex and we have to wait for the judge to come from Toronto."

Hon. Mr. Norton: You would know that.

Mr. Roy: Of course. I am always representing the poor and disenfranchised. I am most often on the plaintiff's side. The Minister of Health (Mr. Norton) will know that. When I get some time, I will explain to him how the process works because I know he did not spend much time around the courts. He managed to get himself a QC.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Oh, I spent most of my time around the courts.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: He spends his time here now, unlike you.

Mr. Roy: Do I hear the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson) saying something? Would she like to participate?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Just a little echo of your conscience.

Mr. Breithaupt: Things were going along so well.

The Deputy Chairman: Order.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Chairman, I find it absolutely delicious to have some intervention from the Minister of Education who is an expert on all matters, including justice, law or whatever.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: All I was suggesting is that you know so much about the courts because you still spend so much time there, Mondays and Fridays.

Hon. Mr. Norton: And Wednesdays.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Wednesdays too.

The Deputy Chairman: Order. The member has the floor and is speaking to Bill 100. Bill 100 is the subject of debate, not these other subjects that are coming up extraneously.

Mr. Roy: In response to the Minister of Education, I say I have taken my professional responsibilities seriously. It is true I know what goes on in the courts and how the administration of the courts works because I think it is important as a member of the Legislature to know what is going on.

I do not quibble with the Minister of Education for having practised medicine. I do not criticize her for that, just as I do not criticize my colleague the Minister of Health for having obtained a QC and having practised for a very limited period of time. It shows.

The Deputy Chairman: The member is talking to section 25 of Bill 100, please.

Mr. Roy: I quite understand that some of those members get annoyed when I am often not prepared to waste my time listening to their dull speeches when I am working in my riding.

The Deputy Chairman: We are not talking to section 25.

Mr. Roy: Some of us understand that one has to work in one's riding and spend some time in the riding. We like our ridings. If members here think I am going to apologize for that, I am not.

The Deputy Chairman: All I ask is that the member speak to section 25 of Bill 100.

Mr. Breaugh: Come on, Mr. Chairman, soar with the eagles.

The Deputy Chairman: It is hard to soar with the eagles all the time.

Mr. Sweeney: Especially when there are so many turkeys around.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Chairman, I know they are giving you a very difficult time about turkeys, eagles and things of that nature, but I will not because I am talking about justice here.

The Deputy Chairman: Section 25, yes.

Mr. Roy: The point I was trying to make --

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Tell us why you are not supporting your francophone candidate for the federal leadership. That is what I want to hear.

Mr. Roy: The potential federal candidate asked me a question; I am referring to the Attorney General now. I would like to respond because I can see the concern from the Mulroney crowd about the fact that John Turner is coming on the scene. They are quivering and there is concern. Brian is getting annoyed, he is becoming concerned and he is criticizing Turner.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: The latest Gallup poll really upset us.

Mr. Roy: Keep looking at the polls and enjoying them because they are going to change and change quickly.

5 p.m.

Mr. Stokes: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: Could I bring to the attention of the members the fact that we have already had second reading of this bill and we are now dealing with clause-by-clause consideration of the bill in committee? If the member for Ottawa East (Mr. Roy) chose to be absent during second reading, I do not think he should impose irrelevancies on the committee as a whole. It is an abuse of the House.

The Deputy Chairman: I thank the honourable member and appreciate his guidance to the House. Perhaps the member for Ottawa East will now proceed to complete his remarks on section 25.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Chairman, I do not need a lesson on parliamentary democracy from the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Stokes). If he is not able to understand my comments, or if he did not understand them when I made them on second reading, that is his problem. I have certain things to say on section 25 and I intend to say them.

The Deputy Chairman: It is your right to say them.

Mr. Roy: That is right. I do not need any lesson in parliamentary decorum or democracy from that member. He should not get carried away.

The Deputy Chairman: Order. We are now back at section 25.

Mr. Roy: If he wants to preach, he should go and talk to some of the electorate, if there are any left who would vote for the New Democratic Party. He should not try to give us a lesson.

I was attempting to respond to the Attorney General --

Interjections.

The Deputy Chairman: Please do not be distracted by these irrelevancies.

Mr. Roy: No, I will not be.

In response to the Attorney General's question, if he wants to sit in the opposition he had better run federally. That is all I want to say to him.

The point I was making is that there exists a distinction between the county court and the Supreme Court. This distinction in 1984 Ontario is no longer justified. We would have some difficulty explaining to the electorate of this province why, if we give certain judges jurisdiction to hear cases involving robbery, rape or other serious criminal matters, they are not able to hear a case involving a monetary jurisdiction of more than $25,000.

We are also saying to all jurisdictions outside Ontario that in cases involving monetary jurisdiction of more than $25,000 they are going to have to wait for a Supreme Court judge to come in and try the case, because if it involves another type of issue it goes on the Supreme Court list and they have to wait until the judges come in.

The citizens of Ontario and many members of the profession, especially those outside Ontario, do not understand this and feel the distinction between courts should not continue. In that light, there have been submissions made by a variety of law associations, among others the Carleton County Law Association. They propose simply that the High Court would be merged with the county and district courts of Ontario, and the new court would be called the Supreme Court of Ontario. That appears to be a reasonable proposal.

They go on to say all county and district court judges would become members of the Supreme Court of Ontario and the Supreme Court of Ontario would have unlimited civil and criminal jurisdiction. The Supreme Court of Ontario would have three divisions: the Queen's Bench division, comprising all judges at present serving as county and district judges in Ontario; the High Court of Justice, comprising all judges currently serving as High Court judges in Ontario; and the Court of Appeal, comprising all judges currently serving at that court.

Then they propose there would be eight judicial districts within which what they call the Court of Queen's Bench would sit. They would divide the eight districts. Their brief goes on to say the existing status quo relating to residence of the judges would be preserved. The jurisdiction basically would be as follows. Judges of the Queen's Bench division would have unlimited civil and criminal jurisdiction, save and except jurisdiction in Divisional Court matters, prerogative writs and special trials.

Then they make a distinction that the division of the High Court of Justice would enjoy jurisdiction over all Divisional Court matters, prerogative writs and special trials. This court would maintain its headquarters at Osgoode Hall and, through a time of attrition, would reduce its numbers to 35 or 40.

Their jurisdiction would then be basically limited to matters or appeals that are now dealt with by the Divisional Court. Rather than having judges travel from the High Court in Toronto to L'Orignal, Ottawa -- Carleton, London, Windsor or wherever, we would have judges with unlimited jurisdiction in civil and criminal matters who would operate within a restricted area in a district. In my opinion, that proposal would make more sense in Ontario in 1984 than the present system.

I understand the Attorney General has some problems with that process. Obviously, judges are not unanimous on this proposal. There is still great objection on the part of certain judges even at the county court level to this process of merger. But when making such sweeping proposals as we do in Bill 100, I think this would have been an opportunity to wipe out the monetary jurisdiction and probably the criminal jurisdiction as well.

The distinction is so finite now. The High Court takes murder trials, treason and a few other serious criminal matters. The great bulk of criminal cases are taken by county court judges anyway.

The presidents of most of the county associations have supported this proposal of the Carleton county bar. I think the process would be more effective, easier for the public to understand and, in the long run, to the benefit of the administration of justice in this province.

I ask my colleagues to look at the setup that exists now. In many counties, and I can talk about Ottawa -- Carleton, the county court list is right up to date. In the Supreme Court, one has to wait a year or a year and a half to be heard. I understand in London, Ontario, the county court list is also right up to date.

Take a county town like L'Orignal. There may be seven or eight cases on the Supreme Court list waiting to be heard. The judge comes down for a week and there is a murder trial. That takes care of the week. You will have to wait four months to be heard. When the four months roll around, if there happens to be another serious court matter, you are not heard again. The system goes on.

I really do not think an area like that is well served with this present system. It would be better served with a merger of the courts and a system whereby the judges would operate within a limited district. It would be far more effective.

This proposal has not received the attention or the consideration it deserves. Just upping the jurisdiction of the county court to $25,000 and taking some of the work away from the Supreme Court is not really a meaningful attempt to advance the efficiency of the administration of justice. I think these proposals merit the attention of the Attorney General and require far more serious consideration than they have received.

Having made these few brief comments, I have nothing else to add on part II, District Court of Ontario.

5:10 p.m.

Mr. Breithaupt: I do not know whether the Attorney General has any comment to make with respect to the observations --

The Deputy Chairman: I gave the Attorney General an opportunity and he had finger movements.

Mr. Breithaupt: A variety of finger movements might not likely translate too well for the benefit of Hansard, Mr. Chairman.

The Deputy Chairman: That was his response, I think.

Mr. Breithaupt: If that was the response, we will have to take it as that.

Section 25 agreed to.

Sections 26 to 60, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 61:

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Chairman, I am interested in particular in subsection 61(2). The additions of clauses (a) and (b) appear to me to be redundant. I would have thought this subsection could read as follows. "A provincial judge shall not exercise jurisdiction conferred on a magistrate under part XVI of the Criminal Code Canada unless the judge is so designated by the Lieutenant Governor in Council."

The rewording of the section in that light would remove clauses (a) and (b). It was my understanding in committee that suggestion had been accepted and that it was seen those two items were redundant. The designation under section 61 allows the provincial judge to deal with the matters set out before the portion of the Criminal Code that deals with indictable offences.

I thought we had cleared this matter up; I may have been in error in that. I thought there was an acknowledgement by the staff of the Attorney General that those two clauses could very readily be struck out in favour of the simple statement that designation would be required in order for a provincial judge to deal with the indictable offences portion of the Criminal Code.

Perhaps the Attorney General might comment on why it seems necessary to leave in those two clauses. It may be only a drafting suggestion on my part, but I thought it made for a somewhat more easily read and understood subsection.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I do not think there is any agreement to delete them. An argument could be made that they could be deleted. What we are trying to do is to provide assurance to the community as a whole that the few existing judges who are not lawyers must have at least five years' experience as judges before they try indictable offences. We just want to make that very clear.

Mr. Breithaupt: We are underlining that requirement and acknowledging that designation is also necessary.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Yes.

Mr. Breithaupt: I can accept that. I thought it was perhaps unnecessary to put it in. If the Attorney General feels that underlines the experience factor and highlights that somewhat, then I am prepared to accept it.

Section 61 agreed to.

The Deputy Chairman: The next item to be raised by the member for Kitchener was --

Mr. Breithaupt: The next item was section 88.

Mr. Cassidy: I do not profess to be learned in all matters legal, but I would like to comment on sections 78, 135 and 146, and not all at the same time.

The Deputy Chairman: Which sections were those?

Mr. Cassidy: Sections 78, 135 and 146.

Sections 62 to 77, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 78:

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to speak as a member for the Ottawa area. I gather it has been about three years since the experiment with the provincial court, civil division, in Metropolitan Toronto began. That has enabled small claims cases of up to $3,000 to be heard here. As the minister knows, that is a more accessible form of justice; certainly, the $1,000 limit which was set originally many years ago has been far overtaken by inflation. It does not, for example, amount to more than a couple of months of rent in many apartments in the Ottawa area. I can give all kinds of other examples and I am sure the minister could as well.

Could the minister provide some assurance as to when this change will be implemented in the county of Carleton with respect to an increase in the limit on claims of up to $3,000? If no timetable has been set for that, can he explain why people in Ottawa -- Carleton are somehow deemed not to be competent to do what people in the judicial district of York are permitted to do?

Mr. Roy: May I just make a comment on that, Mr. Chairman, before the Attorney General responds? The County of Carleton Law Association brief suggested the monetary jurisdiction of the small claims court be increased to $5,000. I would think that would not be unreasonable.

Again, there is a process in this province whereby the Attorney General is appointing competent people to adjudicate at that level. He has done so in his appointment in Ottawa -- Carleton. Judge Tierney is presiding over the small claims court there. I have no doubt this individual would certainly be competent enough to adjudicate on claims of up to $5,000. Judge Tierney's practice, and I knew him when he was in practice, involved cases which exceeded the $1,000 monetary jurisdiction he is limited to now. One of the ways to expedite the administration of justice would be for the Attorney General to increase the monetary jurisdiction of the small claims court.

I really do think the experiment in Toronto, as my colleague the member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) has said, should be sufficient evidence to take the experiment now to other areas of Ontario and even to go a step further and increase that jurisdiction. By and large, there is one thing to be said about the small claims court, and that is the procedure is at least very summary and is a much cheaper procedure to collect moneys than the cumbersome process of the county court where one has to go now. It is getting to a point where, if one proceeds through the whole process of the county court for a claim of anywhere between $1,000 and $5,000, the plaintiff risks losing a good part of his claim in legal fees to collect these moneys.

I think that proposal of the County of Carleton Law Association deserves serious consideration.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: The points made by the members opposite are very valid ones, Mr. Chairman. It had been my hope we would have been able to extend the provincial court, civil division, project throughout the province and I am disappointed we have not yet been able to obtain the appropriate resources to do so. Certainly, I would agree that in many centres we should have the provincial court, civil division, with the higher jurisdiction.

As to the designation "small claims court," I do not think to most citizens even today claims of more than $1,000 can be necessarily thought of as small claims, but perhaps that is too much of a subjective observation. I would say to the member for Ottawa Centre and to the member for Ottawa East, if we do not at least announce an intention this spring to expand the provincial court, civil division, which is sort of a version of the small claims court, with this greater accessibility, if we do not make some decision to do that this spring, then an increase from the $1,000 limit in the jurisdiction of the small claims court should be given a high priority. I am very supportive of what has just been said.

5:20 p.m.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, on this specific point, I have not been involved with the justice committee on this, but I am afraid the proposal here is deficient to some extent. Like other pieces of legislation with specific sums in them, they very quickly become overtaken by changing values.

That is an unfortunate fact. I cannot imagine when the $1,000 limit on the small claims court was set, but I suspect it could well have been 10 or 15 years ago. The original intention of the $1,000 limit was to have it much higher in real terms today than it actually is.

It costs a bare minimum of perhaps $500, and more likely $1,000 or more, to have a lawyer consider a suit and then take the matter into court. Since that is real money that has to be paid -- it is not contingent money and cannot be, according to the practice of the bar in this province -- what the minister is doing by delaying is effectively denying access to judicial decision-making with respect to claims for a lot of working people whose incomes are perhaps $15,000, $20,000 or $30,000 a year, and for whom $1,500, $2,500 or $3,500 is not a trivial amount.

They may find they cannot take it to the small claims court because it is too much, and they will find they literally cannot afford or justify the time, the expense, the anguish and the delays involved in taking the matter to the provincial court.

Not only that, but it may be a matter of two or three years. When they learn that from the lawyer, they may simply pay the guy or gal $100 and walk out in disgust. The legal system has passed into disrepute because of that.

I respond in this way because the minister says we either will go one way or might give serious consideration to raising the limit. Three years of experimentation in Metropolitan Toronto is surely enough time. The minister at the very least should be able to make a specific commitment that before this House rises in June, either we will have the provincial court, civil division, implemented in Ottawa -- Carleton or there will be an increase in the jurisdiction of the small claims court that exists there at least to the $3,000 limit that applies in Toronto.

If the minister does not do that, then the government is basically saying what it has said on so many other cases for so long, that in Ontario there is one rule for Metropolitan Toronto and another rule for everywhere else.

Section 78 agreed to.

Sections 79 to 87, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 88:

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Chairman, I want to discuss with the Attorney General the matter of the Ontario Provincial Courts Committee and the comments placed before the justice committee by Mr. Paul J. French of the firm Stephens, French and McKeown, barristers and solicitors, here in Toronto. The Attorney General will be aware that Mr. French is the counsel to the Provincial Judges Association of Ontario, criminal division, and to the Ontario Family Court Judges' Association.

It is necessary for me to quote somewhat at length from a letter which Mr. French has sent to us, because he has made three particular references to the subsections in section 88. Subsections 1, 2 and 3 are each referred to with a particular suggestion for an amendment which Mr. French believes would be useful for the committee of the whole to consider.

Mr. French writes in part as follows:

"As you may be aware, the determination of financial issues affecting provincial court judges has always been a sensitive area. This sensitivity exists by reason of the historical and constitutional position of the judiciary as forming one of the three divisions to which the power of the state is divided. The judiciary are recognized as having separate and autonomous power in the judicial realm, just as truly as do the executive and legislative branches. In recognition of the need to preserve the independence of the judges in the exercise of those powers, and in recognition of the need to avoid the appearance of affecting that independence through financial matters, there has evolved the Ontario Provincial Courts Committee.

"Prior to 1973, the remuneration provided to provincial court judges was negotiated directly with the Attorney General. In recognition of the apparent conflict of those negotiations with the principle of independence of the judiciary, the Attorney General was relieved of that responsibility and negotiation was then with the Management Board of Cabinet. That process was also found to fit uncomfortably with the principle of judicial independence and so the mandate was entrusted to the Ontario Provincial Courts Committee. It was created by order in council dated March 8, 1980, and empowered to inquire into and make recommendations with respect to the numerous financial issues affecting provincial court judges.

"The creation of the Ontario Provincial Courts Committee was an act of the executive. In order to further enshrine the principle of the independence of the judiciary it was proposed that the Ontario Provincial Courts Committee become a statutory body reporting to the Legislative Assembly. Thus, An Act respecting the Benefits of Provincial Judges and Masters was laid before the assembly on December 1, 1983."

In the letter Mr. French attaches a copy of that order in council to which I have referred and a copy of the statement made by the Attorney General with respect to that act. Mr. French then refers further to that Provincial Courts Act and notes that it is effectively the same as the present section 88 of Bill 100 as it has been reprinted and is before the committee at present.

He then deals with three particular themes. It might be convenient if I set out his comments with respect to each of the three areas in these subsections, then I expect we can deal with the entire section as a whole once we have had the benefit of the Attorney General's comments as to the usefulness of the suggestions Mr. French has made.

Mr. Chairman, if you look at subsection 88(1), you will see this committee is composed of three persons. One is an appointee of the various judges' associations, the second is appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council and the third is a chairman to be appointed and acceptable to both the other two. Mr. French reminds us that Mr. Edward Greenspan, QC, is the nominee of the various judges' associations, and Mr. Robert Carman is the nominee appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council. The chairman, by joint recommendation, is Mr. Alan Marchment.

The suggestion made with respect to the matter of the appointment of the person by the Lieutenant Governor in Council is this. Mr. French suggests that clause 88(1)(b) should read as follows: "(b) one shall be appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council who is not an employee of, or under contract to, the provincial government; and..."

Mr. French then goes on as follows: "While Mr. Carman is a most able individual, any nominee of the Lieutenant Governor in Council who is at the same time a civil servant must be in an uncomfortable position. While the obligation is on the one hand to bring an independent judgement to bear upon a financial problem, the obligation of such a nominee must, on the other hand, be to avoid any conflict with the wishes of the executive. The independence of the committee, and the appearance of the independence of the committee, would be more completely secured through relieving the nominee of the government from the possibility of such a conflict. I am sure that, were Mr. Carman himself be consulted in this issue, he would agree with this suggestion."

5:30p.m.

The point made by Mr. French is a fairly simple and direct one in that the appointee of the Lieutenant Governor in Council could and should, I think it is fair to say, be someone who is not receiving his or her daily bread from the same persons who appointed him or her to that position.

Accordingly, the first suggestion that is made is to expand that subsection to ensure there is no seeming bias, obligation or difficulty in the person acting because of other ties to the provincial government, either by employment or contract. That suggestion is made, and I think it is worthy of some consideration.

The second suggestion deals with subsection 2. It is simply the inclusion in the third line, after "Lieutenant Governor in Council," of the word "annually." The purpose of that suggested amendment is to avoid any problems in failing to make a recommendation that might be useful on any urgent matter.

Mr. French goes on as follows:

"For almost two years now, the Ontario Provincial Courts Committee has been considering the matter of appropriate pension arrangements for the provincial court judges. As you may be aware, judges are typically appointed to the provincial court at the average age of 43. In such circumstances it is impossible for them to ever attain full entitlement to a pension under a plan such as the public service superannuation fund. It is important to provide arrangements for pensions sufficient to secure for the provincial judges a reasonable income in retirement. This need arises not only in order that the incumbents might be relieved of financial distractions in rendering judgements but also in order that the province might continue to attract the best men and women possible to the position."

He then refers to further areas of detail that I do not think we have to enter into at this point.

The purpose of adding the word "annually" in the second suggested amendment he makes would, as he says, "hopefully impose an obligation on the committee to deal more speedily with such urgent problems." Those problems might arise from time to time. Having the word "annually" in there, I suggest, might be useful for the functioning of the committee.

The third item referred to deals with subsection 3 by the addition of two words in the second line, which reads at the present time, "an annual report of its activities to the Lieutenant Governor in Council." It would add the words "and recommendations" after the word "activities."

The reason for that suggested change is as follows: "The purpose of this suggested amendment is to avoid the problem of recommendations to the committee being ignored." In addition to adding the words "and recommendations," he has a further reference that would be an amendment that would read "and such report and recommendations shall then stand referred to the standing committee on the administration of justice."

He cites the situation on January 30, 1981, where "the committee made a recommendation with respect to remuneration for provincial court judges. Delivery of this unanimous recommendation has never been acknowledged by the government. The proposed changes would provide the hoped for result," if certain recommendations had to go before the standing committee on administration of justice as the result of an automatic referral.

These are the three suggestions. I would appreciate hearing the Attorney General's response to them.

If I may recapitulate, the first is that the person appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council should not be an employee or under contract to the province. The second is to ensure under subsection 2 that the reports are made annually. The third is to ensure that the activities and recommendations would be dealt with by the presumption of an automatic referral to the standing committee on administration of justice of this Legislature.

I would appreciate the comments of the Attorney General on those three points so that if they are accepted, as I hope, that would be a fine result; but if not, and if there are reasons, they can form part of the ongoing discussion that I am sure he has with the variety of groups. They will at least know the suggestions they have made have been brought forward in the House and considered by the committee of the whole.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Chairman, I am, of course, very interested in the proposals that have been made by counsel for our provincial court judges. I do not think any amendments are necessary at this time, and I will outline my reasons.

With respect to the first amendment suggesting that the person should not be an employee of or under contract to the provincial government. I am not sure what "under contract to the provincial government" means. For example, if a person were to be appointed who was not an employee of the provincial government, but suppose he was a private citizen but was appointed on a per diem basis, would he be regarded as being under contract to the provincial government? I do not know. I think that wording is rather unsatisfactory.

I might say in relation to this advisory committee that the Ontario Provincial Courts Committee has a very high degree of independence from the government, bearing in mind that the judges have their own appointee and that the chairman is an agreed-upon individual, as compared to the committee that advises the federal government, all of the appointees to which are appointed, as I understand it, on the recommendation of the Minister of Justice.

I think Mr. Carman has been a very valuable addition to that committee, because I think it is important that the committee have some broad understanding of what the financial implications are in relation to the government's overall budgetary problems. To eliminate automatically somebody in a very senior position, such as Mr. Carman, would be to eliminate the possibility of having a realistic understanding of the financial problems of government. To eliminate automatically a person such as Mr. Carman, quite frankly, would be a mistake.

Having said that, if the presence of somebody in Mr. Carman's position is going to be a problem in the months ahead, we can consider that; we are not totally opposed to the idea of appointing somebody as a government representative who is not an employee, but we might just lose some very important expertise. I think there should be some flexibility. Obviously we want to maintain as much peace, tranquillity, understanding and goodwill as possible, and whoever our appointee will be obviously will take that into consideration.

5:40p.m.

The problem with the second recommendation, making recommendations to the Lieutenant Governor in Council annually, is that obviously when you have a member of the three-person committee who is representing the judiciary and a mutually agreed-upon chairman, it is hard to conceive of a situation, if it were necessary to make an annual report, whereby that would not happen.

The concern that has been expressed in relation to building in the word "annually" is that one might provide a bit of a rigid deadline, which could cause more problems than it would solve. Obviously, any committee that is a functioning committee is not going to drag its feet when one of the members of the committee is representing the judiciary. With all due respect to the very able counsel who represents the group of judges, I think it is a concern that will not be a problem.

Similarly, in relation to annual reports of their activities and recommendations, I do not know why that would not automatically follow from any report they would make. Why would they exclude the recommendations? Any such report could be debated in estimates, and under our standing orders any 20 members of the Legislature can refer the report to the standing committee, in this case the standing committee on administration of justice. Through both our standing orders and the estimates process, I think our judges can assume there will be very ample opportunity for full debate by any members who would like to do so.

Section 88 agreed to.

Sections 88 to 90, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 91:

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Chairman, I simply wanted to raise with the Attorney General the concerns over the proposal with respect to the minister's authority that were expressed by Professor Carl Baar, professor of politics and director of the judicial administration program at Brock University.

As I said earlier, there are only a number of sections, and this is the third of the four, that I want to refer to and that I thought would occasion some further debate and useful discussion at the committee stage.

In his suggestions to the committee, Professor Baar has seen the three lines which compose section 91 as an expansion of the minister's authority rather than merely a restatement of that authority. When the justice committee heard the various presentations, it was suggested that the language of section 91 as reprinted -- it was section 92 at that time -- merely repeated the language that was already in the Ministry of the Attorney General Act. The Attorney General agreed with that suggestion and stated that the inclusion in the Courts of Justice Act, Bill 100, was designed only to add emphasis and clarity.

According to the views of Professor Baar, the ensuing discussion of that was somewhat right, but unfortunately wrong in part. He refers to the existing act, chapter 271 of the 1980 Revised Statutes of Ontario, and comments that in clause 5(c) it is said that the Attorney General "shall superintend all matters connected with the administration of justice in Ontario."

The new act, however, refers here to the responsibility of the Attorney General with respect to the administration of the courts. I suppose the question we must ask is whether the administration of justice in Ontario is a somewhat broader or less or more constricting phrase than that of the simple term "administration of the courts."

Professor Baar refers to comments in the McRuer report and in debates in this House in February and March 1969. I will not deal with them any further because the suggestions referred to in the letter and in Professor Barr's written submission are available to the staff of the Attorney General.

From a review of what has been said in Hansard here, and also with respect to certain changes in the statutes in British Columbia, he does refer to certain conclusions. He suggests there are two.

"(1) At best," he writes, "section 92 adds nothing to the Attorney General's functions. In this interpretation, it is a restatement but not a clarification."

As I have said, he refers to section 92 in his letter, but in effect that is section 91 in the reprinted and amended bill before us now.

His second conclusion is as follows: "(2) At worst, section 92 does add to or strengthen the Attorney General's functions. The term 'administration of the courts' is broader than the existing term 'judicial offices,' potentially adding to existing executive authority. While it is also not as broad as 'administration of justice,' it has more content and thus could be more easily invoked by an executive seeking to impose its authority on the judiciary in a dispute over matters of court administration."

In his summation, Professor Baar suggests that the committee would be best advised not to enact section 92 or, as I have said, what is in fact section 91 before us. Either it is somewhat less than we had before or it is somewhat more. Perhaps a professor is able to give us that choice without necessarily saying which it is, but it would appear that in one way or the other the section before us is somewhat different. Whether that difference is detrimental to the administration of justice in this province or not, I do not know.

Mr. Wildman: Or incremental.

Mr. Breithaupt: It could be incremental; that is so. I simply raise the point because it was one of the few items not otherwise resolved. It may be something which will attract interest from other judicial scholars. The Attorney General may be quite prepared to leave the section simply as it is, but I felt the point was worth having a brief discussion upon because, obviously, Professor Baar has given it some particular thought and the references are there for those who come after us.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: As far as section 91 is concerned, it does represent a consensus that has been reached by the ministry and the judiciary in this province as to what would be appropriate for this legislation. I do not feel inclined to disturb this consensus.

I do not see anything different in substance between "the Attorney General shall superintend all matters connected with the administration of justice in Ontario" and "the Attorney General shall superintend all matters connected with the administration of the courts." I think the administration of justice goes much beyond the courts. This is a section that is included under courts administration, so it would be appropriate I think to make it known that the Attorney General does have some responsibility with respect to the administration of the courts, which falls within his general responsibility and accountability under the Ministry of the Attorney General Act.

In this particular case we have narrowed the role of the Attorney General in highlighting the fact that my responsibility is other than for matters that are assigned by law to the judiciary. We assign a number of matters.

5:50 p.m.

What we are trying to accomplish here, and sometimes this principle is lost in the context of our understandable concern for the independence of the judiciary, is that while this is a very fundamental principle and of crucial importance to the administration of justice, I think in all of this debate one should not lose sight of the fact that there is also under our parliamentary system of democracy a principle called accountability of ministers of the crown in relation to these issues. In this particular section we are simply trying to underline the principle of the accountability of the Attorney General and, at the same time, recognize the importance of the independence of the judiciary.

Mr. Cassidy: Not having participated in the clause-by-clause consideration, perhaps I can simply register my feeling on the record and hope that perhaps the government will give this more attention in the future.

It is my feeling, looking not just at section 91 but also at the sections that follow immediately after it, that the Attorney General and his ministry have failed to provide leadership in looking at the needs of the users of the justice system as opposed to those of the people who are involved in producing justice.

I am afraid the courts and the legal system in this province have fallen into substantial disrepute among a lot of people because justice is costly, justice is complex and justice is often extremely delayed in Ontario. It is encrusted with too many traditions, and no means is created in this bill for the Attorney General, the ministry, court administrators or anybody to cut through them. There is no concept of the need to manage the courts in order to ensure that, in addition to preserving the independence of the judiciary, due regard is also paid to the needs of the people who are meant to be served by the justice system.

I do not need to tread too heavily on the fact that justice delayed is often justice denied. This is something that affects not only individuals but also people in business, often small business people, for example, who can be harassed literally out of business by the use of judicial devices and threats to use the courts by large corporations with access to legal resources that small enterprises cannot afford.

I am afraid that this kind of problem -- the problem of delays, the problem of the fact that the courts have an extremely antiquated and slow, cumbersome system of proceedings -- is not addressed in the administrative features of this reworking of the Courts of Justice Act. I am really sorry about that because it seems to me that sooner or later we have to do such things as look at the use of electronics, the use of computers and those kinds of things to ensure better scheduling. We have to look at the question of whether justices should still be able to work only from 10 until 12 with a 15-minute break at 11 o'clock to have a cup of tea, and then from 1:30 until 3:30 in the afternoon and then go home.

We have to look at the amount of waste motion that takes place in many of the courts, where innumerable cases are brought forward and are then deferred for various reasons. We have to look at the abuses of court time that are taken by solicitors, by lawyers who have absences because of their duties in the Legislature or because of other things that lead them to propose and to get the courtesy of continued deferrals.

We have to look at all those things in order to try to ensure that the system can be more effective and can be seen to be more effective and fair and, to the extent possible, less costly and less complex for the users.

Section 91 agreed to.

Sections 92 to 134, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 135:

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak on the section first.

Mr. Boudria: That is irrelevant.

Mr. Chairman: I wonder if we can follow the rotation we have been following.

Mr. Boudria: When they are over here, they can speak first. That is going to take a long time.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Chairman, the member for Ottawa Centre sometimes gets the rows confused, who is in the opposition and where he is. The last time he tried to get up to speak was at Algonquin College at the meeting of the board of directors.

Mr. Chairman: I think we are debating this section of the bill.

Mr. Roy: As a result of his intervention, the director resigned.

Mr. Chairman: We are on section 135.

Mr. Roy: I am sympathetic to the confusion of the member for Ottawa Centre.

M. le Président, je voudrais parler brièvement de l'article 135, mais peut-être avant de commencer a discuter cet article, je voudrais faire un commentaire sur les activités de mon collègue, le député du comté d'Ottawa -- centre --

Interjections.

M. Roy: M. le Président, ces députés-là ne me comprennent pas et essaient d'anticiper mon argument; surtout les bandes du NPD sont très sensibles et ça a peut-être quelque chose a faire avec les sondages, je ne sais pas; mais, de toute façon, je ne veux pas perdre trop de temps a parler de mon collègue d'Ottawa -- centre parce que franchement, ça n'en vaut pas la peine. Monsieur le Président, l'article 135 et l'initiative prise par le Procureur général de l'Ontario en déclarant les deux langues officielles au niveau de l'administration de la justice est une étape fort importante ici en Ontario.

A différentes reprises, j'ai félicité le Procureur général de son initiative et je voudrais encore une fois le faire parce que certainement, au niveau de l'administration de la justice, nous croyons que c'est une étape dans l'histoire de l'Ontario qui va être remarquée et qu'on va se rappeler pendant longtemps. Je trouve ça intéressant de voir que le Procureur général est assis ici avec son collègue, le ministre des Affaires intergouvernementales, qui lui aussi s'intéresse a l'avenir des Franco-Ontariens.

C'est intéressant, je sais que, vous deux, vous êtes très sympathiques à la cause, mais souvent dans votre parti on ressent que chez certains, comme le Premier ministre et d'autres, il y a moins d'enthousiasme, il y a toujours cette crainte -- le ministre de l'Éducation souvent démontre un manque d'enthousiasme --

Interjection.

M. Roy: Alors, je voulais continuer et dire simplement que c'est une initiative qui mérite certainement d'être soulignée, et je trouve ça intéressant que même quand le Procureur général a pris l'initiative en question ici, en Ontario, il n'y pas eu d'émeutes, personne n'a cassé les vitres et ne s'est trop plaint; l'administration de la province a continué, on ne ressent pas que la population veuille piller la maison du Procureur général, qu'elle veuille le bouillir dans l'huile, qu'elle veuille défaire le gouvernement. On ne ressent pas ça, ici, en Ontario. On a eu une intervention des députés de Stormont, Dundas et Glengarry --

Mr. Chairman: If I may, I would draw the member's attention to the clock. Is it your intention to continue at 8 p.m.?

Mr. Roy: Yes, Mr. Chairman, we have further things to say.

The House recessed at 6 p.m.

10 avril 1984