REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF HAMILTON-WENTWORTH AMENDMENT ACT
METROPOLITAN TORONTO POLICE FORCE COMPLAINTS ACT
The House met at 10 am.
Prayers.
MEMBERS' PRIVILEGES
Mr. Speaker: With reference to the matter raised yesterday by the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan) relating to section 38 of the Legislative Assembly Act, the matter of any member's debts is, of course, between the member and his creditors. However, if the question is whether or not section 38 prohibits any legal action against a member with respect to such debts during the period mentioned in the section, the answer, of course, is yes, it does prohibit such action.
Mr. Spensieri: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: I rise this morning to correct the record. The record needs correction as a result of comments, to which you have referred, by the member for Bellwoods in this House on December 6 arising out of a Sun article of the same date. Both the article and the honourable member's point of privilege are, in my humble submission, calculated to damage and tarnish my reputation.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I must point out to the honourable member that you may correct your own record, but you may not correct the record of any other member.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Perhaps I can be of some assistance in this regard, at least to express my own opinion. You are aware of what went on yesterday in the local press; it was raised in this House by the whip of the New Democratic Party. Surely my colleague has an opportunity to use at least a small bit of your time and the time of the House to do what he proposes to do, and that is to correct the record as it affects his own personal life. If he wants to make a personal statement, surely that would be permissible. I really think that under these circumstances he has the right to speak and we have the responsibility to listen.
Mr. Speaker: If I may respond to that, certainly he has a right to make a personal statement, as does any member in this House. I just reiterate that he may correct his own record but not the record of other members.
Mr. Spensieri: Mr. Speaker, if it has to be as a matter of personal statement, so be it. I will keep it on a more general plane.
As members of this House we have no fewer rights than private citizens to dispute, negotiate or otherwise settle commercial accounts for which we are responsible. Shortly before writing the letter that was referred to in the member's statement, I received a letter from Credit Bureau Collections, which I will quote in part. The letter says: "We will be issuing a writ in seven days unless we hear from you immediately. The purpose of the writ will be to have you examined in small claims court forthwith. You may not only lose time from work, but the cost of the judgement is also payable by you," etc.
While we have the same rights as members, we do not have the luxury of selecting any date on the calendar to attend any venue anywhere in Ontario at this time -- Orillia in this particular case -- because of our parliamentary, constituency and committee duties, and even political duties to our parties, while the House is in session.
It is for that reason and that reason alone that I chose to avail myself of section 38 to explain to the collection agency the procedural niceties that have to be established and adhered to when it wishes to summon a member in a quasi-judicial or small claims court function.
For the record, given the poisoned atmosphere that has been engendered by the poisoned print of the member of the press gallery, I have offered to settle this claim, notwithstanding the obvious merits and the obvious need for defence. I wish to assure the member for Bellwoods and the press gallery member that they will not be receiving Christmas cards from me.
ORAL QUESTIONS
EASTERN ONTARIO DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry and Trade. I read with some interest the discussion of the neglect of eastern Ontario, which was collectively admitted last night, and some of the solutions of his colleagues to address that chronic neglect in every policy area that has gone on in eastern Ontario.
As the minister responsible for regional development, will he not agree that his colleagues have expressed want of confidence in him because of his failure to address the problems in eastern Ontario over a large number of years? For example, he is aware that the percentage of Eastern Ontario Development Corp. loans has dropped dramatically in the past several years. Five years ago, $22 million was spent on regional development in the east. Last year it was $6 million, comprising roughly 8.7 per cent of the development budget.
Mr. Speaker: Question, please.
Mr. Peterson: I am sure he is aware that unemployment leaped dramatically in Ottawa-Carleton. According to the figures this morning, unemployment is up by almost two percentage points in Ottawa-Carleton in eastern Ontario. Does he agree with me that they are expressing a real lack of confidence in his ability to address the inequities in eastern Ontario?
Hon. F. S. Miller: I will have to be close to the microphone, Mr. Speaker. I have lost my voice.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Hon. F. S. Miller: I had better have it back by tomorrow.
Mr. Kerrio: Is the minister sure it was not from hollering at the other three candidates?
Mr. Bradley: At least he did not attack the Premier (Mr. Davis).
Hon. F. S. Miller: No, I would not, because he is the best Premier we have ever had.
My colleague makes a habit of pulling these figures out of the air. Last night, we talked about EODC and the need for more stimulation in the east, but that does not mean there has not been a lot of effort. We had the eastern Ontario subsidiary agreements. EODC has helped a number of corporations. What we did stress was the need in that area to have more reforestation, if possible, because we believe it is an area that shows promise for that. I personally suggested some tax incentives that would help skew the decision for eastern Ontario.
Mr. Peterson: With some sympathy, I say to the minister his eye has gone and his voice has gone. What is next? He is falling apart.
They have collectively expressed some great disapproval, as I said, in the policy of the government towards eastern Ontario. Is he aware that even the Provincial Auditor is critical that his ministry has inflated the job creation figures through EODC? He projected some 2,856 jobs in the 1983-84 management report. In fact, he has created 52 per cent of those jobs and he is inflating what little he does now to extract as much political credit as he can.
Mr. Speaker: Question, please.
Mr. Peterson: Will he not agree with me that it is time for dramatic action in all these policy areas? As the minister responsible, how is he going to address them?
10:10 a.m.
Hon. F. S. Miller: I do not think we collectively made those kinds of comments at all. Of course, we were addressing the difficulties of an area. With great respect, I want to say to the honourable member that we are never satisfied as long as there are people unemployed. This government will keep on trying to find innovative programs to help people all over this province, whether it is in the north or in the east. We have had the EODC and we have had special agreements for those areas because they need special attention.
I would go to the riding of the colleague to the left of the member and point out that in the past year and a half we have done a great deal for the city of Pembroke; we brought in a lot of money for sewers and watermains, for industrial parks and for Timbertown. We have gone to Renfrew with Ontario Development Corp. assistance. We have gone to Arnprior with assistance. The member had better go down there once in a while and find out that we and not the Liberals still sweep that country.
Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Industry and Trade, in view of the fact that he refuses to establish a ministry on behalf of eastern Ontario, whether he thinks his special program of inflating the figures of jobs created by EODC by 90 per cent is an adequate response to genuine job creation in eastern Ontario.
Hon. F. S. Miller: Of course not, Mr. Speaker. There was a technical error and it was picked up by the auditor; it was nothing deliberate. Indeed, we still had lots of new jobs created by the development corporations. Why are members in the opposition so anxious to have us approve those loans if they do not think they create jobs? They know they do.
Mr. Peterson: The litany of neglect goes on and on. The minister knows that Ottawa-Carleton, for example, has one of the lowest vacancy rates of any area in Ontario. He realizes the tile drainage support is lower than in any other area in the province.
Mr. Speaker: Question, please.
Mr. Peterson: The minister is aware that the availability of hospital beds in Ottawa-Carleton, being 3.2 per cent, is below the provincial average of 3.5 per cent. He is aware that the road situation is deplorable, with 30 per cent of the roads in Ottawa-Carleton below provincial standards, 79 per cent in Prescott-Russell and 72 per cent in Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry. The list of neglect goes on.
Mr. Speaker: Question, please.
Mr. Peterson: Where does the minister stand on his colleague's proposal to have a separate ministry of eastern Ontario development to address this chronic tale of neglect?
Hon. F. S. Miller: First, the member is going to discover on December 13 that his party is not doing as well as he thinks it is. Second, I do not believe a special ministry is required. I believe the policies can be sharpened for the area.
RECYCLING
Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have another question for the Minister of Industry and Trade. I know he is in failing health and does not look well; the evidence of that is everywhere.
I want to ask the minister a question about an impending decision his cabinet colleagues are going to have to make, particularly the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Brandt), obviously with his advice. I refer to the question of steel cans in this province and some kind of refillable, recyclable container, aluminum, glass or plastic.
Is the minister aware that there are currently some 600 jobs at stake in the Ontario steel industry? Since that comes directly under his ministry, has he made strong representations to his colleague the Minister of the Environment, who has delayed this decision now for a year or two and is unwilling to deal with it? Is the minister giving him advice that we cannot abandon our present policy and must maintain those jobs in the Ontario steel industry and that we should not change that policy?
Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member is picking his areas very carefully today. He knows the advice I give my colleague --
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Hon. F. S. Miller: If I followed my doctor's advice -- she is just over there -- I would not be saying a word. She said, "Don't say anything for 24 hours."
Mr. Foulds: That has nothing to do with the minister's physical health. It is to protect his political health.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Hon. F. S. Miller: I can only point out to my friend that he has made a selective choice of statistics. The advice I give my colleague in cabinet, as the member knows, is mine to give and not his to know. I point out to him, though, that the alternative kinds of containers all have job content and many of them have other advantages.
There would be a lot of jobs in the recycling of aluminum cans, if they were chosen. I have seen statistics that show there may be more jobs, in total, with aluminum cans and glass containers than there would be with steel. There would also be less problem because the value of aluminum is so high. I think it is about $900 a ton on a recycled basis.
We would not have as much solid waste, and that is one of the objectives of the Ministry of the Environment. I suspect and hope it is one of the member's objectives that we do not continue to fill every available piece of empty land in this province with garbage. One has to assess not only the environmental impact but also the jobs. We should do a fair job by measuring all the jobs, not just some of the jobs.
Mr. Peterson: Does that mean the minister is rationalizing a change of policy? Does that mean -- I am trying to interpret the minister's words -- his government has changed its policy in this regard and he now is explaining and rationalizing that, or does he not feel he has a responsibility to lay those figures clearly in front of this House and to protect the people of Hamilton, particularly their jobs? At present, there are 24,000 unemployed, and there are still layoffs in the steel industry. Surely it should be the minister's responsibility to stand up and speak for that. Would the minister not agree, or is that not his responsibility in this matter?
Hon. F. S. Miller: I speak for jobs in all parts of the province.
Mr. Charlton: Mr. Speaker, part of the discussion, as the minister has said, is around the question of recycling. In all the discussions that have gone on so far, there has been no indication that this government is prepared to play a major role in ensuring the recycling and collection system is set up. If the government is going to move to other, more recyclable types of containers for carbonated pop, will it ensure that the collection and recycling system is set up so some of what the minister is talking about will occur?
Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I will redirect that to the Minister of the Environment.
Hon. Mr. Brandt: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the honourable member opposite knows this government has committed well over $1 million a year for a recycling program. In addition, the delay with respect to the policy that was raised in an earlier question is singularly because of the difficulties we have had in developing a very comprehensive, province-wide recycling program.
This is going to require the co-operation of industry, and we are taking a look at not only the job question my colleague spoke of earlier but also a very comprehensive recycling program. I want to assure the member that all the components of this very complicated and difficult issue are being looked at. I hope to come forward with a policy that will meet all those challenges and all those questions.
Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, does that mean the minister is going to change his policy, and he is just looking for a way to explain it and to implement the recycling program? Is that what he is saying in this House? Clearly, it sounds like the Minister of the Environment, along with the Minister of Industry and Trade, is rationalizing now, in advance, a change of policy. If he is not, he should stand up in this House and say it. Surely he owes us some clear answers after he has been fooling around with this question for years and creating a great deal of uncertainty with respect to jobs in this province. What is the minister's policy?
Hon. Mr. Brandt: One thing I know, Mr. Speaker, is that the Leader of the Opposition does not have a position or a policy on this, other than that during a free day this week he happened to go spinning through the great community of Hamilton and probably heard from Hamilton that there is some concern with respect to the viability of the steel industry as it relates to the bottles-and-cans policy.
There is no change of policy on the part of this government. We are looking very carefully at the whole question of bottles and cans, and as my colleague mentioned in his response to the member, we are looking at all segments of the industry. I want to assure the member and the residents of Hamilton that we are particularly sensitive to the needs of that community and that we are going to do everything we can to protect the jobs in Hamilton to the extent it is possible on the part of this government.
Mr. Martel: The government has had 10 or 12 years to develop the policy.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
10:20 a.m.
Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Industry and Trade (Mr. F. S. Miller), who indicated he would be back shortly. I will stand down my question for my colleague the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart).
TELEPHONE RATES
Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Transportation and Communications. It concerns the deregulation of long-distance telephone service, a matter I raised in this House more than a month ago. My colleague the member for Cornwall (Mr. Samis) raised it in the minister's estimates just a day or two ago.
Does the minister recall that when I called for a special debate on November 5 he opposed it? Hansard quotes him as saying: "Before the hearing winds up, whenever that may be, my ministry representatives will be making a very strong appearance before the CRTC to deal with this matter... . We will do so as soon as we get the opportunity, and that will be within the next few days when our position appears on the slate."
Mr. Speaker: Question, please.
Mr. Swart: In spite of that commitment, is it not true that the hearings wound up exactly three weeks ago today and he took no stand whatsoever at those hearings? Why did he not carry out his commitment? What is his government's position? Is he for or against the proposed deregulation?
Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, our position will be made known very soon. The hearings have been held. We were present at the hearings, as I told the honourable member, continually monitoring all the input from all the specific interest groups.
My senior staff are now preparing the final argument to be presented to the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission. They are doing this in conjunction with my colleague the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Elgie) because his ministry, on behalf of the consumers of Ontario, also has a very keen interest in the position of this government; so we will be going forward with a co-ordinated position of my ministry and Consumer and Commercial Relations.
My colleague the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Drea) also has people on that committee working on the position because he feels he has a responsibility to his interest groups in this province with regard to telephone rates.
If the member is not aware, I will make him aware that I believe the final day for argument is December 24. Our position paper, our final argument paper, is being put together very carefully by the ministers and ministries I have mentioned. That paper will be presented to the CRTC before its final argument time is over.
Mr. Swart: I am quite amazed at the minister's answer. He seems to think he is sitting there as a sort of judge to hear all sides and then make a decision.
Mr. Speaker: Question, please.
Mr. Swart: Does he not realize there was a greater opportunity there, where in the cross-examination he could have battled on the side of the consumers, particularly the residential consumers, who have very little voice?
Did he not read his own comprehensive studies, which I have here, showing that if no revenue transfers were made from long-distance to local rates, such local rates would increase by more than 100 per cent and the cost of the local rates would go up by more than $1 billion a year? Will he now, before the deadline on December 24, which I know about, make a written submission to the CRTC protecting Ontario local Bell customers by strenuously opposing the deregulation proposal? Let us have an answer here today.
Hon. Mr. Snow: I am not going to say to the member or make a commitment to him that I am going to put in a proposal that he was right, because I am sure there will be some philosophical differences between his opinion and what we feel the opinion of this government will be in the best interests of the citizens of Ontario. We happen to be responsible and feel that we have to answer to all the citizens of Ontario, not one narrow interest group that he might perhaps be involved in.
I assure the member, in response to the part of his question about the fact that we will submit our paper before December 24, that yes, this will be done. I said that in my first answer and I do not know why it was necessary for a second supplementary to ask me the same question again.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, since the statistics, which the minister is aware of, indicate that in Ontario and Quebec as many as 400,000 people will have to give up their personal telephone service if the deregulation goes forward, would the minister not agree that we as members of the House share his responsibility, since many of our constituents will be directly affected if his stand is not appropriately taken? Would he not guarantee he would give the government's position to this House before it is presented at the hearing?
Hon. Mr. Snow: No, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Swart: I want to say the answer of the minister is almost scary, especially when he refers to consumers as a narrow interest group.
Mr. Speaker: Question, please.
Mr. Swart: Does the minister not know that deregulation in the United States and all the evidence that he has point to a tremendous increase in local rates if the deregulation goes through? Is he aware, for instance, that in the United States the local rates went up 37 per cent in the first nine months of this year after deregulation? A congressional study said, "The pending local rate increases are of unprecedented size and show no signs of stabilizing."
Is it not true the minister is siding with the major corporations that were at the hearings and want the lower long-distance rates? He is going to permit the residential consumers of this province to be substantially penalized on behalf of his corporate friends.
Hon. Mr. Snow: No, I am not aware of any of those things the honourable member is talking about. I can assure him --
Mr. Swart: Go and look at what happened in the United States and then you will know.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Hon. Mr. Snow: I happen to have a telephone in the United States also and my bill has not changed five cents since the so-called deregulation or the splitting-up of the Bell system there. I have a little bit of personal experience of that.
I am certainly aware of the studies that have been done, butt can assure the member that in the presentations of my ministry on behalf of the government of Ontario to the CRTC we will be making recommendations that would not allow the things to happen that he is trying to use as scare tactics here in the Legislature.
EASTERN ONTARIO DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I just had a note that the Minister of Industry and Trade (Mr. F. S. Miller) is on his way in. I appreciate that he at least is here, unlike the Premier (Mr. Davis) and the other leadership candidates.
Mr. Speaker: Now for the question.
Mr. Foulds: Now for the question. Since the auditor has documented in his report on the Eastern Ontario Development Corp. that this ministry has inflated the job creation figures through EODC programs by 90 per cent, why does the minister oppose the creation of a ministry of eastern affairs and why will he not accept the recommendations of the auditor to improve ministry accounting of those jobs?
Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the honourable member's leader, I am pleased to answer his question. I would simply say --
Mr. Eakins: Don't get hoarse yourself.
Hon. F. S. Miller: No, but I am in a "hoarse" race.
Mr. Speaker: Now for the answer.
Hon. F. S. Miller: I am not used to leaning over the table like this.
Mr. Speaker: Having said that, may we have the answer, please.
Hon. F. S. Miller: There is absolutely no relationship between the two parts of the member's question. The statistical points the auditor brought out, which were valid and which are being corrected, have nothing to do with whether we do need or do not need a separate ministry for eastern Ontario. We will certainly follow the auditor's advice and improve our data collection processes.
On the other hand, I would suggest to the member that there is no reason to create more bureaucracy within the government of Ontario unless there is a very real objective in so doing.
10:30 a.m.
Mr. Foulds: Did I understand the minister to say the creation of a Ministry of Northern Affairs was a bureaucracy? Furthermore, did I understand the minister to say in his reply he was taking steps to correct the situation? The ministry's response in the auditor's report indicates: "We agree that these statistics should be accurately labelled. However, we do not agree with the suggestions made as they add unnecessary complications to a very rough and ready tool."
Will the minister stop inflating the job creation figures in the programs of the Eastern Ontario Development Corp. and Ontario Development Corp.?
Hon. F. S. Miller: I do not intend to inflate figures. Very often, the press or the people in the opposition will ask me to give estimates of jobs that will be created by whatever program, especially when I was Treasurer. I usually tried to avoid that because of the games people play with figures.
I simply believe that if one helps create small industries, one creates more jobs. We do our best to measure them without spending a lot of taxpayers' money. Jobs are created by the Northern Ontario Development Corp., EODC, etc. Second, I point out that the logistical problems of northern and eastern Ontario are somewhat different.
Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, the minister obviously gave those grants on the basis of certain operating assumptions and they have proved to be wrong. Is he now admitting his programs have been a failure and have not delivered the jobs he intended to create?
Hon. F. S. Miller: No, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Foulds: Does the minister admit the auditor caught his ministry almost doubling the figures for the number of jobs created through the Eastern Ontario Development Corp.? What steps is the minister going to take to ensure that the jobs his ministry says are created in eastern Ontario are actually created in eastern Ontario?
Hon. F. S. Miller: First, no one ever knows exactly how many jobs are created by any action. Does the member accept that? We do our best to approximate it. One can spend a lot of money on approximations. The major objective of a loan is to help a small business survive. If a small business survives, I am satisfied that jobs are protected and created. We have done both and we have done it very well.
GOVERNMENT SPENDING
Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Provincial Secretary for Justice. I congratulate him; he was the star of this year's Provincial Auditor's report. I want to ask him a question with respect to his spending.
As the minister will recall, we had discussions about the stage-managing of the opening of the various technology centres when he was the minister and he said they were handled so brilliantly. Does he think it is appropriate to spend public money to take down a wall in a hotel in Sudbury so that he could move a machine in to have his picture taken sitting on the machine, and then having to replace that wall?
The minister could have had his picture taken sitting on that machine outside in the parking lot. Does he think this is an appropriate expenditure of public money when he is one of the people who does not like government spending all that much?
Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, I can say very clearly that was one of the most justifiable expenditures I have ever seen. That was one of the most interesting exhibits to go on. That particular technology centre --
Interjections.
Hon. Mr. Walker: Hold on for a moment.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Hon. Mr. Walker: They will have an opportunity to tackle in a few minutes, if they want; however, if they would not mind, they should hold off until then.
I can say to the Leader of the Opposition that particular display was a special display of the mining and technology machinery of the north. It was a special experiment that the member for Sudbury (Mr. Gordon) would say would be very well received in the north. This was the first time we brought that machinery together.
Given it was in the middle of December a couple of years ago when that event occurred, the member can understand why we did not want all the people to see these machines outside. It was a display of the machinery; it was inside; it was a modest expense. It was even cheaper than the reception held by the Leader of the Opposition, with which he had so much difficulty.
Mr. Peterson: The minister also thought his book was a legitimate expenditure of taxpayers' money.
If it is so wonderful, why did the minister have the member for Sudbury authorize tearing down the wall? Why was it not part of the regular program stage-managed by his friends to put this thing together? Why is it a last-minute decision made by him? Why is the minister tearing down hotels in the name of his own self-glorification?
Hon. Mr. Walker: I think the answer is very clear: it was the only way we could get the machinery inside.
PLANT SHUTDOWN
Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Northern Affairs concerning the closure of Griffith mine at Ear Falls in the minister's own riding. I believe there was a very high-level government meeting yesterday between cabinet members and Stelco to determine the fate of that mine and whether there would be an extension of the April closing date.
Would the minister bring us up to date on the results of that meeting, what position he put at the meeting and what the position of Stelco was, so that we can assure the people in Ear Falls and Red Lake that they will no longer be in limbo wondering what is going to happen?
Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the honourable member's concern about the closure of Griffith mine. As he is well aware, we have had numerous meetings with the company over the last two weeks. We have had meetings with the union and the municipalities. Last week, the chambers of commerce were down from Red Lake and Ear Falls. They met with principals of Stelco. I was told there was to be a high-level meeting yesterday with the Premier (Mr. Davis) and the chief executive officer, Mr. Allan. I was not there and I have not heard the results of that meeting yet.
Mr. Laughren: I have an incredulous supplementary. Is the minister saying he was not in attendance or was not invited to that high-level meeting between the Premier and Stelco? That is truly remarkable considering he is the Minister of Northern Affairs and the community is in his riding.
Since there is an enormous amount at stake in that community, as the mayor of Ear Falls would be quick to tell the minister, I wonder whether he has heard the story that in Schefferville, when the mine closed, a laid-off worker bit off the ear of the mayor of that community. Is the minister not concerned about the health of his friend, Mr. Leschuk, in Ear Falls? Finally, why would the minister not be in attendance at a meeting about the closure of a mine in his own community? How is that possible?
Hon. Mr. Bernier: I know the reeve of Ear Falls very well. I do not think he will be biting anybody's ear off, nor will anybody be biting his ear off. That is sure. Nobody will get near him.
An hon. member: He is the bitee.
Hon. Mr. Bernier: The bitee or the biter.
Mr. Wildman: That is why it is called Ear Falls.
Hon. Mr. Bernier: I am confident that the meetings and discussions that go on at the Premier's level will come down to us in the fullness of time. He is aware of our concerns, as expressed by my other cabinet colleagues, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay), the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Pope) and the Minister of Industry and Trade (Mr. F. S. Miller). We have had some in-depth discussions and I am looking forward to the results of those meetings when they come down to us.
Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, let me ask the minister a specific question. He is aware that the mine is operated under lease. If they close down that mine, will he insist that none of the equipment will be removed and there will be a possibility of pursuing some other operator for that mine? Will he make that solemn commitment now? As he knows, it is getting very serious and there is a possibility of finding another operator for that mine. Will he make the commitment they will not remove the equipment?
Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, as the Leader of the Opposition knows, the Premier directed a letter to the chief executive officer the day the announcement was made asking that they reconsider their decision and, if the economics are not there, that they give us a further length of time with respect to the closure. Since that time, my colleagues the Minister of Labour, the Minister of Industry and Trade and the Minister of Natural Resources have met with the company.
I have met the lessees, the Conwest people, to impress on them that the contractual arrangements should be adjusted to allow what the member has suggested, that the mill remain on the site. Once that dam is busted, the open pit filled, and the mine equipment and the mine itself removed, it is highly unlikely anything will ever be replaced. We are asking them to leave it there and to mothball it in the hope that something else will come down the stream. I am confident it will.
10:40 a.m.
Mr. Peterson: It is not Conwest's equipment; it is Pickands Mather's equipment.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
BRANTFORD MANUFACTURING PLANT
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Industry and Trade. The minister has been criticized for being overenthusiastic in the projection of the numbers of jobs created by his initiative. Does he recall making a trans-Atlantic phone call to the Brantford Expositor in March 1984 announcing that a Belgian firm, OSB, would be making a $9-million investment in a Brantford manufacturing plant and that precisely 59 workers would be employed?
Hon. F. S. Miller: Very well, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Nixon: What happened to that?
Hon. F. S. Miller: I have not had the chance to say any more.
Mr. Nixon: Oh, I thought maybe the minister was just --
Hon. F. S. Miller: That is all right. My friend can go ahead.
Mr. Speaker: New question. I saw you stand up twice and ask two questions, and that is all you are allowed.
Mr. Nixon: I did not want to interrupt, Mr. Speaker, and I do not want to interrupt you, but with your permission, I would like to put a supplementary.
Mr. Speaker: All right.
Mr. Nixon: Will the minister tell us what happened to that specific projection, which he released locally by trans-Atlantic telephone call with all the puffery that his staff could possibly pump into it?
Hon. F. S. Miller: I hardly think the latter part is accurate. There was very little puffery. I did it myself.
Mr. Nixon: The minister is very good at that.
Hon. F. S. Miller: No, I am not, not unless I am talking about myself.
In this case I was in Europe, in Brussels. I met the company. It had a difficulty with the Foreign Investment Review Agency application. I called directly to the minister responsible for FIRA and got an oral clearance for their application on the telephone. At that point in our history, that was the last problem they faced. It was their understanding that they had funding arranged under IRDP, the industrial and regional development program, and they asked me to make sure we would have some Ontario Development Corp. funding. I told them, assuming the figures they gave me were accurate, I would ask the ODC board to review it and that probably their application would be approved. Indeed, it was; approval in principle was given.
The IRDP funding turned out to be considerably less than the company estimated. IRDP, as the honourable member knows, is a federal program. When the IRDP funding was lower than they believed it would be, they deemed the operation was not economically feasible and they simply refused to come to Canada.
I do not know whether they have made any other decisions to go anywhere else in the world. As a matter of fact, the moment I saw the rescission request on that, I asked for information to see whether we still had a chance to convince them and the federal government to get together to make that job opportunity possible.
AMBULANCE LABOUR DISPUTE
Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Labour in the absence of the Minister of Health (Mr. Norton). It is regarding the strike at the McKechnie Ambulance Service in Collingwood.
First of all, I want to ask the minister whether he is aware that the employees of the private operator of that ambulance service have had no contract since June 30, that there has been a strike since December 3 and that the employees are getting $1 an hour less than the Ministry of Health ambulance drivers get where the Ministry of Health runs the service directly.
The ambulance service offered them 3.9 per cent, while at the same time an arbitrator's report came down and gave the ministry staff a 6.5 per cent increase, which means the spread is going to be even greater. In view of these discrepancies for people who are doing exactly the same work for the government, does the minister feel that is a fair offer? Does he not agree the workers have been forced out on strike by a private ambulance operator who is just unwilling to make a decent offer to employees in this province?
Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the circumstances. I have to say, as I have said before, I do not comment during these work stoppages on the position of the respective parties; that would be counterproductive to resolving them.
The honourable member is correct; it is a private operator. However, it is not just in ambulance services, but also in many other services, where the private sector pays less than the public sector.
Mr. Cooke: All the money comes from the Ministry of Health; so the matter could be settled very quickly. Since the minister says he takes a hands-off approach, I wonder whether he is also aware that the Ministry of Health is not taking a hands-off approach in this labour dispute. In fact, management staff is running the ambulance service.
The Ministry of Health is paying these management people substantially more than what the ambulance drivers are getting paid, and they are put up in a hotel. The extra costs the Minister of Health is pouring into this area to provide ambulance service while the strike is on could settle the strike if the Ministry of Health would simply become directly involved.
Would the minister at least talk directly to the Minister of Health and suggest that the best way of settling this dispute and other disputes with private ambulance operators is for the Ministry of Health to negotiate directly with the Ontario Public Service Employees Union rather than taking this in-between step, which is really irrelevant since the Minister of Health controls the purse strings?
Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I will be pleased to speak to the Minister of Health. I am not sure I am going to make any recommendations to him, but I will certainly discuss the matter with him and do so at the earliest opportunity.
PORT WELLER DRY DOCKS
Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry and Trade. The minister will be aware that the Niagara Peninsula, particularly the eastern end of the Niagara Peninsula, has been among those parts of the province that have experienced very high unemployment. At one time in the middle of winter, it was 22 per cent and it is still higher than the national average.
Port Weller Dry Docks in St. Catharines once had 850 employees at its peak and it is down to 350 employees at last count. As the minister may recall, in November 1983 and again this session, I raised with the Treasurer (Mr. Grossman) the possibility of Port Weller Dry Docks receiving financial assistance from the provincial government to help to alleviate the serious unemployment situation that is facing the former employees of the drydock.
Would the minister indicate to the House whether he is now prepared to announce funding for Port Weller Dry Docks similar to the funding made available in Collingwood, in the riding of the Chairman of Management Board of Cabinet (Mr. McCague)? I believe $1.5 million was provided to the Collingwood shipyard and used to help to construct a state-of-the-art freighter. Is the minister prepared to offer, agree to and announce the same assistance to Port Weller Dry Docks?
Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, the short answer is yes. Indeed, that was one of the caveats I put into the Collingwood deal. The Collingwood deal was, as the member said, for a specialized self-unloading vessel, probably the largest built so far on the Great Lakes, and a state-of-the-art development which we felt was worthy of some assistance. It was for the Paterson Steamship Lines. I believe it is the first freighter of that size they have purchased and probably the first new one for some time.
We also felt there was going to be quite a slump in the Collingwood shipyards' employment statistics if they did not win that contract. We looked at the man-hours per month over the next three years and that contract nicely kept them fully employed. I have been through Port Weller Dry Docks at least twice. I have talked to the manager of Port Weller Dry Docks within the last 48 hours and to the owner of the company within the last 48 hours.
The member will recall that in the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development document we allowed $12 million to $15 million for the expansion of Port Weller Dry Docks and the addition of an extra dock so they could build as well as repair. They basically depend upon repair business these days more than refitting. It is ideally located for that, much better than Collingwood.
We will certainly do so, but we have to have the same set of conditions. There has to be an order to which to apply the assistance. The problem with the orders, as they will tell the member, is that naval orders they could have done and for which they did engineering have been directed to the east and west coasts and are costing us dearly. Ontario has one of the few unsubsidized shipbuilding industries in the world.
10:50 a.m.
Mr. Bradley: I understand what the minister is saying in terms of the building of the ships. In terms of the expansion and improvement of the facilities so Port Weller can be even more competitive than it is at present and more able to handle almost any kind of job, when I directed this question to the Treasurer during his estimates, he indicated that one of the real problems was that the federal government would not move to indicate its participation in this program specifically for improving and expanding the facilities.
Would the minister report to us whether now, with the new government in Ottawa, he has been able to persuade his friends in Ottawa to provide that money so we can move forward with at least that portion of the funding for the Port Weller Dry Docks devoted to expanding and improving facilities?
Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, that is really the domain of the Treasurer. I assume he will be having those discussions because he is currently working out his new agreements with the federal government. He signed the first one within the last week or so. I suspect he is pursuing that at this moment.
It is a very difficult time to ask anyone to make an investment in larger facilities when they are struggling to maintain the existing ones. The member is quite accurate that the state-of-the-art steel-cutting and pattern-forming in that factory is probably the best in Canada. I wish to goodness they were allowed to win their contracts on the basis of competitive bidding. Then they would be very busy.
MILK PRICES
Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations with regard to the community of Wawa. I realize there has been a tragedy in Wawa -- the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay) indicated to me there was one more mining death there last night -- but this is on another matter.
Is the minister aware that, according to figures provided by his own ministry, retail prices for two per cent partly skimmed milk in Wawa average between 58 cents and 86 cents more than retail prices in Sault Ste. Marie, which until recently had one of the highest prices for milk in Ontario because of the Beatrice Foods monopoly? These prices were from June 1983 to June 1984.
Is the minister also aware that the average price of a four-litre pouch of homogenized milk to Wawa consumers in August 1984 was $4.57? If he is aware, what action is he prepared to take to initiate measures by the provincial government to lower retail milk prices in Wawa as requested by 132 petitioners from Wawa, Hawk Junction, Missanabie and Dubreuilville? We have equalized beer prices across the province; surely we can do the same for milk prices.
Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I do not think anyone disputes the fact that smaller communities do not necessarily have the advantages of large communities with regard to getting volume discounts. There are extra transportation costs involved. Frankly, I do not know what the answer to that is. If the member is suggesting there should be cross-subsidization from others throughout the province for that, that is a recommendation to which the government would have to give some consideration. I do not know any other answer, unless that is what he is suggesting.
Mr. Wildman: Is the minister aware that Wawa is supplied by Beatrice Foods in Sault Ste. Marie through a local licensee, the liquefied petroleum gas distributor, who charges a 10 per cent higher wholesale price to Wawa retailers than Beatrice charges Sault Ste. Marie retailers?
Is he aware that such distributors in small northern communities operate as wholesale monopolies because they maintain local dairy licences even though they are not processing milk? Since it appears these dummy dairies produce nothing but higher milk prices, why allow such monopolies to be perpetuated?
Hon. Mr. Elgie: With respect, this ministry is not involved in the licensing of dairies in the north. That question should be addressed to the proper minister.
LOCATION OF TOWER
Mr. Elston: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the entertainer, the Minister of the Environment, who is well known for his song-and-dance routines, not only here but at other parties.
I have a question for the minister concerning transmission of entertainment into eastern Ontario. The minister will be aware that people from Gores Landing are having considerable difficulty in receiving a reply, an answer, a decision from this minister with respect to the location of a television tower for TVOntario in their area. They have requested that the minister provide an opportunity for them to appear at an environmental assessment hearing with respect to the location of that tower. Would the minister provide us with an answer this morning as to his decision with respect to that matter?
Hon. Mr. Brandt: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the honourable member for an endorsement that goes on to indicate just one more time there is nothing but harmony on this side of the House and nothing but disharmony over there. The fact of the matter is that we, as a group, happen to be prepared at all times to work together in a most melodious fashion.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Hon. Mr. Brandt: I feel as if I am being attacked.
With respect to the proposed TV tower in eastern Ontario, my staff has been doing a very comprehensive review of the location, particularly in relation to the aesthetics of the area, because it is a very sensitive area in many respects. It is a rather historical area and we are looking at it in light of all those conditions.
I have written to all the people who have indicated a concern to me. I have spoken to the member for that area on a number of occasions. At this time, I believe an environmental assessment is not necessary and certainly is not required. I believe TVOntario, in response to the needs of that area, has indicated a precise location which is not going to be environmentally upsetting in any way, shape or form. I can give the member that undertaking today.
Mr. Elston: The minister will perhaps be aware of the indications I have received that this tower will be rated in the top eight out of 98 towers in the province in terms of the rating for effective radiated power emissions.
The minister will also be aware he has received support for an environmental assessment hearing request, not only from his friend the Minister of Tourism and Recreation (Mr. Baetz) but also from the member for Northumberland (Mr. Sheppard) and from his federal colleague, the Honourable George Hees, who have all indicated in writing they wish to support the request for a hearing.
Mr. Speaker: Question, please.
Mr. Elston: Will the minister indicate to us today that he is willing to go along with the request of those honourable members in the spirit of co-operation and harmony in his caucus and cabinet to indicate there will be an environmental assessment hearing?
Hon. Mr. Brandt: I thought I had answered that already. I am not prepared to go along with an environmental assessment on the undertaking proposed. I can assure the member that every single concern that has been raised by the people of that area, including the honourable members he mentioned -- and they are very honourable members -- has been taken into account. For example, the questions of the location and height of the tower and the type of radiation emitted by the tower have all been taken into account.
The difficulty we have on this side of the House is that we have to make decisions. We cannot waffle like the members opposite who have the luxury of being able to take four, five or six positions on a given question. We do not have that luxury. We happen to be decision-makers over here.
WATER AND SEWAGE SYSTEMS
Mr. Charlton: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. Perhaps the minister would like to take a moment to talk about the aesthetics in the Kirkland Lake-Round Lake area. He is no doubt aware that next Tuesday the sewage treatment plant in Kirkland Lake will be shut down for some 16 hours for maintenance. During that 16 hours, some two to three million gallons of semi-treated and untreated sewage will be deposited in Murdock Creek and eventually in Round Lake, which is a recreation area.
Can the minister tell us why in 1984 we still have single-circuit sewage treatment plants in this province which, if they have to be shut down for maintenance or breakdown, are totally incapable of handling the sewage they were intended to handle in the first place?
11 a.m.
Hon. Mr. Brandt: Mr. Speaker, it is not unusual for a sewage treatment plant, because of operating conditions at a particular time, to have a breakdown for a short period such as in the highly intensive storm that happened in Toronto or for minor repairs. That type of shutdown for a very limited, focused, narrow period of time in relation to a repair requirement in the plant is not unusual and is not going to be particularly degrading in its environmental impact. In every instance my staff review the situation and determine whether the environment is capable of taking that type of loading in terms of the discharge of the effluent to make absolutely certain it can be done.
Let me give members an example of the headway this province has made. We now have sewage treatment plants in this province that are capable of servicing 96 per cent of the urban population of Ontario. When the honourable member suggests to me we are something less than adequate in the headway we have made in this province, I have to point out to him that our sister province to the east now has some nine per cent treatment, about one 10th the treatment we have here in Ontario.
Instead of criticizing us, the members opposite occasionally should be applauding the kind of progress we are making over here.
Mr. Charlton: Mr. Speaker, I will applaud the minister when he starts talking straight to the people of Ontario. According to Mr. Gillespie of his ministry there are numerous plants around this province like the Kirkland Lake plant. We have one such plant that broke down, was shut down and dumped raw sewage out for a full four months. That is not a short and adequate situation.
Mr. Speaker: Question, please.
Mr. Charlton: The minister has been bragging both in estimates and in the House that he is able to cut the expenditures of his ministry because he has done such a good job and because there is nothing left to spend the money on for sewage treatment in this province. We have umpteen plants like this that are not able to handle the capacity of the communities.
Mr. Speaker: Question, please.
Mr. Charlton: When is the minister going to come up with the money -- in this case about $1 million -- to retrofit that plant so we do not have to face this kind of situation in the future?
Hon. Mr. Brandt: Everyone is aware of the problem that the honourable member is pointing out. It is a short-term problem. It has been approved by my staff after a very careful review.
As is always the case with the kinds of solutions that are developed by the members of the third party, they see a problem and throw $1 million at it; they see another problem, another $1 million. They are the great spenders over there; every problem has a dollar solution.
Mr. McClellan: Just dump the sewage.
Mr. Martel: You would not even make a fifth candidate now.
Hon. Mr. Brandt: I am trying -- I know sometimes I am very trying, but I am trying at the moment. If they are through, I will finish answering the question.
The reality is that in every single budget developed by this ministry we have incorporated very extensive development of our sewage treatment program in this province. The fact that we are now up to 96 per cent did not happen by accident. It happened because of the commitment of this government to the people of Ontario, something the members opposite ought to take account of once in a while.
RIDE PROGRAM
Mr. Spensieri: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Solicitor General and it concerns RIDE, the reduce impaired driving everywhere program. The minister will know that to date there has been no effective way of determining the cost-benefit analysis and the effectiveness of the RIDE program. In fact, the interministry task force of the Premier (Mr. Davis) stated that attempts to assess the impact of RIDE have proven unsuccessful.
Given the recent pronouncements of the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) that we face increasing public demands for accountability and public concern about getting value for tax dollars -- "Public funds are not unlimited," he said -- will the Solicitor General, as he goes about the rhetorical campaign of increasing police activity at this time of the year, indicate to us which, if any, of the police functions that are normally carried out are suffering under the strain of this program? What areas are being neglected because of the annually increasing resources that are being devoted to the RIDE program, which, of course, we all support?
Hon. G. W. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, you are shaking your head. Does that mean I am to answer or not to answer the question?
Mr. Speaker: That means get on with it.
Hon. G. W. Taylor: Oh, that means to answer the question. I just wanted to make sure. I was trying to get your head configurations there.
Regarding the question the honourable member asked, along with my colleague the Attorney General and the task force that was put together on drinking and driving, we think we have made some excellent progress in preventing some of the carnage on the road which we have seen in the past. When one talks, as the honourable member has, about the material that is used, the people who are used and the resources that are used in this program, those decisions are made by the individual police forces throughout Ontario. Like the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Brandt), we think we do a very good job in that area with police forces in Ontario and we have a very elaborate and very extensive program to try to prevent the carnage.
Mr. Spensieri: No one has ever doubted the minister's intention and good faith in this matter, but given the statistics from the research foundation which show that of some 50 million trips made in Canada each year by drinking drivers we are catching only a very minute portion of those offenders, and given that especially around this time of year there is an increasing discrepancy between the rhetoric of law enforcement by the RIDE program and the actual apprehensions that are carried out under the program, will the Solicitor General examine this discrepancy in the success rate and will he indicate to us whether there is some kind of an attitudinal problem out there among our police forces, which means the ministry's directives and objectives in this connection are not being adhered to? Are the police officers dictating policy in this area?
Hon. G. W. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, there is no dictation by police officers in this policy area; they have to exercise discretion about when to lay charges. This government, along with the Attorney General and through the task force of the Premier, has been very diligent in the program. We have initiated the task force. We have people on the task force. We have people involved in this matter trying to cut down the drinking and driving problems.
There have been seminars on the matter. We have training programs on the matter. We have increased the number of machines available. We have increased the level of participation by way of advertising. We have increased the level of participation by the private sector, such as the Insurance Bureau of Canada, which has put forward advertisements, seminars and money, to try to reduce the amount of drinking and driving on the road and the carnage as a result of that.
We have worked very hard on this and I do not think there is any attitudinal feature about this. At this time of year the media become more attentive to it, and we become more attentive to it, but we do have these programs throughout the year and throughout the province to reduce the carnage on the highways caused by drinking and driving.
11:10a.m.
INTRODUCTION OF BILL
REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF HAMILTON-WENTWORTH AMENDMENT ACT
Mr. Allen moved, seconded by Mr. Charlton, first reading of Bill 156, An Act to amend the Regional Municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth Act.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Allen: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to provide for the election of the regional chairman of Hamilton-Wentworth by a general vote rather than by members of the regional council and to give the regional council rather than the cabinet the right to appoint a majority of the members of the Hamilton-Wentworth police board.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
METROPOLITAN TORONTO POLICE FORCE COMPLAINTS ACT
Hon. Mr. McMurtry moved second reading of Bill 140, An Act to revise the Metropolitan Police Force Complaints Project Act, 1981.
Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, I do not have anything to add to what I said on the introduction of this bill other than to state that I understand it has been agreed this matter will go out to the standing committee on administration of justice on Wednesday and that there will be an opportunity to have briefs from the public on that occasion. I certainly welcome the comments of the members on second reading of this important legislation.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I find myself acting Justice critic again. The minister will be delighted at that, I am sure.
I hasten to say to him that my colleagues and I will be supporting the bill in principle, although I do recall participating in a rather lengthy debate in 1981 and expressing my very grave personal misgivings about the concepts that the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) was putting forward. I do believe the results under the leadership of Mr. Linden have been gratifying and successful. Many of the fears I had expressed at that time in response to comments made to me have not been found to be that serious.
I still believe we ought to have a complaints procedure that is province-wide and would involve our police forces at two or perhaps three levels, if we could have federal co-operation in that regard, although I do admit -- in fact, I assert -- that most of the problems of the most sensitive nature in the past have been seen to be problems in Metropolitan Toronto. In many respects, I suppose, this is because of the mere size of the larger municipality, but it is also because of the very large proportion of newcomers to this city from many other jurisdictions in all parts of the world who have had different experiences with police forces. Many of them come with a fear of police; they have learned in their previous homelands and in their home situations not only that you fear police but also that you consider them personal and family enemies. Fortunately, that is not the general experience in Ontario and Canada.
The police have done a good public relations job, I must say, with the help of the Solicitor General (Mr. G. W. Taylor), who is one of their most enthusiastic fans, in having most citizens believe we have a police force that is well controlled and that the chief law officer of the crown and his colleague the Solicitor General are present in the House to respond to the kinds of broadly based complaints that can always be brought to public attention in this forum.
My own feeling is still that a continuing weakness is the retention in the mind of the minister, and therefore in this legislation, of the idea the police essentially should control the initiation of the response to the complaint. I regret that the Attorney General is not confident enough in his experience, which we have seen during the past two or three years, to move away from so much police executive supervision of the procedure.
It would be seen as perhaps a brave but proper departure if the Attorney General in his most liberal mood -- and he does have those from time to time, I am told -- were to say we do not have to fear that a civilian agency in control of the complaint procedure from the very beginning would somehow or other turn this into simply a forum for the harassment of police officers trying to do their duty. I believe we should have more confidence in civilian control of these procedures. Once again, I simply express my regret that the new bill making this pilot project permanent does not reflect our confidence in civilian control of the complaint procedure.
I return to a point I made a moment ago; that is, the geographical restrictions in the process. While I am quite prepared to recognize that the main problems occur in this major urban centre or world-class city with the special law enforcement problems that go along with the size and cosmopolitan nature of the jurisdiction, still you and I, Mr. Speaker, coming from smaller communities, would recognize that such a basis of complaints against police forces and activities ought to be broadened out to include all our police forces.
It could well be the complaints commissioner could have his duties expanded to be the civilian centre for the reception and supervision of those complaints for all parts of the province. My own preference would be for something more community-based, so a citizen who feels himself or herself wronged by actions of the police would not necessarily have to come to Toronto or to contact Toronto for the relief that should be part of legislation that we would expect to be forthcoming in this House in the future.
Just as a footnote, I was interested to hear the complaints commissioner may be able to take up his offices in that great palace of justice as it now is, the former household economics building at the corner of Avenue Road and Bloor Street. I was interested to read in the auditor's report some indication that the Ombudsman, who now controls that Grecian edifice, has a little extra room and that in supporting the Ombudsman over these years the generous citizens of the province have been paying highly inflated rentals for much space that is not actually used.
I have a great deal of confidence in the present incumbent of the Ombudsman's office, and I was gratified to hear him indicate that as a sort of subletting landlord he is trying to make it as attractive as possible to have our police complaints commissioner move into some back rooms in that edifice. Of course, in the great tradition of ombudsmanism in this province, the building always has to be the most imposing we can get in town, preferably with pillars and rather conservative brass plates in the front so the citizens passing by know what is in there, and that it is a place with class, I suppose we might call it.
I feel that is in some sense a self-defeating approach to serving the citizens, either by way of an Ombudsman's responsibility or, even more particularly, for receiving civilian complaints against the police. I do not want to speak against a business arrangement that might benefit the taxpayers, but I would like to see our public complaints commissioner more readily available in the downtown section of the city, in a storefront situation, and not necessarily protected by brass plates and potted palms.
11:20 a.m.
The Ombudsman himself, whom we all know as an extremely accessible, gregarious, friendly, capable and generous person, often has his accessibility somehow hidden by the fact he is ensconced in such impressive luxury.
It is a small point, but I have a feeling the commissioner himself would recognize the need to be readily available as much as possible, without the trappings of the majesty of government separating him from the complainants who want ready access. The complainants are often in a state of mental agitation and they should be treated as generously and sensitively as possible.
This is a footnote to these comments. I personally am totally committed to the concept of a civilian police complaint process. I want to make it as readily available and as sensitive to the individuals in the community as it is possible for it to be.
If there is any criticism in what I said about the Ombudsman, it is irrelevant to this debate. However, I do not hesitate in making it sound like criticism. Our present Ombudsman was not the person who made the decision to house himself in those grand quarters. I have a feeling that if it were not for the benighted foresight of the previous incumbents and their advisers, he would not be stuck in such a place with a five-year lease, having a whole bunch of back rooms he wants to rent off to some innocent bystander who comes by with a blank cheque from the government of Ontario.
I have also been interested in the compendium of information the minister tabled with the bill, in which he clearly and effectively sets out the background of the original legislation. Two or three years ago, I felt he and his colleagues were very reticent about moving towards some sort of adequate citizens' complaint procedure against police activities.
There were many occasions in this House when questions were asked, indicating at least -- I do not want to use the word "suspicion" -- a feeling that a complaint procedure was necessary, and that when the citizen had as his only alternatives going to the police headquarters to complain or perhaps coming to a member of the Legislature to have his complaint aired in this jurisdiction, that was not sufficient or sensitive enough under the circumstances.
More and more we could see a feeling arising in the community of Metropolitan Toronto and in the hearts of people in this Legislature that our police force was moving down a dangerous road towards the kind of authoritarianism and self-rule we in a democracy felt had to be corrected and restrained.
There were a number of incidents at the time, which I am not going to refer to again, involving black immigrants in Toronto. They indicated a possibility our police force in general was not sufficiently free of prejudice or sufficiently broad-minded to do its duties in a fair way and in a way that was seen to be fair.
I believe this indication -- let us say apprehension -- of a prejudice on behalf of individuals in the police force has been corrected to some extent. The Attorney General has been very good in assisting me in conveying my views directly to the people concerned in matters associated with the police, lawyers and law enforcement.
Mr. Speaker, you may have experienced this yourself. My experience has often been that I would make a speech here and one of my best efforts would be completely ignored by the media. Even back home, the Brantford Expositor and the Burford Advance would not carry it. Yet I would get a flood of letters from the individuals directly concerned with my remarks because the Attorney General, with more staff than he knows what to do with, was good enough to send my remarks to those individuals.
I remember on one occasion getting a letter from no less a person than the current chairman of the Liquor Control Board of Ontario, formerly Chief Ackroyd, who has had a change in life-directed goals in the past year. I would not say he took umbrage, but he did take exception to comments I had made about the apprehension of something less than an unbiased, unprejudiced approach to minorities, visible and otherwise, by the police forces of the province.
It was quite a heated letter, polite, and certainly well within his rights. He indicated the difficulties the force has in hiring people of obvious ethnic involvement so various ethnic groups would see them with their uniforms, red bands, badges, flashing cars and all the majesty of the police and feel they had, from their point of view, some of their own there. The judicious dispatch of these people into various communities of Toronto might improve co-operation between the community and the police forces.
I mention this in passing. I hope there will not be anything in my remarks this morning to prompt the Attorney General to get his computer addressing machinery going and start sending out my comments, although I have no objection to this, of course. I often feel he is the only person in the whole province who gives a damn about anything I say about these things. In that respect, I welcome his attention.
I mentioned that the Attorney General was very reluctant to proceed with the original legislation. He does not do much kicking and screaming so we cannot say he was pulled into it that way, but in his own somnambulant approach to politics his heels were dug in. In order to keep the lid on the growing problem, various levels of governments appointed various fact-finders, commissioners and advisers.
No less a person than Arthur Maloney himself, a person who probably understood the majesty of the law better than anyone, finally made a recommendation in response to problems in the community indicating he felt it was necessary to establish a civilian complaints procedure, but no action was taken. This was followed, by coincidence, by Mr. Justice Donald Morand, in his former incarnation, before he even dreamed of aspiring to the high office of Ombudsman. --
Mr. Stokes: That was when he was a Liberal.
Mr. Nixon: He would never be tarred with that brush.
Mr. Justice Morand, as he then was, was charged to do a thorough investigation into this matter and came up with similar recommendations, and still the chief law officer of the crown at the time took no action.
Another luminary, Walter Pitman, well known to most of us in this House, was then commissioned by Metropolitan Toronto or the city of Toronto and he also made strong recommendations, obviously on a more progressive base that either of the two previous worthies, and still there was no action.
It was not until probably the most influential conservative -- with a small "c,' naturally -- Cardinal Carter, got involved in this business that the chief law officer of the crown snapped to attention, clicked his heels and had the --
Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Now the member's envy is showing.
Mr. Nixon: I will get to heaven just as soon as the minister on the basis of the friends we keep.
11:30 a.m.
The bill was brought in, but still the Attorney General's prejudices -- and I will use that word -- against effective civilian complaints were showing. It was simply an experiment, it was limited geographically and it would be under the control of the police.
We objected strenuously at that time and, if I recall correctly, we voted against the legislation. There were lengthy hearings in the standing committee on administration of justice, and quite effectives ones. I do not recall how extensively the trial legislation was changed, but it was proclaimed -- and even before it was, the commissioner was in operation, was he not?
Yes. He was set up because the situation had gone a little bit out of control. The Attorney General had put the lid on, had been pressing down on it and was standing on it, but still it bounced up and down and he was forced to take action even before the Legislature approved the pilot project by enactment. So the commissioner was established and he was able to relieve the pressure without embarrassing the Attorney General unduly.
The government has been fortunate, frankly, in the qualities we knew the commissioner had, which have certainly been shown. The police have not become paranoid about the thing and the citizens seem to have reasonable access to a complaint procedure that is far from perfect but is still functioning. I can remember the Attorney General defending at the time a bill that was under quite substantial attack both here and in the community by saying: "At least we are going to try this. It is better than nothing, and we hope and expect it will function well." I think it has functioned fairly well.
There is one instance I want to mention just briefly that caused me a great deal of concern as I followed it, and that is the Morrish Road party incident a couple of years ago. That was an incident where there were complaints about some kind of wild party. The police went there in force and it looked from the news reports broadcast on local television -- because the camera crews went there too -- as if a large number of police were using their billies, or whatever you call those extra-long sticks with the ancillary handle, which they swing around so dramatically, to beat the bejabers out of these young people -- I would not say innocent young people, but young people -- who were forced to come out of the party and run this gauntlet of heavy-duty officers banging them over the head, shoulders and other parts as they went through.
Complaints were registered but, because of the procedures that were enforced by the bill itself, I do not believe anything effective was ever done about that. The one thing that really amazed me was that there must have been 40 or 50 policemen involved, and yet by applying the sorts of pressure available to the crown, the commissioner and the police chief himself, we were never able to identify legally any of the participants.
As far as I know, none of the officers was ever reprimanded publicly. I am sure they got a good talking to in the squadrooms, or whatever they are called. My only experience with the police, thank God, is with Hill Street Blues, and I am not exactly sure they operate according to precisely the same processes in Metropolitan Toronto. But as far as I know, nobody was identified and no one was formally reprimanded or disciplined in any way.
Here was an instance where civilian complaint was shown, in my view, to be ineffective and ineffectual. It might be possible that the Attorney General could make a comment about this as an example of something of a failure in the process we established three years ago in this civilian complaints legislation.
I simply say again that my colleagues and I are supporting the bill. The bill that was enacted two or three years ago had a sunset clause and, unless this bill is enacted, then the process will go out of existence. We say that it should --
Mr. Philip: That is not true.
Mr. Nixon: I thought it had a sunset date of 1984.
Mr. Philip: It can be extended.
Mr. Nixon: Yes, I suppose it could be extended by edict, but certainly if we are talking about general legislation, we in this party welcome general legislation. I personally hope it will be a model for a process that can be extended across the province. I believe the Ontario Provincial Police would welcome the application. I am sure police forces in some of the smaller urban areas particularly -- I am thinking of Brantford, Windsor, Hamilton -- would function better with such a civilian review procedure.
I look forward to the hearings that will be held in the committee, at which time the commissioner himself and groups that have had direct experience over the past three years will have an opportunity to express in a more informal way their views on the legislation.
Mr. Philip: Mr. Speaker, it being just before Christmas, I guess I should start off by saying to the Attorney General that I feel there are a number of improvements in this bill over the previous bill. I am going to deal with those improvements in some detail in a few minutes.
First of all, let me say how disappointed I am this bill has been introduced in the winter of this session. In his sales pitch for Bill 68, the Attorney General kept on saying: "This is an experiment. Why not try it? Why not go along? Why not trust me? At the end of the three years, we will be in a position to evaluate it and we will be able to pass judgement on it."
I was the chairman of the justice committee at that time. Each group appearing before the committee asked that we build into the bill a thorough evaluation at the end of the experiment and that we have public hearings.
I personally moved an amendment in this regard. The amendment was that section 27 of the bill be amended by adding the following thereto, "Prior to repeal, a detailed report on the operation of the project during its three years of existence shall be prepared by the board and forwarded for consideration by the council of the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto and by the standing committee on administration of justice of the Ontario Legislature."
The reason we and the Liberals on the justice committee voted in favour of that is that we believed the minister when he said it was an experiment. We believed him when he said it was important there bean evaluation. We thought this amendment would be acceptable to him, so I moved the amendment and it was supported by the Liberals. It carried in the committee, I suppose due to a fluke in the number of members who happened to be in the committee at that time. Then the minister later amended it in the House and watered it down.
So we are faced with a situation where the commissioner does file a report, but there have been no public hearings on this report. Indeed, there is no opportunity for those very groups that came and expressed some concerns about Bill 68 to have the time to study a proper evaluation and come before a committee of this Legislature and praise those things that have worked successfully and ask for changes in those that have been less successful.
Quite frankly, the only reason I recommended to my caucus we not send this out to committee for hearings over the recess was that I was concerned about what would happen if the present Attorney General happened to change his position. I thought what would happen if we were faced with those two pillars of reaction, the Minister of Industry and Trade (Mr. F. S. Miller) and the Solicitor General (Mr. G. W. Taylor).
The bill might come back in a much more reactionary form than the present Attorney General would have it.
11:40 a.m.
I thought of what might happen if by any chance, heaven forbid, instead of having the Attorney General, we were faced with someone such as the Solicitor General in that position. We all know the views of the Solicitor General on matters of policing, crime and civil liberties issues. Quite frankly, I trust the Attorney General's views. By and large, in comparison to the Solicitor General, he has acted in a much more responsible, moderate and reasonable manner on a number of occasions recently.
I am faced with the real political problem that I want to make sure this bill comes back under this Attorney General. I have more faith in him and in some of the things he has managed to do with the bill, notwithstanding our complaints, than I have in some of the other members of the cabinet who might, after a new leader is chosen, be in a different position.
Of course, all of us are praying that the Attorney General will become Premier, in which role he would be able to have some strong influence over that. If that does not happen, in the event that the Conservative Party does not show the same enlightenment I would if I were voting at that convention, then we must face up to that reality.
Interjection.
Mr. Philip: I am sure that will be worth a lot of votes for the minister at the convention.
Hon. Mr. McMurtry: It just cost me two.
Mr. Philip: At least the member for Lakeshore (Mr. Kolyn) will have to shift his vote to the minister.
I would be remiss if I did not say something about Sidney Linden. I think all members of the House applauded the appointment of this outstanding attorney to what is a very sensitive post. The confidence of the Attorney General and all members of the House has proved itself in Mr. Linden. He has shown excellent and sensitive leadership in his post.
My impression is that he has won the respect not only of the communities that were concerned about this bill, but also of the police. His community development approach in handling sensitive issues and realities in our community has been particularly effective. Some courage must be attributed to him because in the original act, in Bill 68, there were no statutory powers for him to do some of the things he has courageously been able to do, things that have worked. I must applaud the Attorney General for now giving him those statutory powers.
It is also important to note that, to some extent, credit must go to former Chief Ackroyd. All of us who watched the interactions between Mr. Linden and Chief Ackroyd could see a certain growth in the police chief as he became more sensitive to the issues and showed a certain flexibility, which perhaps a number of other chiefs of police in this province, whom I will not name, might not have shown. We saw a certain growth in this person. If he had not been in that post it might have been a lot more difficult working with another chief of police.
Part of the success also was that Chief Ackroyd was under pressure from other chiefs of police, who undoubtedly were saying to him, and we know this happened: "What are you giving in to? You are going too far. This is going to descend on all of us. You, the Attorney General and the opposition cannot get away with this kind of thing. We are going to have this descend on us."s To his credit, Chief Ackroyd was secure enough in his position and in his person that he was able to say, "I have to show some flexibility and I have to live up to the realities of the 20th century."
Much of the credit for the fact that Bill 68 has worked to some extent must go to Sidney Linden and also to the chief of police who worked with him. To his credit, Paul Godfrey was a supporter of the legislation. I think he showed he wanted to make it work as well.
There are some improvements I want to talk about in the bill. I want to talk about them in some detail through comparison with the previous bill. The bill provides that where a complaint is laid at a police station, the officer in charge must take all reasonable steps to ensure that all available evidence that may be lost is secured immediately and that the complaints bureau is advised of the complaint. I think that is an essential and important improvement in the bill.
There have been instances where people have gone to the police with a complaint and the evidence has been lost. It has taken two or three days, and the bruises and so forth disappear or some of the evidence somehow mysteriously vanishes. This change in the bill ensures the onus is put on the police at the front desk, that they have the responsibility to secure that evidence. I think that is an important improvement in the bill.
The bill also removes some of the authority of the Solicitor General and gives it to the Attorney General. The Attorney General and I both know that has already happened. The Attorney General, having been both Solicitor General and Attorney General at the same time, was able to pull off this sleight of hand without as much attention as there might have been if he had tried to do it from only the post of Attorney General.
That is an essential improvement in the bill. I recognize this no doubt causes some concern on the part of the present Solicitor General, and it is not the Attorney General's way of getting more popularity when going into a leadership race. I think it is important that those changes be in the bill in the event there are other players in those two posts in the future, or at least another player in the Attorney General's post. This is an improvement the Attorney General has put in the bill.
The bill also provides the commissioner with additional jurisdiction over the monitoring and handling of complaints and inquiries by the bureau and by the chief of police. As I go through them one by one in the sections of the bill, and I have some questions on a number of them, we will see they are improvements.
Lastly, the bill gives statutory powers to the commissioner to deal with systemic problems. We know the present commissioner must have been under some pressure from certain police officers and, indeed, perhaps even from the Solicitor General -- I do not know -- not to deal with systemic problems.
These are the same kinds of pressures that traditionally ombudsmen have been under. It is interesting that, just as our new Ombudsman, Dr. Hill, has felt his role is to deal with systemic problems rather than be a case worker, so too we see a move by Sidney Linden to deal with systemic problems and identify patterns and processes that are wrong, because if we can correct them we can cut out a lot of the day-by-day, case-by-case kind of complaint.
What this bill does is give, for now and I hope for ever, that authority to the commissioner; and that is important. It may have been done at the present time by the present incumbent. However, we may be faced at some future time with an incumbent who is less strong or a chief of police who is more defensive and less secure. By having this in the bill, it gives clear statutory powers to the commissioner and outlines his responsibility to do it. That is an improvement.
11:50 a.m.
Having dealt with some of the positive sides of the bill, I must share with the minister and the House some of my complaints about the bill. Practically every group appearing before our committee on Bill 68 requested that the police not be directly involved in investigating the particular complaints.
If we look at what some of them said at that time -- and I will not read all of them -- Mr. Borovoy of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association said: "So long as front-line investigations are handled by officials who have departmental or even general police interests to protect, the system will be severely flawed. Many aggrieved people simply will not confide their complaints about the police to other police officers."
The Canadian Civil Liberties Association has had this experience time and again, particularly with minority, racial and ethnic constituencies. In fact, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association conducted a number of surveys among arrested people in Toronto during the 1970s. Invariably, only a minuscule minority of those who claim to have been abused by the police were prepared to take retaliatory action. An overwhelming number declared flatly that such action would do no good.
I come from a riding where I have a number of people of Spanish-speaking origin from Latin America. Their relationship with the police is quite different from the relationship we have had historically in this country. They see the police as something to be afraid of. They see a uniform as something one does not argue with, that one does not even question.
As I pointed out not so long ago in the Legislature, in the case of Chile people even carry medical documents saying: "I have a heart condition. If I am arrested, I will die if you use electric kinds of tortures." When a person comes from that kind of environment, that kind of mindset and that kind of conditioning, it is very hard for him to bring himself to say, even in a democracy, "I will go down to the police station and lay complaints against another guy in a uniform." This problem still remains in the bill.
The Jamaican Canadian Association said: "However, as a sensitive organization, with people who are very concerned, we recognize that policemen and women are real people. Therefore, the police being real people, we recognize they are subject to all human frailties, follies, flaws, errors, illnesses, etc., as the rest of us people are. Hence, the JCA believes that to entrust such great and extraordinary responsibility upon the shoulders of the already taxed police of investigating themselves when other human beings complain against them regarding injustices suffered is ludicrous."
I am not going to take the time of the House to read into the record other similar complaints, but that is the thrust of all the groups that came before us with the exception of the police association.
The public complaints commissioner is still not permitted to commence an immediate investigation of a complaint except upon the request of the chief of police or in exceptional circumstances. We have an increasingly militant police association, and there are reasons why psychologically they should be militant. Having one's colleagues shot down in cold blood, I imagine, would make anyone more militant, and that is a psychological fact of life. We have had a series of tragedies.
The association will no doubt attempt to use the courts to curtail any attempt by the public complaints commissioner to intervene before the initial 30-day period. It is essential that we strengthen the public complaints commissioner's powers in this regard.
Therefore, I strongly oppose police involvement in the investigative process. This three-year experiment has shown both the police and the public there is not an awful lot to fear. This surely should be the time in which we move to an independent investigation under the commissioner himself, with trained police officers reporting directly to him. We are not suggesting we send out social workers or do-gooders or community activists to do police investigations, but as we argued under Bill 68, we can have people who are trained in police investigation techniques reporting directly to the commissioner.
Because of this overwhelming opposition, while I will not delay the bill, I am simply going to vote against it in view of this one major flaw.
There are a couple of other flaws I would like to point out to the minister. I will do it by way of questions rather than challenging them as flaws because I see them as major problems in the bill. By perhaps changing a few words here or there, the Attorney General may be able to satisfy my anxieties.
"A complaint lodged by a person not directly affected" -- and these are the words of the bill -- "sby the misconduct alleged will not be dealt with under the act." I maintain that a person who is an eyewitness to an assault by a police officer should be able to lay a complaint. I wonder if an eyewitness is covered under the words "directly affected."
I want the assurance of the Attorney General on that, but I would also suggest, and I am not a lawyer, he could probably make an amendment that would not in any way distort what he is attempting to do by having words something to the effect of "persons directly affected by or having a personal knowledge of."
If those words were used, then it would take care of the trade union leader who observes misconduct on a picket line involving a new immigrant picketer who may be afraid to lay complaints but for whom he feels a complaint should be laid; or even a citizen or a newsman who observes inappropriate behaviour by a police officer, and who may even have it on camera, should be able to follow through and have the complaint dealt with.
If I, as an observer having personal knowledge of, am part of the definition "directly affected," that is fine. I would like some assurances of that. I have checked with a number of lawyers in preparing to debate this bill, and all of them have given me some reason to have some anxieties that a witness or an organization such as the Canadian Civil Liberties Association might not be considered as being directly affected and therefore might not be able to lodge a complaint.
I recognize why the Attorney General wants this in the act. I think there are very compelling reasons he wants it in. It is possible, and indeed it is happening I am told, that under the present system Mrs. O'Grady may read about something involving her next-door neighbour Mr. Smith in the newspaper. She has no personal knowledge of it and she has no direct viewing of it, but she decides this is wrong and she is going to lodge a complaint.
Mrs. O'Grady can therefore receive personal information and a personal report on Mr. Smith, while Mr. Smith may, with his attorney, be pursuing a specific course of action and the intervention, which he has not requested, by Sidney Linden may get in the way of that kind of action he and his lawyer are taking.
I can see the argument: the minister does not want intervention by everybody and his uncle who read an article in the newspaper, pick up the Toronto Sun, and say, "I am going to write to the commissioner and have an inquiry done into this." I think some discretion is needed in that case, both to protect the alleged injured party and also to prevent misuse of the commission's time.
I do want some protection so that a viewer who sees misconduct, a union that observes misconduct, a television reporter or other person who sees misconduct or an organization such as the Canadian Civil Liberties Association can take action.
12 noon
The other thing I want to go into in some detail is that "misconduct" now is defined as conduct that would be an offence under the code of offences as set out in the Police Act regulations. I have gone through the code of offences and I recognize why the minister wants this. A civil liberties argument could be made, and indeed it was made fairly forcefully as I recall by the police union, which said: "We cannot have airy-fairy complaints over an officer out there. We have to have some specifics of exactly what the complaint is all about."
Bringing the bill in line with the code of offences under the Police Act does give some protection in a civil liberties sense to the police officer. But in looking at the bill I find it ironic that the police should have perhaps more protection for misconduct as professionals than other professionals do, such as teachers, nurses, lawyers or doctors. I wonder whether something in between cannot be looked at.
There have been findings of liability against a police officer in a civil court of competent jurisdiction in Ontario for assault, battery, false arrest, false imprisonment or malicious prosecution. Surely, if the government insists on a comprehensive definition of misconduct, the proposed definition should include those. We have had cases here in Ontario in which officers have been found guilty in civil courts of what amounts in the eyes of the public to gross misconduct, and yet they are still on the force.
I give members the judgement against Robert Messacar on November 9, 1983, by the Honourable James B. Trotter of the county court in the judicial district of York. I have another judgement here in my hands, and the same Robert Messacar shows up. It is dated February 3, 1984 -- I cannot read the judge's name on my photocopy, but the reference number, I believe, is 16640-82.
It is my understanding this gentleman, Mr. Messacar, is still on the police force, he is still practising, although two courts have convicted him. One has to ask whether a system is working when someone can have those kinds of major judgements. It is not as though they were light judgements. The judgement in the first case I mentioned was false imprisonment, false arrest, assault and malicious prosecution arising out of the events that took place in Toronto on January 8, 1982. The other judgement was for false imprisonment, false arrest, assault and malicious prosecution. Yet this police officer is still practising. I think that discredits the rest of the force, because the majority of police officers are out there doing a really tough job and doing it well.
When you have somebody like this who malpractices, or when courts decide there is a form of what I as a layman would call malpractice, then surely the public has a right to see that a person like that is removed from his position -- removed, at least, from the position of dealing with the public -- and that has not happened.
I found it very interesting to read through a study that was done for a master's course by a chap named Peter Bartlett. I will not go into all the details. He has some fascinating information in this. On page 56 -- this is a term paper; it is not published, but I will be happy to give the Attorney General a copy of it -- he is talking about the complaints, I believe, in 1982. He says: "Two of the six decisions of the board upheld the complaint and imposed a penalty on the officer. Regarding Noble and PC McKay, an officer found to have assaulted a citizen who was handcuffed and offered no resistance, the officer received a two-week suspension. Both penalty and conviction are presently under appeal.
"Regarding MacFarland versus PC Christiano, the officer was found to have wilfully neglected and negligently made false, misleading and inaccurate statements in court. The officer was demoted from police constable, second class, to police constable, third class, with a strong recommendation that he be reviewed for promotion in accordance with the department's policy, practices and principles after three months."
He does not even lose any salary. He gets demoted one rank for a three-month period and is then subject to a review to push him back up the ladder again. Undoubtedly, his personnel file will not look very good after that. None the less, one has to ask, is it fair to those other officers who are doing a good job, and is it fair to the public that those who commit major professional errors, if I may use the polite term, get so little done to them and have so little to be afraid of?
I would like to spend a few minutes comparing in some detail this bill with Bill 68. The minister is well aware of my views on various sections of Bill 68. I forget how many amendments I moved there. I am not going to recycle all my arguments, however, I want to deal only with the changes. To assure the minister, I am going to praise those changes which I think are good and be less laudatory on some of the others about which I have some questions.
One of the first differences between this bill and the Metropolitan Police Force Complaints Project Act, which was Bill 68, is found in the statutory jurisdiction of the public complaints commissioner. The bill provides the commissioner with additional jurisdiction for monitoring "the handling of complaints and inquiries by the bureau and the chief of police." This is subsection 3(6).
One has to conclude this increase is probably necessitated by four provisions of the bill, three of which are new: the ability of the police chief to summarily dismiss a complaint that is, in his view, "frivolous or vexatious or made in bad faith," which is in section 13; the maintaining of a mechanism for the informal resolution of complaints, which is in section 10; and an addition to the formal procedure for the withdrawal of complaints, which is in section 12 of the bill. There is a new procedure that allows complaints to be reduced to inquiries to investigate conduct that does not amount to misconduct, in clause 1(f) and in section 8.
I want to deal with each of these changes in greater detail. However, what is crucial here is that the bill provides for all these decisions that are subject to some type of review by the commissioner. That is an important improvement in the bill. That being the case, it would appear to be necessary to augment the power of that office by providing explicitly for that monitoring authority.
In addition, it has been suggested this increased mandate will allow the commissioner to assess statistics and to conduct research into patterns and trends in police behaviour. Interestingly enough, as I have indicated in a different way before, the present commissioner is already doing this. The police have found some of the research and some of the statistical information he has been doing to be most helpful to them. They can see patterns where there are problems, and then move in to correct those patterns.
12:10 p.m.
In Sidney Linden's office, I found it fascinating to look at a very simple technique of using pins to identify the problem areas. One can see in a very visual way where there may be some problems and where one has to look at the personnel and the patterns that are developing. I would find some of the statistical information he has been bringing out most helpful if I were a manager in the police force.
The Attorney General has quite rightly put this into the bill. The things he has been able to get away with doing, perhaps because of an understanding police chief who recognized their value, now are in the statute so that someone else cannot come along and question the authority of a police complaints commissioner to do it at a future date.
The existing police complaints board, established by section 4 of the act, is replaced by a panel from which members for boards of inquiry will be drawn. That is section 4. The tripartite nature of the board is maintained, if somewhat modified. I notice that one third of the panel will be members of the Law Society of Upper Canada rather than simply having training in law. I have no objection to that, but I am interested in finding out why the minister has changed it. Under section 4, they will be explicitly recommended for appointment by the Attorney General and the Solicitor General as opposed to some unspecified manner of appointment under the act. It is reasonable it should be spelled out.
One third of the panel who shall not be police officers are nominated by the Metropolitan Board of Commissioners of Police and the Metropolitan Toronto Police Association and must now be nominated in writing to the Attorney General as opposed to the Solicitor General. It was in subsection 4(4) of the old act, if I am not mistaken. It is in subsection 4(3) of the new bill. Clearly, these are minor changes, but it improves a system of fairness if we take the power from the Solicitor General and move it to the Attorney General's office. That is an improvement that will stand as perhaps being more significant than we think in the years ahead.
In a further attempt to ensure the impartiality of the boards of inquiry, the bill excludes the commissioner from membership on the panel, the commissioner formerly being the chairman of the board under subsection 4(2). That is a traditional mechanism that has been used in a number of other acts in similar cases. I have no objection to it and it is appropriate the change be made.
Since I am dealing with these specifics on second reading, I do not expect the minister to answer immediately, but I would like him to take some time to examine those sections and report back to us. That is why I am going into some detail.
The panel itself must be reviewed by the Attorney General three years after the proposed act comes into force, and the Attorney General is to recommend to cabinet whether these bodies are to continue. That is in section 33. I find it difficult to imagine how he could come back in three years and say he wants to abolish them. I suspect that is there merely as a technicality, that the Ontario Law Reform Commission suggested sunset requirements in statutes and this is merely a way of making it conform to other legislation dealing with similar things. It is an interesting difference and I have no objections to it. It would be interesting to know the rationale.
I mentioned earlier the bill creates a new mechanism that, in effect, allows a complaint to be reduced to an allegation about police conduct that does not amount to misconduct. The term "misconduct" is defined as "an act or omission on the part of a police officer that constitutes an offence...as set out under regulation 791...under the Police Act."
Subsection 8(1) provides that the person in charge of the police complaints bureau may, with the consent of the commissioner, reclassify a complaint as an inquiry but must notify the complainant and the police officer if this is done. Further, in subsection 8(2), if the inquiry is ordered, the person in charge of the bureau shall determine whether the investigation is required.
Subsection 8(3) says that during the course of an investigation, an inquiry may be reclassified as a complaint with notification being forwarded to the complainant, the subject officer and the commissioner. That is an important subsection which gives some protection to the commissioner.
Under subsection 8(4), if the inquiry is resolved without an investigation, no reference is made to it in the personnel record of the police officer. That was one of the concerns the Metropolitan Toronto Police Association brought forward.
It can certainly be argued there is a great need for a procedure that would allow for the resolution of allegations of misconduct that do not amount to misconduct as technically defined in the bill. Some of the complaints have been rather too airy-fairy and too broad. Even conceding the validity of that argument, however, I am left with some apprehension that does not allow me to give, without some assurances and some explanation from the Attorney General, unqualified acceptance to this section.
The decision whether to consider or to reclassify, and the actual decision to reclassify, apparently are to be made without notice or input from either the complainant or the subject officer. One wonders whether that is appropriate. Moreover, the decision whether ever to investigate an inquiry is made entirely by the officer in charge of the bureau, who is required to respond to the complaint only after the investigation is completed.
Unlike comparable situations in the bill itself, any decision by the person in charge is not a statutory power of decision reviewable within the meaning of the Judicial Review Procedure Act; nor may the commissioner ask that the complaint be continued, as is the case when complaints are withdrawn under subsection 12(3) or informally resolved under subsection 10(5). I admit the fact that even inquiries must be sent to the commissioner's office is a check on that; none the less, it does leave me with some anxieties.
I would like to deal with the laying of complaints. The procedure for actually laying a complaint remains identical to the one in the act. I recognize the pressures within the cabinet on this minister. Many cabinet ministers feel the Attorney General has already gone too far, but I wonder whether, in the light of public opinion, we are not at the stage where we can move it a little bit further. I am not going to recycle all the arguments the organizations and I have made over the years, but it is still a concern to members of this party. That is why, on second reading, we are going to say no.
The second change is more interesting. Where a complaint is laid at a police station, the officer in charge is to take all reasonable steps to ensure that the available evidence that may be lost is secured immediately and to ensure that any preliminary investigation that is warranted is conducted and that a report concerning the investigation is prepared and forwarded to the person in charge of the bureau. That is in subsection 6(3).
I must admit that waters down some of my complaints against the bill. It is an important improvement in this bill and an important safeguard. It is important that it be there. Indeed, the scheme of the bill seems to demand that the person in charge may consider whether the complaint should be changed into an inquiry, as discussed in subsection 8(1), and then must consider whether the complaint can be resolved informally, as in section 10.
12:20 p.m.
In most situations, it is unlikely the investigator from the bureau will need to move expeditiously to preserve evidence. Yet it seems incongruous both to demand and to authorize those actions from an officer in charge of a station without similarly empowering the person in charge of the bureau, particularly since the two officers have concurrent jurisdiction in receiving the complaints.
I recognize there are regulations concerning procedure. That also acts as a safeguard. The procedures that must be used in the investigation at the complaints commissioner's level are also used as a guideline at the police station level, but I still have some anxieties and so do members of the communities I have talked to.
I want to deal with the areas I mentioned earlier by referring to those sections of the bill so the minister knows precisely what I am talking about.
I contend the bill significantly narrows the scope of the application to the complaints process. Where the bill and the act permit a member of the public to make a complaint under section 6, in order for a complaint to continue under the bill, the complainant must be a person directly affected by the incident. That is section 7. That was the anxiety I had earlier. I am ssimply pointing out to the minister the sections I was dealing with.
I would like to talk about the withdrawal procedure. The current act has no formal mechanism to allow for the withdrawal of complaints, although it is fair to speculate that the informal procedures have probably been developed. It seems important that in this bill all complaints and inquiries must be dealt with in accordance with the act -- in other words, the bill -- and shall not be withdrawn except in accordance with the act, under subsection 12(1).
Even should a complaint be withdrawn, where the commissioner is of the opinion that the complainant withdrew as a result of a misunderstanding, a threat or an improper procedure, the commissioner may continue the complaint as a complaint under the bill in subsection 12(3). That also is an improvement we welcome.
Even where a complaint is not reinstated, the chief of police may continue disciplinary action under the Police Act based on allegations made in a withdrawn complaint under subsection 12(5). On preliminary examination of this procedure, it seems to be fair provided the commissioner has both the staff and the desire to investigate. We have no doubt that will be the case under the competent and highly professional nature of the present commissioner, but it may at some time cause a problem. I am simply saying he requires adequate staff in order to do what is required under subsection 12(2).
The bill confers a very broad but hitherto nonexistent discretion on the chief of police to summarily dismiss complaints that are frivolous, vexatious or made in bad faith and that are not within the jurisdiction of the act or that may more appropriately be dealt with under another act. That is under subsection 13(1).
Interestingly enough,s I talked to a number of people who were most critical of the bill in the first place and they are not terribly upset about this section. They are saying they do not believe this will be misused. It will be interesting to see what they say in the justice committee on this section. So far, I have not run into a great number of people who in their day-to-day operations feel this is likely to be abused.
Such a decision does not prevent the taking of action under the Police Act and requires notification of the commissioner. So there are some protections in that.
The complainant may request the commissioner's review of the decision under subsection 13(4), in which case all the provisions of the bill relating to the review by the commissioner apply. This would allow the commissioner to order a hearing by a board of inquiry where it is in the public interest to do so, or to take no further action under subsection 19(3).
The difficulty I see with this provision is one of timing. If a complaint is to be dismissed for want of jurisdiction or because it is more appropriately dealt with under the act in clauses 13(1)(b) and (c), the absence of any language in the opening words of section 13 as to when this would be done is probably appropriate. Even so, if the commissioner disagrees with the conclusion reached by the chief of police over jurisdiction or appropriateness, it is problematic whether the independent power to investigate found in section 18 would apply. I would like the Attorney General to address himself to that question. I am not certain of the answer. Maybe he can give me some assurances on it.
Depending on when the chief of police decides that the complaint will be dealt with, clause 18(1)(c) empowers the commission to investigate after the first interim report is received under subsection 11(2). The question is whether the authority of the chief of police permits such an early dismissal that section 11 is circumvented. If the concern is with the jurisdiction or the appropriateness, the provision would be better drafted if it ensured that the commissioner and the complainant have a right to have the decision reviewed. I think the Attorney General should look at those sections.
A board of inquiry under the bill is not the appropriate forum for a complaint that is frivolous, vexatious or is made in bad faith.
Anybody who deals with complaints, either as an Ombudsman or as a member of the provincial parliament, knows we do get those kinds of complaints. A great number go to any form of ombudsman, including the ombudsman, if I may use that term, with whom we are dealing in this question. Our concern is with the jurisdiction or the appropriateness to have the decision reviewed.
I am dealing with the serious question of timing. Although the review procedure may be appropriate under subsection 13(4), both section 10 of the act and section 14 of the bill permit the chief of police to reach certain decisions only after review of the final report. A decision to dismiss a complaint summarily should require that there be a review at least of an interim report and arguably the decision should be reached only once the final report is reviewed. The problem is one of practicality and I hope the Attorney General and his advisers will look at that.
That may be more properly an option that belongs in section 14 of the bill. Indeed, a decision under section 14 that no action is warranted may be more appropriate where it is concluded that the complaint is frivolous, vexatious or made in bad faith. The decision could be reached only after a final report has been reviewed; in other words, after there has been an investigation under the bill and the results of the investigation have been reviewed.
I have said something about certain sections that expand the powers and the discretion of the police complaints commissioner and I will not deal with those in any great detail. We applaud them.
12:30 p.m.
I would like to deal with the withdrawal procedure. The withdrawal procedure is not the only example of a change that potentially diminishes the authority of the commissioner. There are, as I have mentioned, some sections that do that. Section 17 of the act provides that where, after making a review, the commissioner is of the opinion that a police practice or procedure should be altered, he shall report his opinion and recommendations to the Solicitor General, the Ontario Police Commission, the Metropolitan Board of Commissioners of Police, and the chief of police. The comparable provision in the bill, section 21, makes some changes in this procedure.
In effect, the bill provides for two types of reports. The first report is identical to the one that is found in the act, and the second type permits the commissioner to make a report as a result of any matter dealt with under the bill. This, one can argue, expands the authority of the commissioner. If he or she is of the view that a practice, procedure or law affecting the public complaint should be altered, these reports are initially made at the Metropolitan Board of Commissioners of Police, the chief of police and the Metropolitan Toronto Police Association. Within 90 days, the Metropolitan Board of Commissioners of Police shall forward such report, along with its comments and any comments submitted by the other two initial recipients, to the Attorney General, the Solicitor General and the commissioner.
The addition of the second report concerning the complaints procedure itself is undoubtedly an improvement in the bill, although the wording of subsection 21(2) may be considered somewhat restrictive. In order to make this kind of report, it must be "as a result of any matter dealt with under this act," and it is arguable that the commissioner may write a report on practices, procedures or law affecting public complaints as a result of his cumulative experiences that could not be specifically connected on a matter under this act. So the present wording of subsection 21(2) is broad enough that it has rendered the possibility of this, but it still seems somewhat remote.
I submit that no damage would be done to the bill if the phrase that I have just quoted were removed, allowing the commissioner simply to make a report when he feels it is necessary. That is slightly broader in its approach and it would place more powers in the hands of the commissioner. Indeed, when we look at the procedure of ombudsmen all over the world, we see that this is an ongoing, evolving kind of thing and that parliaments have found that giving those kinds of discretions to the Ombudsman often lead to improvements in legislation and in procedures and practices.
In summary, I would like to say that I am going to deal with a few other matters in committee of the whole after we have heard the inquiries, but I hope that in giving in this great detail my concerns about certain sections the minister will have a few days to meet with his staff and deal with my concerns. I appreciate the opportunity to speak at this length and in this detail on what is a very important bill.
Mr. Elston: Mr. Speaker I have a few very brief comments. Because of my absence due to a previous commitment to a meeting, my party's position was put partially by the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon). I wanted to set out a couple of concerns I have about the bill. I have not the number of remarks that my colleague the member for Etobicoke (Mr. Philip) had prepared to present this morning.
I do want to start off by saying, however, that I also had an opportunity of visiting with and being briefed by the commissioner who acts under this act and I found that a number of the items we dealt with three years ago when this bill first came before us as part of a project, as it was described in that particular bill, have now been met by the operation and personal interventions of the commissioner.
It has, to a large extent, become what we determined during our committee hearings would be the case; that is, it is a bureau that largely revolves around the operations of a person and his staff who have shaped the direction in which this program has turned.
They have done a number of things to alleviate the problems we saw in committee three years ago. That is largely a result of personal interventions of the commissioner and his staff rather than directions in the legislation that was laid out in those early days in 1981.
One of my concerns, which is not addressed by this legislation and cannot really be addressed from the standpoint of legislated material, is what do we do in the case of the retirement of the commissioner? What do we do with a board that is so largely dependent on the personality and personal goals and aims of individuals to ensure that there will be continuity at the time a retirement occurs? As well, what happens when the staff decide they have other interests they would prefer to pursue?
At this time, we are dealing with the formative years of this project. I have concern that the formative years must somehow be more strongly engrained in the spirit of the legislation. I know we are making some changes that will catch up with the de facto procedures that were put in place.
There are other procedures that would probably strengthen the operation of this act. At the end of the three-year period we will probably have an opportunity of reviewing the performance of this bureau and we will again be able to consider making them. There are lots of steps people would like to take that would probably go further in the directions we discussed in 1981, when this matter was before the committee at some length.
To change the note for a moment, it concerns me somewhat that the legislation we are now looking at could have been anticipated by us much earlier in the session. It was tabled in the Legislature at a late stage. We all know December 20 is the cutoff date for the implementation of any new follow-up legislation.
We are dealing with the review of a pilot project in the operation of a police complaints bureau. After the massive intervention by public participants three years ago, we should have had an opportunity as legislators to have all those people come back in front of the committee again to indicate their concerns.
There has been an agreement that we will go to committee and hear some people who wish to make interventions to the committee members. I somehow feel that is not quite good enough. One of the problems we had in 1981 was that we had to choose between the various philosophical directions in which this bureau would go. We decided on one and the commissioner has worked under the terms of that legislation.
To be fair to the citizens who took the time in 1981 to come before us, it really ought to be open for them to come back in 1984 to tell us, "My goodness, we were wrong when we intervened in 1981 with our concerns," or, "We were right then, we still think we are right and we think the bill should be further amended," or, "We still think we were right, but the operations of the bureau have been such that our concerns were not well founded."
I feel in many ways that opportunity should have been afforded to us and we should have had a much broader opportunity to hear those concerns expressed to a legislative committee. Unfortunately, as a result of the timing of the introduction of this material in the House, a reasonable opportunity is not given to those people. I do not think it is proper for the people who are legislators either. It does not give us a chance to weigh what our problems were in the balance in 1981 with respect to what we are getting in 1984.
12:40 p.m.
That is a concern I must express to the Attorney General. I realize that sometimes his schedule is busy and he may get carried away with other operations. In the early days in 1981, one of the difficulties was that the poor gentleman was involved not only as Attorney General but also as Solicitor General. We really know how weighty the interventions in both of those ministerial operations would be for the gentleman who now wishes to lead the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario.
It seems to me that some of the weight could have been taken off his shoulders and off our shoulders here in the House if he had come to us this fall and said on October 9, October 10 or whenever the first opportunity would have been: "I have a bill prepared. Let us introduce it today. Then let us have second reading and schedule the hearings so that the people who appeared before us in those hearings in 1981 can come back and tell us they are satisfied or that they wish to decline to attend because they are happy with it or whatever."
Perhaps when the Attorney General takes on the leadership of the government party on January 26, 1985, his first mandate to those whom he gathers around him to give him wisdom and counsel will be that they must at the first opportunity bring very important legislative matters such as this to the attention of the members and the assembly. I do not have the experience in politics the Attorney General does, of course, but it seems to me that this might be something worth remembering.
We still have two or three concerns I would like to have addressed either in reply or, if time allows, in committee. We expressed a concern in 1981 about the difficulty some people may encounter with the funding required to have their own legal representation and about the imbalance facing the complainant, who may not be able to afford legal counsel.
I realize that the complaints are processed before the board by counsel who are appointed and paid by government, but in the short haul the individual who must make the decision, who may feel somewhat intimidated by the whole process and the bureaucracy, as a number of people are, might feel responsible enough to go out and get some legal counsel, in which case he is going to pay out of his own pocket.
That is not a problem, it seems to me, for the person on the other side who may be the subject of the complaint. In fact, he has almost immediate access to counsel, which is well paid for and is provided through various authorities, whether it be the commissioner, his association or whatever.
I raise this question once again merely so the minister can address it today. I also would like to know, to follow upon the comments of the member for Etobicoke, what prevents us from including in the operation of this act the review mechanism of the Ombudsman of Ontario. In view of his abilities to intervene, I think at some point it may be well worth while to consider this as an alternative. Perhaps the minister can express the degree to which he has reconsidered his position on that point.
The other things I had some concerns about were raised in the other two presentations, but I do also want to indicate that sometimes when it comes down to having hearings -- and there have been 17 official hearings during the last three years, if I am not mistaken; I may be wrong and I am subject to correction on that -- when witnesses are required to come in, perhaps there could be some review of the possibility of providing witness fees. It is not unusual to have people take time off their employment to come in and be the subject of a hearing. Perhaps witness fees, with whatever else is required, would provide people with some way of compensating themselves for loss of pay.
I do not suspect at this stage that this is something to which the police officer, for instance, would be subject. I presume in most cases, unless there is an automatic suspension or whatever pending the results, he would be on full salary until such time as a determination was made under the legislation.
There are two or three other concerns which will probably be best addressed in our committee review of this bill, but if I could have the Attorney General address those two or three items at this stage, I would like to indicate once again for the record that we support in principle the bill as it is provided to us, so it can continue something that has proved to be in most cases fairly satisfactory in its operation.
It would have been nice if we had had a few more days to do a full review and to see exactly how many of the groups that appeared in front of us in 1981 would come up with an endorsement of the operation of this pilot project in 1984.
Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, I would like to endorse very strongly some of the comments of the members opposite with respect to the leadership that has been provided by Mr. Linden and the very effective contribution he has made through this very important pilot project to the broader community. In particular, the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk and the member for Etobicoke were very generous in their praise of Mr. Linden and his office. I would like to support enthusiastically the sentiments that were behind their comments. They are obviously sentiments I share totally.
With Mr. Linden today is Mr. Stephen Ginsberg. I think his correct title is executive director of the office. Under Mr. Linden's direction, together with the rest of the staff, he has made a very major contribution to police community relations in Metropolitan Toronto. As police are almost always at the focal point of citizens' concerns, the maintenance of harmonious citizen-police relations is and should be a major objective of all of us, as I am sure it is.
Given the pluralistic nature of Metropolitan Toronto, there are obviously numerous special challenges to law enforcement in this area. Particularly when there are so many different cultures and traditions represented in Metropolitan Toronto, it does not come as any surprise to all of us in this Legislature that attitudes differ and the occasional potential for misunderstanding or insensitivity on both sides is always very real. It would be rare, given the circumstances, if this were not to occur from time to time.
Mr. Linden and his office have done a great deal to enhance these relationships and to defuse some very difficult situations. As has been noted, this is true not only in respect to the case-by-case matters they must deal with, as important as these matters are, but also relates to some issues that might be said to be of systemic concern.
12:50 p.m.
I think this is an important day in the life of Metropolitan Toronto, indeed in the life of this province, as we approach this legislation on the occasion of its second reading. I apologize to any of the members opposite who would have preferred to have had this legislation introduced earlier in the fall and to have been allowed more time for concerned citizens to appear before the standing committee on administration of justice. In the best of all possible worlds, this would have been desirable.
The events of Thanksgiving Monday, I suppose, took us all by surprise concerning what the legislative program might or might not be in the parliament of Ontario in the weeks that followed. But I did indicate to the members, I think it was last June, our intention to make this project permanent.
As I recall, I certainly invited all members to express their concerns and to dialogue directly with Mr. Linden and his staff, as many of the members have done. To me, this dialogue has represented a very important contribution to the pilot project and to the transition between the pilot project and making this a permanent institution to the extent that any institution can be permanent in the life of our community.
I appreciate the comments from members opposite. The member for Etobicoke has made a number of very thoughtful comments about this legislation, which I will not be able to deal with today during the time permitted. But we will be addressing all of the concerns expressed by members opposite during the committee consideration of this important legislation.
There are two or three matters I would like to address. The member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk again came back to the concerns that were expressed by his party when this legislation was passed almost three years ago. He talked about a very fundamental principle of the legislation, which is why I am taking a few moments now. He spoke of the relationship between this independent civilian review and the responsibility and accountability of the police department, in this case the Metropolitan Toronto police department, in the first instance.
It was suggested, echoing the thoughts of other community groups, that the civilian agency should have the responsibility for the handling of citizens' complaints against the police from the beginning and that there should be no police intervention or initial investigation.
As I said several years ago, and I repeat, it is my respectful view -- and I realize there are issues about which reasonable people can and will disagree -- having had the benefit of almost three years' experience with this important project, that this experience has only reinforced my earlier views on the importance of maintaining police responsibility and accountability in dealing directly with citizens' complaints, at least in the first instance, and where possible, as I hope it will be in the vast majority of cases, resolve these complaints to the satisfaction of the citizens involved.
The criteria are responsibility, accountability and maintaining the control and accountability internally that are so essential to the effective operation of any police force. It certainly is my view, strengthened by our experience, that to remove this responsibility and initial accountability from the police force would have been a very bad mistake for a number of reasons. I will touch on them only briefly; this is a subject that could occupy a good deal of our time.
It is important to maintain that accountability and responsibility, as I have stated. Experience here and elsewhere throughout the world has indicated that when that responsibility is removed, what invariably happens is the independent investigative agency that has responsibility for investigating these complaints invariably find itself immediately or almost immediately in an unnecessary confrontation, an adversarial position and relationship, with the police. I do not have the time to go into the reasons that is so. This has been explored, and the experience is available for our scrutiny.
Giving the police the first responsibility -- and many police officers would prefer not to have that initial responsibility -- potentially ensures a more effective investigation because the truth is more likely to be found in an internal review by the people who are most likely to know how to get at the facts. That is the reality of policing today.
The people doing the investigation know that when the initial investigation is done, it may well be reviewed by an independent agency. Knowing that it is going to be reviewed and possibly investigated has a very salutary influence in encouraging a good investigation at the beginning. In this respect, the individual citizen has two opportunities to have his or her concerns properly addressed
It is worth repeating in this Legislature that one of the great law reformers in the history of Britain, living today, Lord Scarman, made an inquiry into the serious disturbances in Brixton, which involved major problems in police community relations. In his report to the British government, he recommended our Ontario model as the best he and his researchers had been able to find anywhere. We in this Legislature should be proud of that fact and proud of what we have accomplished.
I would have liked to have raised some other issues in the presence of the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk, but for some reason he has left before giving me an opportunity to address some of his concerns. In particular, he reflected on the fact that his comments about lawyers and police were distributed by the Attorney General from time to time to the parties most interested. I want to say to that distinguished member of the Legislature that any time I can give him a wider audience, I will remain committed to what is obviously something so clearly in the public interest.
There are a number of other issues that we will deal with in committee. I would like to thank the members opposite, in particular the member for Etobicoke, for their thoughtful and important contributions to this debate.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of second reading of Bill 140 will please say "aye."
All those opposed will please say 'nay."
In my opinion the ayes have it.
Motion agreed to.
Bill ordered for standing committee on administration of justice.
The House adjourned at 1 p.m.