Journal des débats 1989-janv-16 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr. Speaker: Before we commence the proceedings, I would ask all members of the Legislative Assembly to recognize in the Speaker’s gallery the ambassador of Italy to Canada, His Excellency Valerio Brigante Colonna, and also the consul general of Italy in Toronto, Dr. Gianluigi Lajolo. We also have a delegation of members of the fifth commission of the Italian Chamber of Deputies. The vice-president of the commission and head of the delegation is Luigi Castagnola.

Please join me in welcoming our guests today.

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

Mr. Speaker: I would also like all members to join me in welcoming the group of legislative pages who will serve in this, the first session of the 34th Parliament, 1989. They are:

Cristina Alfano, Lawrence; Peter Aylan-Parker, Brant-Haldimand; Adam Cota, Durham-East; Michael Godwin, Victoria-Haliburton; Melanie Hartley, Wentworth East; John Korczak, Norfolk; Leila Kumpula, Northumberland; Jessica Mark, Durham Centre; Richard Martin, Cornwall; Bonnie McNiven, Simcoe East; Jocelyn Mundell, Algoma; Karen Murtaugh, Sarnia; Nadija Paznar, Mississauga South; Julie Shouldice, Ottawa West; Robin Shulman, Brantford; Fiona Sillars, Etobicoke West; Rose Spencer, Durham West; Kevin Tribe, Halton North; Benjamin Wagner, Middlesex; Christopher WilIer, London South; Aaron Williams, Brampton South; Matthew Wohlgemut, Frontenac-Addington; Peter Yoo, Simcoe Centre, and Renata Zoretich, Mississauga West.

Please join me in welcoming this group of pages.

VISITOR

Mr. Speaker: I would also call to the attention of the members of the House the fact that we have a visitor at the table, Janet Summers, clerk of committees and clerk at the table of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba, who is visiting us under the attachment program in the Clerk’s office. Please join me in welcoming her.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

SALE OF CIGARETTES TO MINORS

Mr. Allen: This week is National Nonsmoking Week, with an emphasis on tobacco use among minors.

Studies show that 92 per cent of smokers first smoke by the age of 16 and that the average starting age of smokers has dropped in 20 years from 16 to 12. Of teenagers who smoke more than one or two cigarettes a day, 85 per cent, it has been claimed, will escalate to a lifestyle of regular smoking.

Our teenagers are thus the critical clientele for tobacco companies, despite their protestations that they focus only on adults. Our teens are victims in the making, eventual candidates for the cancer, heart and lung diseases that lead to the 35,000 premature deaths annually due to smoking in Canada.

For the vast majority of young smokers, stores remain the source of their cigarettes. Present legislation is clearly inadequate and stronger measures are necessary to reduce easy access by minors to cigarettes.

I will therefore shortly be introducing a private member’s bill to require the licensing of retailers for tobacco sales, with revocation of licences upon proof of sales to minors. The bill will also prohibit the location of cigarette vending machines in areas accessible to minors. A determined adolescent may still find cigarettes, but with such legislation fewer will begin smoking, fewer will become addicted and fewer people will, in the long run, suffer and die from tobacco-caused diseases.

MICROBREWERY PRODUCTS

Mr. Runciman: I want to bring to the attention of the House another glaring example of the Liberal government’s failure to support small business. In this instance, it is the discriminatory policies of the Liquor Control Board of Ontario with regard to promoting the sale of domestic beer brewed by microbreweries.

I cite the example of Upper Canada Brewing Co., a small business enterprise that requires the assistance of the LCBO to promote the sale of its products. Upper Canada is available at LCBO outlets, but for the average customer the beer is not necessarily easy to find. Often Upper Canada products are given inferior shelf space in the stores. You may find cases of Upper Canada in a back corner or against a wall.

As well, the price labelling on the microbrewery product includes a deposit. That is not the case for imported beer. This leaves the customer with the mistaken impression that the Ontario product is more expensive than it actually is.

Rather than continue to discriminate against Ontario microbreweries in this way, the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Wrye) should direct the LCBO to change its ways and promote the sale of domestic products. LCBO prices on microbrewery products should clearly display the fact that the price includes a deposit. Also, microbrewery products should be displayed with imports or on comparable shelf space.

The policy of the LCBO should be to promote the sale of domestic beer, as it now does for foreign products. A level playing field would greatly assist these Ontario small businesses. Microbreweries are not requesting favouritism. Rather, they simply want the LCBO to give them the same opportunity to sell their premium products as is granted to foreign breweries.

GILBERT, ALBERT AND MARCEL VANKERREBROECK

Mr. Tatham: The Oxford County Land Saver Award is presented annually to a person or persons who, through example and/or encouragement, help to preserve and conserve Oxford county’s finest natural resource, our land.

The Land Saver Award for 1988 was recently presented to three Norwich men, Gilbert, Albert and Marcel Vankerrebroeck of Remi Vankerrebroeck Farms Ltd. The family tobacco, corn and bean crop operation boasts a number of conservation features. The use of well-maintained tree windbreaks on the sandy tobacco ground controls wind erosion. They have also developed a successful residue management program for their field crops, centred on mulch tillage in corn, and a no-till system for soybeans.

If we take care of the land, the land will take care of us. Congratulations to our Ontario farmers who look after the land.

POLICE SHOOTING

Mr. D. S. Cooke: Today I will be tabling a petition signed by approximately 1,700 people calling for a full public inquiry into the death of Bernard Bastien.

There has been widespread unhappiness in our community with the way in which the Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith) has handled this issue. When Mr. Bastien was shot and killed, the confidence of our community in the police was badly shaken and has continued to be shaken because of the very incompetent way the Solicitor General has bungled this issue.

1340

The Speaker will know that just recently the coroner’s jury has been reappointed. While there will be a change in the coroner, the jury will remain the same as the coroner’s inquest continues. There will be no public inquiry. There will simply be an inquiry by the Ontario Police Commission. The minister has completely bungled this issue and has done nothing to restore confidence in the police.

I must say that none of the other local members of the Legislature has commented on this issue. I think that had the other local members participated in this debate and made recommendations for a full public inquiry, that could have been achieved. If we are to restore confidence in the police system in our region of the province, the only way that will be achieved is through a full public inquiry. It is not too late. I encourage the minister to do that.

HOSPITAL SERVICES

Mrs. Marland: Just over a week ago I had a telephone plea from a constituent of mine who has had his heart surgery cancelled eight times over the last few months. This gentleman’s wife was so afraid for her husband’s life that I wrote the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan) that day asking that his surgery not be delayed again. However, it was delayed the following day.

On January 13, a week later, the minister responded. I must tell members how disappointed and concerned I am about her response. First, the minister indicated that this gentleman’s heart surgery was elective and at the present time only urgent and emergency patients are being treated. It is very interesting to note that the Health minister is saying that there are now three waiting lists for heart patients Second, the minister advised me that should my constituent’s condition change, he should notify his doctor. If we knew when we were going to have a heart attack, we would all check ourselves into the hospital prior to that often fatal event. Third, the minister assured me that the independent investigators reviewing the hospital scheduling would solve future problems.

We know what the problems are. They do not need investigating. We have heart patients scheduled for surgery because they need it. It is not cosmetic. The health care system is failing. In the first place, if we have to have waiting lists, can we be a little more considerate of the patients who are on those lists, rather than telling them to notify their doctor if there is a change in their condition?

FRED TROUGHTON

Mr. Offer: It is an honour to rise in the House today in order to recognize the accomplishments of Fred Troughton. Mr. Troughton has been named the 1988 Systems Professional of the Year by the Toronto chapter of the Association for Systems Management. He is the immediate past-president of the Mississauga Board of Trade.

In a growing city like Mississauga, the local board of trade provides a very important function. My city is one of the fastest growing in Canada and I am proud to say that its business community is a dynamic and significant part of Mississauga’s success. Not only does the board of trade provide seminars and information on businesses and government-related programs for the community, it also hosts a monthly cable show, provides regular forums with distinguished guests and examines issues and legislation from all levels of government in order to assess any potential impact on the city.

It is no wonder that Mr. Troughton has served the Mississauga Board of Trade in the capacity of president. His community service spans many years and, perhaps most important, he has served with dedication and enthusiasm. For example, with more than 20 years of active involvement with the Toronto Association for Systems Management, Mr. Troughton has served twice as president. He is currently an international director serving Division 10, which includes all chapters in Ontario with the exception of Ottawa.

I hope members will join with me in congratulating Mr. Troughton on this very special recognition award.

REACTIONS TO VACCINES

Mr. Hampton: This week I learned of another young child in my constituency who has suffered injuries since being vaccinated with the diphtheria, polio, tetanus and pertussis vaccine. The child’s injuries may be lifelong and irreversible. I think everyone would admit such a situation is very sad, but this young child is not alone. There are many more children across Ontario who are seriously damaged by the DPTP vaccine.

Our society as a whole benefits from the administration of these vaccines. It dramatically reduces the incidence of serious diseases. The question is, however, who assists these young children? Lawsuits are far too often very expensive and also too often unfruitful. When will the government act to bring in a no-fault system to cover the injuries and lifelong damage these children suffer? The time is long past for action.

Mr. Speaker: That completes the allotted time for members’ statements. There are quite a number of private conversations. It makes it somewhat difficult to hear the proceedings.

Mr. Velshi: I have a statement.

Mr. Speaker: On what?

Mr. Velshi: I request unanimous consent o recognize Martin Luther King’s birthday.

Mr. Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?

Agreed to.

MARTIN LUTHER KING

Mr. Velshi: I rise today to acknowledge a day of significance for all those who hold human and civil rights close to their hearts. As people throughout the world continue their struggle for equality for all, we commemorate the birthday of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Had Dr. King’s life not been ended so tragically, it would have been his 60th birthday.

Martinsday is set aside to encourage us all to think of the principles that guided the life of Martin Luther King, Jr. It is a holiday in the United States, but the ideas that Dr. King stood for know no boundary.

In one of his most famous speeches, Dr. King spoke of a dream that he had, a dream that the time would come when people “will not be judged by the colour of their skin, but by the content of their character.” It is a dream that was not realized in his lifetime, but it is one we should all strive to achieve.

Dr. King shared the fundamental beliefs of other civil rights leaders, including Mahatma Gandhi. The goal of these advocates continues to inspire the quest for equal treatment and basic human rights for all. Perhaps the best way to pay tribute to Dr. King is for all of us to reaffirm our commitment to making his dream a reality.

Mr. Cousens: On behalf of my party, I, too, would like to pay tribute to a remarkable man, a man whose quest for justice and equality symbolized a commitment to humanity that remains alive to this day. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. would have been 60 years old yesterday had his life not been taken so abruptly and tragically on April 4, 1968. Yet the memory of his dedication and actions in his battle against racism is as vivid now as it was 20 years ago.

Today the United States celebrates Dr. King’s birthday and we in this Legislature should join with our neighbours in commemorating the spirit of his dream. This province has been a leader in the pursuit of a just and harmonious society. For all of our varied backgrounds, we have learned to act as a community, as a multicultural society where different people, different beliefs and different cultures live and work together. Our society is not without problems. We are not perfect, but I truly believe that we are working each day to dispel the evils of racial disharmony.

As we have seen the events of the last week, with the incidents that are making the headlines of the newspapers, and as we view the reaction of many, many people, it is time for us, once again, to remember the message that Dr. King had for all of us. In his statement and in his speech at the civil rights march on Washington in August 1963 he said, “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the colour of their skin, but by the content of their character.” That can be our dream. That has to be our goal; that has to be our aim.

I call on each and every one of us here today to renew that commitment. May we continue to take pride in our community and in our respect for our fellow men and fellow women and children, and may we continue a dream that has not lost its meaning.

Mr. B. Rae: We pay tribute today to a citizen of the United States who, in the course of his life, became in a very true sense a citizen of the world. I think it is ironic that some 20 years after an assassin’s bullet cut him down, all of us in this country, and indeed around the world, are beginning to appreciate the force and power of the life of Dr. Martin Luther King.

1350

Let us not forget, as we commemorate his remarkable life and the tragedy of his death at the age of 39, that in the ideals for which he fought Dr. King was a controversial man in his own lifetime. He was someone who fought hard for the things he believed in and who was vilified and criticized by those in authority. He was jailed for his beliefs and he was regarded by a great many, as he lived, as a controversial and difficult man.

Let us remember that through the years and ages, there has been one message that has come from Dr. King. It is a message, of course, of justice. It is a message of the relationship between social and economic justice. He was a great spokesman on behalf of social democracy and economic democracy in the United States.

But more than any of those things, he was a spokesman for the power of love and for the force of love in the affairs of mankind in trying to give meaning to those words in his life and his beliefs in the creation of a very different kind of society in the United States.

As other members have done, I would like to close my comments on the really quite remarkable life and contribution of Dr. Martin Luther King to world peace and world justice, through an understanding of the relations between people of different colours and backgrounds and races and economic status, with some of the words he used in what is no doubt his most famous speech, the speech he gave on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial on August 28, 1963, when he said:

“I have a dream today!

“I have a dream that one day ‘every valley shall be exalted and every hill and mountain made low. The rough places will be made plain and the crooked places will be made straight, and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together.’

“This is our hope.

“And when this happens, and when we allow freedom to ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God’s children, black men and white men, Jews and gentiles, Protestants and Catholics will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual: ‘Free at last. Thank God Almighty, we are free at last.’”

VISITOR

Mr. Speaker: I have just been informed that we also have a visitor in the lower west gallery, a federal member of Parliament, Patrick Boyer. Please welcome Mr. Boyer.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

SERVICES COLLÉGIAUX EN FRANÇAIS / FRENCH-LANGUAGE COLLEGE SERVICES

L’hon. Mme McLeod: Jeudi passé, j’al eu l‘honneur de signer une entente avec le secrétaire d’État, l’honorable Lucien Bouchard.

It is my pleasure today to share with the House details of the agreement reached last week between Ontario and the government of Canada.

An eight-year, cost-sharing agreement will provide for the expansion of French-language programming and services in Ontario’s college system. Included is the establishment of a French-language college in the Ottawa area by 1990, with new facilities expected to open by 1992.

French-language college services will also be enhanced in northern and central-southwestern Ontario. That will come after study and consultation with the francophone community in each region to determine the requirements and the most effective means of delivery.

The federal government has agreed to pay up to $50 million over eight years out of the official languages in education protocol. The Ministry of Colleges and Universities will match that amount from its own funds previously committed in 1987 to French-language programming.

The board of governors of the new college in Ottawa will be nominated in the near future.

I believe this project will greatly assist the sociocultural environment and development of the francophone community in Ontario. I expect the outcome will be greater participation by francophones in post-secondary education. Our latest figures show about 2,800 francophones studying in college French and bilingual programs in Ontario. Seventeen hundred of them study in Ottawa.

I am very pleased the federal government is able to assist us in providing Ontarians with increased opportunities for post-secondary education in the French language. This initiative is in keeping with the spirit of Ontario’s French Language Services Act.

PAY EQUITY

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: As Minister of Labour, Minister without Portfolio responsible for women’s issues and minister responsible for the Pay Equity Commission, I am tabling later today the report of the Ontario pay equity office dealing with predominantly female sectors of the economy.

As those who were in this House when the Pay Equity Act was passed in 1987 know, the act mandated the pay equity office to conduct a study into and make recommendations on the issue of how to implement pay equity in those sectors of the economy where there were too few, if any, male jobs upon which to base the value comparisons needed to redress gender-based discrimination in wage-setting.

Without these comparisons, women are not able to share in the benefits of the Ontario pay equity legislation. That situation was addressed by an amendment to the legislation requiring the pay equity office to make a report to the minister responsible, setting out its recommendations.

In the report I am tabling today, the pay equity office has identified five options which could be taken in order to redress the conundrum of no male comparator jobs. They are reducing the percentage threshold of job class, changing the definition of establishment, proportional comparisons, proxy comparisons, and average adjustments.

The pay equity office has asked that it be given time to explore the ramifications of each of these five options and return to this government with its final recommendations for the public sector no later than year-end 1989 and for the private sector no later than year-end 1990.

The pay equity office has also recognized that narrowing the current 36 per cent wage gap will require moving beyond pay equity per se, since pay equity only addresses between one quarter and one third of the wage gap. The office has also commented on further measures to deal with such issues as the confinement of women to low-wage job ghettos and the disproportionately large number of women working at the minimum wage.

Consequently, in a second set of recommendations, the pay equity office has also recommended changes in the Employment Standards Act, enhanced government commitment to employment equity, and increased government funding in some of the predominantly female sectors of the economy.

I want to thank the pay equity office for its thoughtful report on a very complex matter. I also want to take this opportunity to acknowledge the work of the office in the other important areas of its responsibility.

By this time next year, some 6,500 public sector employers will have posted pay equity plans. Payouts will have begun for an estimated 480,000 employees. By 1995, the last date for starting wage adjustments, about 60,000 employers in total, both public and private, will be making or will have made pay equity adjustments for up to an estimated 1,715,000 women employees under the requirements of the legislation.

It is the responsibility of the pay equity office to provide assistance, information, education and generally lead the way through this very fundamental change in the way the work traditionally done by women is valued in this province.

The pay equity office has published a series of implementation guidelines for the legislation. It has undertaken a public education campaign that has involved speaking engagements, a seminar program and a telephone hotline service. It has developed a comprehensive training course which has been adopted by every community college in Ontario. To date, the pay equity office has trained some 100 community college instructors to teach the course in their respective colleges. It has produced numerous information publications, including videos and educational exercises.

In addition, and very important, the commissioner has asked several distinguished Ontarians, representing employer and employee perspectives, as well as the Equal Pay Coalition, to serve on the commissioner’s Pay Equity Advisory Council. The role of the council is to give the pay equity office tough, reality-rooted feedback on its activities and on the course of implementation.

In preparing this report, the pay equity office has recognized not just the complexity of this issue, but also that we are breaking new ground in trying to come to grips with it. This speaks to the enormous challenge that faces us in finding workable, equitable and effective solutions in the absence of any precedents whatsoever.

1400

At the same time, I am very mindful of the need to move expeditiously towards concrete solutions to this important problem. Therefore, I will be attaching a great priority to my consideration of the recommendations in the report.

The government, through this legislation, has already made a strong commitment to extending the benefits of pay equity to Ontario women. We want to ensure we continue to realize in the province very real and very significant progress in eliminating discriminatory pay practices for Ontario women.

This report is an important piece of work with far-reaching implications for the women of Ontario and for employer, employee and union groups.

Finally, I want to inform the Legislature that I am making this report available to all members, the media, the public and other interested parties. The report will also be available in French very shortly.

Before I close, I want to acknowledge the presence in the gallery of the pay equity commissioner, Dr. George Podrebarac, and a number of senior officials from the Pay Equity Commission.

DRIVER EXAMINATIONS

Hon. Mr. Conway: On behalf of my colleague the Minister of Transportation (Mr. Fulton), I would like to announce that the Ontario Ministry of Transportation has expanded service at selected driver examination centres in Ontario.

Saturday driver testing is in response to the large increase in demand for road tests by the public over the past year.

In the greater Toronto area, the John Rhodes Driver Examination Centre in Brampton, the Toronto East centre in Scarborough and the Oshawa centre in Oshawa will soon be open on Saturdays for class G -- general -- driver exams.

In northern Ontario, the driver examination centres in Sault Ste. Marie, Thunder Bay and Dryden will be open on Saturdays for all classes of driver licence testing.

This new initiative will increase the number of openings for all classes of driver’s licences and will help to reduce the waiting time for these tests, particularly in the Metropolitan Toronto area.

The Ministry of Transportation recommends that anyone who wants further information about this additional opening for road testing opportunities should contact his local driver examination centre for more details.

RESPONSES

SERVICES COLLÉGIAUX EN FRANÇAIS

M. Allen: C’est avec grand plaisir que nous apprenons, de la ministre des Collèges et Universités, qu’une entente a été conclue entre le présent gouvernement et le gouvernement du Canada, entente visant à l’établissement, ici en Ontario, d’un collège francophone homogène, qui sera situé a Ottawa. Je constate également avec plaisir la croissance, partout en Ontario, des services collégiaux en français.

C’est une mesure très importante et même cruciale pour le développement et l’épanouissement de la culture franco-ontarienne, mesure que la communauté francophone et notre parti demandent depuis longtemps.

Mon collègue de Scarborough-Ouest (M. R. F. Johnston), et moi-même en tant qu’ancien critique de l’éducation et des affaires universitaires et collégiales, demandons depuis longtemps que ce projet soit mis sur pied. Nous savons qu’au niveau des études secondaires, la jeunesse franco-ontarienne a grandement augmenté sa participation. Mais il reste un problème de participation au niveau postsecondaire, particulièrement dans les collèges et universités.

C’est donc pour ces raisons qu’il était très important que la ministre ait proposé ce développement et qu’elle ait conclu une entente avec le gouvernement fédéral.

Mes félicitations à la ministre et à la communauté franco-ontarienne.

PAY EQUITY

Mr. B. Rae: I want to comment on the statement made by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Sorbara) today in presenting this report of the Pay Equity Commission on low pay and on women working in occupations for which it is, under the current law, not possible to make any comparisons.

One thing the minister did not mention, and I think it is an important fact, is that 1.7 million women are covered by the government’s legislation and that of this 1.7 million more than half, that is to say 867,000 according to the Pay Equity Commission’s own numbers, are not covered by this legislation because there are no groups with which they can be readily compared because they work in occupations that are dominated by women.

I might point out to the minister that during the passage of this bill, my colleague Evelyn Gigantes pointed out time and again that there was nothing in this legislation that dealt in detail and in any specifics with the challenge of paying a decent wage to those hundreds of thousands of women who are locked into low-paying jobs. The very best we could get out of the minister’s colleague the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) was this study, of which we now have a copy, from the Pay Equity Commission.

Apart from telling us that there is indeed a problem, which we knew anyway, and apart from telling us that these women are to be found in several areas of the economy, which we knew anyway -- child care, health care, community and social services, libraries and so on -- we did not need a year for the Pay Equity Commission and from this government to tell us that women who work in child care are underpaid and that women who work in child care work in female-dominated professions.

What we wanted from this government this year was a strategy that would deal with breaking down the ghettos and making sure women start to get some justice in the workplace, which the bill does not give them, which the law does not give them and which this approach does not give them.

What does the government tell us? What the minister has announced today is that it is going to take as long as two years from today for the Pay Equity Commission to even present us with recommendations on what is going to be done for these hundreds of thousands of women working in the private sector.

Knowing that this government moves at a speed somewhere between a snail and a tortoise, even when pushed on issues, we know full well what that two-year delay means. It means we are going to have no justice from this government dealing with those women who are locked into areas of our economy. This government has done nothing. It shows that the pay equity bill is inadequate It shows that we were right when we said that two years ago. It shows how miserably inadequate the government’s achievements to date have been on behalf of women who are locked into these low-paid ghettos.

SERVICES COLLÉGIAUX EN FRANÇAIS

M. Villeneuve: Il me fait plaisir de dire Bravo à la ministre des Collèges et Universités pour sa déclaration au sujet de la mise sur pied d’un collège francophone dans la région d’Ottawa.

Il reste cependant un petit vide dans des régions comme Cornwall, le Nord de l’Ontario, ainsi que le Sud-Ouest de la province, qui ne sont pas encore desservies par un collège francophone.

Par contre, il faut demeurer vigilant pour que nos Franco-Ontariens aient toujours l’occasion, ici en Ontario, de s’exprimer et de travailler efficacement dans les deux langues officielles.

J’aurais aimé voir une étude sur les effets que le collège francophone d’Ottawa aura sur les régions comme Cornwall. Irons-nous chercher certains de nos étudiants francophones dans ces régions-là, pour avoir ensuite à faire face à une réduction dans le nombre de cours qui seront donnés en français dans les collèges dits « bilingues » en ce moment?

Au nom de la francophonie ontarienne, je dis encore: « Bravo et merci ».

DRIVER EXAMINATIONS

Mr. Cousens: There are three points I would like to make on the statement that has been made for the Minister of Transportation (Mr. Fulton). First, from our party, I hope the minister is recovering. I understand he has not been well and we certainly wish him a speedy recovery.

Now I deteriorate. The next point I would like to make is this: Where is the service for eastern Ontario? Where is the service for greater Metro? Here he is proving --

Interjections.

Mr. Cousens: I know how it is. If he were here, I would have gone right into it.

The fact of the matter is that he has not begun to address the concerns of the member for Ottawa South (Mr. McGuinty) who was talking about so much the minister is doing in the Ottawa area, yet there is nothing here to make him go home and be proud, nor is there anything here for the eastern part of Ontario or greater Metro. Come on, minister. He should get back here and do more than what he really says he is doing.

The third point: Here he is, announcing more driver training programs. What I would like to see the Minister of Transportation do in addition to that is provide some more roads. We are going to put more people on the roads. We are going to have that many more cars out there. Why not start doing something about the roads that we need around here? Highway 407 could be built a lot faster; let’s get on with the job. The job does not just involve coming out with a great big announcement from the ministry that has the resources to do something about the infrastructure around the greater Metro area and for all of Ontario.

1410

Instead of doing anything about the roads, they announce a few more people to teach drivers. We are going to fill the roads more and more. Let’s get back to the basics and do what we need, which is to build, construct and repair; to get the roads so that they are in order, so that these new drivers have some place to drive.

PAY EQUITY

Mr. Sterling: I would like to respond to the tabling of the report by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Sorbara). First I would like to congratulate Dr. Podrebarac for undertaking a very difficult task. We have to understand that Dr. Podrebarac, as chairman of the Pay Equity Commission is working, I imagine, with very few instructions from this government.

This act, which was passed in 1987, is an example of this government continually bringing legislation forward which is ill thought out, which has not been canvassed with the communities that it affects, and cannot be implemented. We are now almost three years past the time when we passed this legislation. This government is only now trying to figure out how to implement the legislation.

We understand that the government wanted to make political points in bringing this legislation forward when it did. We do not condone it going ahead with legislation that is ill thought out and that they have not really worked through in terms of how it affects the people of Ontario, particularly the women of Ontario. We would be most constructive in anything that they would give to a committee of this Legislature to work out details, but let’s get on with making the decisions so that the women of Ontario can be protected in the workplace.

ORAL QUESTIONS

INVESTIGATIONS OF POLICE ACTIVITIES

Mr. B. Rae: I would like to address my question to the Attorney General. I wonder if he can tell us why it is that his government has not established a procedure for the investigation of potential wrongdoing or possible criminal wrongdoing by police officers, which is seen and understood by everyone, all people in the community, as genuinely and truly independent. Can he tell us why the government has so far failed to do that, and resisted doing that, and would he not now see the need to do exactly that?

Hon. Mr. Scott: The honourable member and I participated only a week ago in a debate in this House designed to expand on an optional basis the Metro Toronto office of the police complaints commissioner to other centres in the province. In the course of that speech, both he and I said that, while not perfect in every way, we agreed on one thing, that the office of the police complaints commissioner in Toronto, which is a civilian complaint organization, had by and large served the public well.

The debate between he and I is whether that should be extended to other parts of Ontario on a mandatory basis or on an optional basis, and I look forward to debating the bill further and voting on it as soon as possible, so that there will be an option for other citizens of the province to have a freestanding civilian complaints process, such as exists in the Metropolitan Toronto area.

Mr. B. Rae: After the tragic killing of Bernard Bastien and after the death of Lester Donaldson and the death of Wade Lawson, I suggested publicly, and indeed after the death of Lester Donaldson spoke directly to the Attorney General privately, urging him to make very sure that the process of criminal investigation and prosecution was seen as being completely independent of both the police and the government. I urged upon him the creation of a special prosecutor, who would be in charge of the investigation from the very beginning, would make a completely independent assessment of whatever evidence was gathered and would then make a decision with respect to the laying of a criminal charge.

I would like to ask the Attorney General whether he does not now see the need in future for a different process, in the sense of a process that is independent of both police and government, when it comes to investigating and indeed possibly prosecuting police officers who may or may not have committed a criminal act in the course of their dealings with their fellow citizens.

Hon. Mr. Scott: The honourable member moves from his first subject, which is civilian complaints about police misconduct, to a second and different subject, the desirability of having an independent prosecutor.

I have every reason to believe that we will have occasion to debate this interesting concept further, but I draw to the honourable leader’s attention that one of the downsides to what is called independent prosecution is that it is not publicly accountable in an assembly such as this.

The Anglo-American way, by and large, with the deviation of Watergate, which did not follow the Anglo-American tradition, was to leave responsibility for prosecution to a professional staff subject to an Attorney General who would answer publicly for that determination. That is the way it has been done under our system, by and large, for 1,,000 years. and if the honourable members will let the trial proceed, we will have a full account of what happened in this case, tried, as it should be, by a jury composed of 12 of our fellow citizens.

Mr. B. Rae: I cannot comment, and neither can the Attorney General, on any particular charge that has been laid or has not been laid in any particular investigation, but I say, with respect, to the Attorney General, he knows full well that he has not been the one responsible -- at least, that is the answer that he gave last week -- for any particular decisions that were made with respect to any of the investigations that took place.

What I am asking him is: When it comes to investigation of the police, of possibly criminal activity by the police, does he not see the merit in having a process of investigation and of prosecution which is independent of the police and independent as well of him and his office? Does he not see the merit in having an independent prosecutor whose task would be to assess the evidence and make an independent judgement as to whether or not that evidence merited proceeding to trial?

If he does not see the merit of it, I say to him it is going to happen again and again and again until we resolve this question of independence when it comes to prosecution.

Hon. Mr. Scott: The member obviously knows that is precisely what we have in this province, with one additional feature. That is to say, there is a legislative officer -- myself, as Attorney General -- who is accountable in the Legislative Assembly. An independent prosecutor on the American model would have no such accountable feature.

As the honourable member will know, this particular case to which he has referred was investigated by the Ontario Provincial Police. which was the police force in the jurisdiction in which the offence is alleged to have occurred. They made their report on November 30 when the final evidence was collated. The assistant deputy attorney general in charge of criminal law put together a research team of crown law officers which met on December 14, December 20, December 21 and again on January 6 to review the matter in a very thorough and professional way.

On January 9, they came to their conclusion as to the advice they would give to the police and for the first time they told me what that advice was. Within the day, a senior superintendent of the Ontario Provincial Police who had been in charge of the investigative team went before a justice of the peace and said under oath he believed there were reasonable grounds to believe an offence had occurred.

That is the way the Anglo-American system works, always has worked and it is our best protection to assure that fairness will be done to all the players who find themselves in this very difficult and taxing situation. I am not going to allow that to be picked over; it is too important.

Mr. B. Rae: It is a curious situation when the Attorney General says he had nothing to do with it, and yet he is the one who wants to answer questions saying he is accountable for it. He cannot have it both ways.

1420

PAY EQUITY

Mr. B. Rae: I would like to ask the Minister of Labour: What specifically does he plan to do now, not in 1990, 1991 or 1992 but now, to deal with the devastating fact which has been revealed by the Pay Equity Commission that roughly half the women who were supposed to be covered by the law which the Liberal Party produced in the last minority government are not covered by the law, are not protected by the law and their interests are not advanced by the law? What is the minister going to do for those women now?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I simply suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that before he pretends to have a thorough understanding of what is in this report, which is a very comprehensive and excellent report, he spend a little bit of time with it.

I want to tell him that the issue of compensating, of providing pay equity in predominantly female establishments, is a very complex one. Indeed, there are no precedents in any other jurisdiction in the world. Every other jurisdiction in the world which has legislated pay equity has done it in a way similar to what Ontario did, that is to provide that within the enclosure of a business establishment, in any situation where there is discrimination against women based on the fact that they are women when their jobs were compared to male jobs, that discrimination be eliminated.

What we are attempting to do with the predominantly female establishments report and the recommendations contained in it is something which has not been done before. I think it is a tribute to the parliament that passed this legislation that we required the commission to prepare this report so we could consider this very difficult and complex question.

Mr. B. Rae: The minister says that what we are trying to do is something that has never been done before. I can tell him that the problem with this Liberal government is that it has done nothing, which is what it did before. The minister has been sitting on this report for a number of days. He has studied the problem but has presented no action plan to this House at all with respect to equal pay. The report has revealed that roughly over half the women who were supposed to be covered by the bill of the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) in fact are not covered by this legislation.

I have a very specific question again for the minister, who has not answered it once; I will ask him again. What is his action plan in 1989 to help and assist those women locked in job ghettos who have been waiting for years for action? They had to wait a year for this report. Now they have a report which says they will have to wait two more years for more pilot studies. What is the minister going to do to break through this nonsense and made sure that women are served by their governments when it comes to equal pay?

Mr. Sorbara: What I am going to do is the same thing I would suggest the Leader of the Opposition does, that is that we take the report, examine its recommendations very carefully and then consider whether we want to adopt those recommendations.

If the Leader of the Opposition wants to delve into some of the background studies which go behind this report, I would be very pleased to ensure that he gets them as soon as possible. It is a very serious issue; it is a very complex issue.

The commission makes four recommendations with respect to predominantly female establishments and it makes a fifth recommendation dealing with things such as amendments to the Employment Standards Act, new initiatives in the area of employment equity and so on. I can tell the Leader of the Opposition that these are things we have to consider urgently. The Ministry of Labour, and I as minister, are considering those things urgently.

Mr. B. Rae: This report has to be considered an incredible disappointment. It simply goes over the ground which was gone over in great detail during the arguments. all the way through 1980, 1981, 1982, before the minister was here. He should ask some of his colleagues. When we were debating equal pay under the Tories, the answer was: “It will come in stages. It will come gradually and slowly.”

Women have been waiting for too long. The minister’s own leader was saying in 1983-84: “The women of the province have waited long enough. It is time for action.” In 1985, we changed governments, we brought in equal pay, and half the women who were supposed to be covered are still not covered by the law which the government said would cover them.

I want to ask the minister specifically what he is going to do on employment standards, minimum wage, making sure the government kicks in its share on low-wage jobs to make sure that women get Out of these ghettoes? Just what is he going to do now in 1989 to break this for women?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I simply want to suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that when he has taken time to read the report and he looks at the recommendations, he will probably have a more thorough assessment of the complexities of the predominantly female establishment and finding ways to compare salaries paid in those areas within a pay equity system.

I want to simply tell him that those other issues that he raises are real issues, issues that he knows, I know and all of us in this parliament know we have to confront. We are examining issues relating to employment equity. We are in an exhaustive review of the Employment Standards Act. We are dealing with situations, examining alternatives to deal with situations where women working in cleaning industries are not able to continue in a working pattern because of contracting-out provisions, a number of different things.

Mr. B. Rae: You are telling me about that contract?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I am telling the member that we are working on it and he will see those initiatives presented --

Mr. B. Rae: You have been working on it for five years now -- contracting out. You have sat by while contractors were out the door.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. B. Rae: We told you what to do about that.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: Mr. Speaker, if the Leader of the Opposition wants to stop shouting for a moment --

Mr. Pouliot: He is absolutely right. He is frustrated and so are we --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: If he wants to stop shouting for a moment, then maybe I will be able to complete my reply.

The important point to be made today is that finally we have a report which, for the first time. provides us with some options and some models which will bring pay equity to every woman in this province.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

Interjections.

POLICE SHOOTING

Mr. Sterling: My question is to the Premier. The Premier will know that yesterday the Metropolitan Toronto Police Association, some 5,500 strong, asked for the resignation of our Attorney General (Mr. Scott) as a result of laying charges against Constable Deviney in the shooting of Lester Donaldson. Their action represents a crisis of the confidence of our people in the integrity of our justice system. That is not only a matter of concern to the government, the Liberal Party, but it is a concern to every member of this Legislature.

I know I speak for my party when I say we will support any action by this government to restore that confidence. Is the Premier going to take any actions to restore confidence when we have had this call for resignation? This is the first time I have ever heard of this particular situation in this province -- never before. What is he going to do to restore confidence?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I think the Attorney General can assist the honourable member in the steps the government is taking.

Hon. Mr. Scott: The first thing to observe in respect of this case is of course that a man was shot in Toronto in his room in August of this year. He leaves a widow. After a police investigation, a young police constable, who held the gun allegedly, was charged. He has a wife and a young family. I believe the investigation was a thorough one based on the efforts of senior staff of the Ontario Provincial Police and based on the best advice that the crown law office could give.

This is a tragic situation for those two men who faced each other on this terrible occasion, and it is the kind of exercise that has led to a charge in a criminal court. It is in the interests of everybody on all sides to let that process. which is an historic process in which 12 of our citizens weigh the evidence, take place. While we wait for it to take place, there is much to be said about the importance of all of us in trying to do what we can to make relationships for our police and for our racial communities in this city better than they have been, but the trial must be allowed to take place. It would be a major abuse of the criminal justice system if it did not. It would be a major abuse if it was picked over in this Legislature in advance, before it occurs.

In the meantime, leaving it to one side, we have the opportunity, each in our own way, to try to repair this terrible difficulty that has occurred as a result of those unfortunate events in August last summer.

Mr. Sterling: The problem here is that everyone in our province is not certain that history is repeating itself with regard to the laying of charges in this particular case. Both the members of the black community and the police community have almost identical questions when they are inquiring about this case. Both want to know why it took five months to lay the charges. Both want to know if the first crown attorney working on the case was the one who recommended that no charges be laid, but others, after, changed that particular decision. Both want to know why charges were laid just one week prior to the inquest being held.

Can the Attorney General suggest how these questions can be answered and how the justice system can regain its respect in Ontario?

1430

Hon. Mr. Scott: I should tell the honourable member, first of all, that all of the authorities -- he will be familiar with them -- are collected in Professor Edwards’s book on the office of the Attorney General and say that at the conclusion of the case the Attorney General in the Legislature is open to any questioning about the process the case has taken, whether a charge should have been laid or whether it should not have been laid.

But under our law, those questions are reserved until the trial is completed, so that we are certain that the trial will take place in the coolest atmosphere without any prospect that the jury will be affected. That is the first point. We must allow that to occur or we do a grave injustice to the system of which we are so proud.

I tried, in answer to the leader’s question, to explain the time frame. As I have said, the forensic evidence was available for the first time on November 30. Mr. Meinhardt made a preliminary factual report on December 14. The team that Mr. Hunt and the deputy minister established met on December 20, December 21 and January 6, made its decision on January 9 and reported to me. I am not ashamed that that process was completed as thoroughly and as carefully as possible. I believe that to be the case.

Mr. Sterling: The first time the Attorney General addressed the question as to the length of the investigation, we were told it would be completed by September 1 of last year. There are many, many questions to be answered on this, I do not think the Attorney General’s standard answer with regard to this particular case is satisfactory.

I believe that one method with which we might be able to have these answers would be to convene the standing committee on administration of justice of this Legislature in an in camera session, and have the crown attorneys and the investigating Ontario Provincial Police come before that committee and answer questions as to whether the process was correct and was followed in accordance with the laws of our province.

Hon. Mr. Scott: The honourable member seems to forget that we are going to have a trial. It is always the reaction of those people who have their axes to grind to say, “Let’s let the trial go on, but let’s call everybody into this chamber or that chamber and cross-examine them as to what happened.”

My friend must not forget that we are going to have a trial in this province and it is going to be conducted, as long as I am Attorney General, as fairly, both to the victims and the accused, as is possible. If there are any political benefits to be achieved by picking over the carrion, that can be done later.

HOSPITAL SERVICES

Mr. Eves: I have a question for the Minister of Health. I am sure the minister is aware that recently the only way an Orillia couple could get their 10-month-old son scheduled for heart surgery was to hire a lawyer who advised them they had legal recourse if surgery were not performed within a prescribed deadline. Their son’s surgery was then scheduled immediately.

Is it the minister’s idea of a world-class health care system where parents have to hire a lawyer in order for their children to have access to heart surgery?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: We know that over the course of history, as our health system has evolved, there have been times when the system has been underutilized and times when it has been stressed. I know from speaking with ministry officials that, in fact, the situation at the Hospital for Sick Children is no different today than it has been over the course of the many years of its history as one of the finest institutions, and that is that there are occasions when surgery is rescheduled. When it has to do this, it is always extremely concerned for the interests of the child and the family, as no one likes to see surgery having to be rescheduled.

I can assure my honourable friend that in its scheduling practices the physicians always take into consideration the urgency and the need of the patient, and that in those situations surgery is performed on the basis of “as needed.”

Mr. Eves: Debbie Guillemette of North Bay cannot afford to hire a lawyer to get her four-year-old son’s heart surgery scheduled. Her son Casey -- I am sure the minister is aware of the case; it was brought out last week -- is still waiting for surgery after having been cancelled half an hour before the last time surgery was scheduled.

What is the minister going to do to assure Mrs. Guillemette, and other parents of the other 39 children who had their heart surgery postponed at the Hospital for Sick Children and are on waiting lists for surgery, that their cases are going to be taken care of immediately and when it is necessary?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: The Hospital for Sick Children, as one of the very fine hospital facilities in this province, is a trauma centre for children. Emergency cases and emergency surgery always take precedence, and occasionally -- and I would say “occasionally” -- it is necessary for the hospital to reschedule elective or non-emergency cases. This is done on the advice of the physicians after they have determined the situation of the particular child.

L am aware of the situation from North Bay and can only say that I wish it was always possible that surgery could be performed at the convenience of parents and children. We always hate when it has to be rescheduled, but it is only done when there is an emergency case that has to be done first.

Mr. Eves: I do not think we are talking about convenience here with respect to a lot of these children whose surgery was postponed. We are very aware that Sick Kids is a major paediatric centre for all of Ontario; yet the minister’s government decided two years ago to cut back on residency positions, which in turn will cut back on the number of paediatricians and other child-care specialists whom the Hospital for Sick Children so urgently needs.

I think we should get to the root of the problem. We have had the problems identified as a shortage of critical care nurses at the Hospital for Sick Children. We now hear today from the Canadian Medical Association about a shortage of paediatricians in Ontario, and specifically at the Hospital for Sick Children. How can the minister justify cutting back with respect to residency positions for paediatricians at the Hospital for Sick Children at a time when we are having 40 children sent home and their heart surgery postponed, and when she knows that there is a critical shortage of critical care nurses at the very same hospital? What is she doing to address both of those situations?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: The member opposite, critic for the third party, is wrong when he suggests that there is a shortage of paediatricians in the province. In fact, the Council of the Faculty of Medicine, which has responsibility for determining the number of residency positions required, suggested that some 56 residency paediatric positions were determined to meet the needs and provide adequate numbers of trainees for Ontario.

As of November 1987 there were 137 training positions in paediatrics in the five health science centres in Ontario. In addition, there were some 37 positions funded by other sources. I would tell the member that his information is incorrect.

RENT REGULATION

Mr. Breaugh: I have a question for the Minister of Housing concerning a rent review decision at 63-65 Sympatica Crescent in Brantford.

Martin Roche is a tenant who lives in this building and he is angry and he is confused. His landlord asked for a 10 per cent increase in rent, but the rent review board, in its decision, gave the landlord a 42 per cent increase in rent. How does the minister explain that to Mr. Roche?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: As the member opposite knows, the legislation that governs rent review takes a look at the information that is brought forward by the landlord and by the tenants and processes all that information. On the basis of the informational statutory requirements of the law, the decision about what the justified increase in rent or the justified rent rebate might be is arrived at.

1440

Mr. Breaugh: Here is another thing that angers Mr. Roche. Members should know this company. It is a warm little family group called 498771 Ontario Ltd. In 1981, the government of Ontario gave it $916,000, in an interest-free loan for 25 years, to provide affordable housing.

Can the minister explain to Mr. Roche why the government gave this company almost $1 million to provide affordable housing and why an agency of this government gave it a 42 per cent increase in rent when it asked for only 10? Why does the minister have one section of her ministry working so fervently against everybody else in her ministry?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: I would like information about this particular loan or grant the member is talking about. When our ministry grants any organization resources for building nonprofit housing or building affordable housing, it is in accordance with a variety of programs we have. The member opposite knows very well what those programs are. We build nonprofit housing and we build various rental housing through the convert-to-rent proposals.

I think those programs are good programs and more housing gets built as a result of them than would be built otherwise. If there is a particular problem with this particular case, I will, of’ course, always be glad to review it.

METROPOLITAN TORONTO HOUSING AUTHORITY

Mr Cousens: I have a question for the Minister of Housing. The minister may be aware of the recent demand by caretakers of the Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority to be supplied with bullet-proof vests for protection.

According to Kevin Gaul, the MTHA’s general manager, workers are being allowed to work in pairs to protect one another, and they have also been offered fluorescent vests and horns as safety precautions. This is what I call preventive measures against crime in our public housing projects.

This is an extremely disconcerting situation and I would ask the minister what measures she is taking in conjunction with MTHA to provide safety within these sites.

Hon. Ms. Hošek: The member opposite should know that the entire question of safety and security for the people who work for the Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority is a matter that is currently part of the negotiation between the Canadian Union of Public Employees and the MTHA board. I am, therefore, not able to comment on something that is in the process of being negotiated.

Mr. Cousens: This is not Chicago. This is Toronto. It is an alarming fact that caretakers in our public housing projects -- no doubt tenants as well -- fear for their lives. Prior to being thrown out as chairman, John Sewell made a number of recommendations that attempted to make these units safer against crime. I would ask the minister again if any of the proposals that were recommended by John Sewell have been implemented. Second, what does she suggest for the workers and tenants in these units who fear for their lives?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: The concerns of tenants on the questions of safety and security are ones that I, of course, take very seriously. The Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority has been working actively with the tenants and tenant groups all over the province where there have been problems, if there have been any. The tenants have taken an extremely active role, working in their own communities to make sure that their concerns are met and are met significantly.

They have been working with staff involved. There have been various police forces that have been involved, together with the resident tenants, dealing with these issues. I believe the community involvement has made a significant difference in many of the locations in which our housing is located.

I know that nothing is perfect yet, but I believe the way in which we have been working in the community offers the best possibility for solutions where there are difficulties. There are many places in which the situation has been very significantly improved in the best way possible, which is by the combined work of the tenants who live in the buildings, the staff of the Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority under the direction of the board, and some local police forces.

Mr. Cousens: The answer is you are doing nothing.

MUNICIPAL FUNDING

Mr. Adams: My question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs. On December 20, Peterborough city councillors were told that cutbacks in provincial funding will cause a $420,000 shortfall in the city’s 1989 budget. Will the minister comment on funding commitments to the city of Peterborough?

Hon. Mr. Eakins: Unconditional grants are only one part of this government’s commitment to municipalities in this province. I want to say to the honourable member that there have been no provincial cutbacks; indeed, the total transfer to municipalities comes to about 5.4 per cent in 1989. I want to say that this, which certainly benefits the city of Peterborough, means there will be increases in welfare assistance of some 10.8 per cent. It will mean 11.3 per cent for infrastructure -- sewer and water.

Perhaps the honourable member wants to suggest that this is an area that the federal government might want to contribute to, and I would suggest that the mayor might want to talk to the federal member and ask that the federal government also participate. When I attended the provincial minister’s conference in Bromont, Quebec, this summer, I raised the question of federal participation in infrastructure and received unanimous support.

I would suggest that the generosity of this government last year meant that the mill rate in the city of Peterborough was about 3.3 per cent, which I think was one of the lowest in years.

Mr. Adams: I thank the minister. I am glad that funding has in fact increased in those areas. The city council was disappointed, though, that the unconditional grants had not been increased. Would the minister care to comment on the nature of unconditional grants and the significance of that change?

Hon. Mr. Eakins: I feel we must look at the broader picture, because the increased grants

certainly reflect the provincial priorities. It means that this government has contributed in many ways to the city and to the county of Peterborough. Indeed, I recall standing with the mayor of Peterborough last summer cutting a ribbon at the Peterborough Naval Association, which meant a contribution of some $250,000 from this government.

I might say that my colleague the Minister of Transportation (Mr. Fulton) has made sure that Highway 115 is back on track. That four-lane highway is now going to mean the world can come to the door of Peterborough.

Also, $1.7 million in additional hospital funding was made available last year and I might say that the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) has put an additional amount of more than $528,000 into the blue box program, and just the other day my colleague the Minister of Tourism and Recreation (Mr O’Neil) --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

POLICE PURSUITS

Mr. Kormos: I have a question of the Solicitor General. Since October 1988, the Solicitor General has been promising what she called tough new restrictions on high-speed police chases. In December she promised to speed up her decision in that matter. There has not been a decision. The promise has not been met. Where are the new guidelines that have been promised?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: I am very concerned, as is the member for Welland-Thorold. about high-speed police chases in this province, and indeed we are working towards an acceptable policy for the province.

In the meantime, of course, there is an Ontario Police Commission recommended policy which is almost 100 per cent adhered to by police forces across the province. We are, however, working diligently to bring forward a new policy, taking into consideration all information we can find.

Mr. Kormos: In 1986, three people died and 134 were injured in high-speed chases in the province. In 1987, 269 people were injured -- 82 of those were police officers -- and eight people died.

This is not fair to the police. It is not fair to the people. How many people are going to die in Ontario in 1989 awaiting the guidelines?

These promises have been ongoing since 1985. Just how many innocent people does the Solicitor General anticipate will be injured or killed in the course of high-speed chases, her guidelines not being implemented or revealed?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: It is because of the seriousness of the deaths that occur in chases that we are diligently working to come in with a policy in this regard. But I believe the member would recognize that we cannot look at a situation where indeed under no circumstances can a police officer ever give pursuit to a person who may well be, or be suspected to be, a criminal involved in or having been involved in criminal activity.

It is therefore for this reason that where we consider forbidding police chases, it has to be because there is a reasonable alternative in place, or else the hands of the police would be completely tied in matters of very serious importance to the citizens of this province.

1450

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mrs. Cunningham: My question today is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. The Social Assistance Review Committee released its report, Transitions, on September 5. After four and one half months the minister has only managed to implement one of 274 recommendations. There is a great number of other recommendations that deserve this Liberal government’s immediate attention, especially those incentives to allow welfare recipients to become self-reliant.

Would the minister publicly state which SARC recommendations he is ready to implement immediately?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: As the honourable member knows, I do not have the necessary financial resources to make that decision unilaterally, but I would quite clearly tell her that were those resources available immediately or in the near future, the two that I would like to see implemented most quickly would be the ones dealing with opportunity planning and the ones dealing with disincentives for the disabled and single parents going back to work. I think those are the ones the honourable member was referring to in her question.

Mrs. Cunningham: Many of our special citizens, including single mothers and adolescents, have been waiting for these four and a half months, as I have already stated. We receive letters and phone calls daily from people across Ontario who desperately want to know when Transitions will in fact be implemented. This is a credible report and I am happy the minister did talk about two parts of that particular report today.

I would suggest to the minister and ask him if he could advise the House today, again, when we will have a blueprint complete with a cost-benefit analysis, to address the cost aspect of Transitions, as well as the program aspect. There are many recommendations that are not going to cost money. We are looking at programs that must change.

Mr. Speaker: The minister.

Mrs. Cunningham: When will he have that blueprint for the --

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question has been asked.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: Referring to the final comment of the honourable member, the difficulty we have encountered in analysing the report is that there are very few recommendations that in fact do not cost money.

The honourable member will be aware that in the first stage it is the suggestion, or it is the best advice, if I can put it that way, of the committee that stage I would cost somewhere in the neighbourhood of $380 to $415 million In fact, Our analysis of the sections of stage 1 which were not costed would bring that figure up to approximately $600 million. It is substantially more than even the committee itself thought it would be.

Going back to the first part of her question, it would be my understanding that the honourable member could expect to hear a reference to this report in both the throne speech and the budget. Following that, there would be some reference as to how those aspects of it would be implemented.

I go back to what I said in my answer to the first part of her question, that those two areas in particular would be the ones where I personally would concentrate my energies and my advice to the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) and to the Management Board of Cabinet.

SALE OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES

Mr. Chiarelli: My question is to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Can the minister describe to the members some of the details surrounding the planned expansion of the Liquor Control Board of Ontario’s agency liquor store program on a trial basis in eastern Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I want to tell the honourable member -- in particular, those members from areas where this expansion is taking place will want to know this -- that in November the cabinet approved an expansion of this program into southern and central Ontario The LCBO has now identified five candidate communities for the first of these pilot projects into the southern part of Ontario. Three of the communities will need successful applicants who can deal in both languages. We expect to expand that program to another five communities later in the summer.

The member will know that the program has been around in northern Ontario for over a quarter of a century and that some 70 or 71 agency stores are now open in northern Ontario. We expect some expansion in that area as well.

Mr. Chiarelli: Can the minister state whether or not this particular agency store program has anything to do or any connection with the proposal several years ago dealing with wine and beer in corner grocery stores?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I must say I noted a comment from my friend the member for Cambridge (Mr. Farnan) to that effect over the weekend. I want to say that the proposal for beer and wine in the corner stores, which was debated in this Legislature some time ago, would have expanded beer and wine to some 14,000 or 15,000 stores. What we are contemplating in this expansion of the very successful agency program in the north is some 200 stores, all in.

While I am on my feet, I want to say to my friend from Cambridge and to members of his party, that of the 71 stores we now have open --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

NORTHERN HEALTH SERVICES

Mr. Hampton: My question is for the Minister of Health. The minister will know that after two years of advertising for a doctor and working with the government’s underserviced area program, the community of Rainy River finally, through its own resources, found an American physician with 12 years’ experience in family practice who wanted to come to the community to practise. But alas, after trying for six months to get through the hoops and jumps of the College of Physician and Surgeons of Ontario, she gave up.

The minister will also know the community commented to the Globe and Mail that the most disappointing part of the whole process was that the government of Ontario was nowhere to be seen in terms of helping that doctor get through the bureaucratic mess.

The Minister of Health professes to be concerned about health care in northern Ontario. Where was she on this one? Why was she not there to help a doctor who has 12 years’ experience get through the hoops and the bureaucracy of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario?

Mr. Speaker: That is two questions.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: As the member knows, I am very concerned about the provision of medical physicians and specialists for northern Ontario. It is the reason for my very strong support for the underserviced area program. He points out one aspect that I think it is important to clarify, and that is that the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario is the self-governing college of an independent profession. The Ministry of Health in no way influences the decisions of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, which determines the eligibility for practice of physicians in Ontario.

Mr. Hampton: I hope that now the minister is back, she will have a look at the Globe and Mail article, because Dr. Batman explains what it was that finally turned her off. Every time she turned around, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario wanted another little piece of paper or wanted a duplicate of this or a duplicate of that. That went on for six months, and she has 12 years of family practice in the United States.

Let me put the question a little more clearly for the minister. This is a document that says, “The Ontario Liberal Party in the North -- A Fair Share in Ontario Prosperity.” It was issued by the Liberal Party in March 1985. It says, “Need for Northern Doctors: The Liberal Party, in addition to the current programs to induce doctors to practise in the north” -- the current programs being the underserviced area program -- ”would favour internship spots that would be promoted for qualified foreign-educated and local doctors who agree to practice in designated areas in the north.”

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Hampton: That is what the minister said in 1985. Why is she not following through on that in 1987, 1988 and 1989?

1500

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: It is important for the member opposite and for all members of this House to realize that the medical profession in Ontario is a self-governing profession. The disciplinary and licensing body is the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario. That is the body that decides whether a licence to practice in Ontario will be issued. I would say to the member opposite that it is extremely important he understand that the Ministry of Health does not influence the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario in its determination of requirements and qualifications for licensing in Ontario. That is an independent responsibility of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario.

Once the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario has determined that an individual is licensed to practise in Ontario, then the programs of the Ministry of Health to assist physicians who wish to practise in northern Ontario are made available.

CROP USES

Mr. Villeneuve: To the Minister of Agriculture and Food: A year ago, I asked a question concerning alternative crop uses here in Ontario. In June 1988, my private member’s resolution on the use of methanol-ethanol carried unanimously in this Legislature. St. Lawrence Reactors has just announced a suspension of activity in fuel ethanol development due to lack of progress in developing a policy on grain-based fuel alcohols.

Can the minister state what action he has taken to promote fuel ethanol research in Ontario and whether his ministry will take up the work formerly done by St. Lawrence Reactors?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: That question would be more appropriately asked in the House of Commons, because it is the federal government that decided it was not going to have anything more to do with alternative crops such as corn for the manufacturing of ethanol. If the member is close to his federal members, and he is certainly far closer than I am, I would strongly advise him to put that question to them.

Mr. Villeneuve: That is a pretty typical reply of this government. Whenever it does not have an answer, of course it blames Ottawa.

The minister will remember that calcium magnesium acetate has also been studied for a number of years as a less corrosive and damaging replacement for road salt and has proved satisfactory, as the Ontario Good Roads Association report has stated here; again, over a year ago. We know the only serious obstacles to the use of this environmentally safer product is the lack of money and a cost-effective alternative. Can the minister outline what research efforts his ministry has undertaken to investigate large-scale CMA production in Ontario? It is an Ontario problem.

Hon. Mr. Riddell: As the member indicated, it is trying to find the cost-effective alternative to the use of, say, salt on the roads. I think the honourable member knows that to use a substitute for salt would cost about 20 times what salt costs at the present time.

As far as using alternative fuels such as ethanol is concerned, the cost is almost prohibitive compared to the present sources of fuel. Once we are able to come to grips with that, then I am sure the federal government will once again decide to do some work on finding ways of using our crops other than for food purposes. lf they want to take up the challenge, we in Ontario will certainly be prepared to work along with them.

EMPLOYMENT ADJUSTMENT

Mr. Neumann: My question is for the Minister of Labour. The minister is well aware of the thousands of older workers in Brantford who have lost their jobs as a result of the demise of Massey Combines, White Farm Equipment and problems at other local companies over the past several years. Those workers who were still in the plant when Massey entered receivership last year were those who had been with the company for the longest period of time. Many of them are into their 50s and find it difficult to find new jobs.

Recently, I noticed that the government of Quebec has signed an agreement with the government of Canada to participate in the program for older worker adjustment, POWA, which was established several months ago. My question to the minister is this, why has the government of Ontario not entered into a similar agreement with the federal government to participate in this program, which could be of such assistance to older workers not only in my community but across Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: It is a very important question and I congratulate the member for his interest in it and for advising me of his interest in it.

I want to say at the outset that the program for older worker adjustment, or POWA, as it is known, is not a panacea for the wide variety of labour adjustment issues we confront in this province, but it is an important component. Indeed, it provides assistance for workers over the age of 55 who have been victims of large-scale layoffs, in a situation where that worker has completely exhausted his or her unemployment insurance benefits and has virtually no prospect of finding other employment, even after participating in some training programs. So it is a rather limited program.

What is important to note about the program for older workers is that virtually every time one approaches the federal government to negotiate Ontario’s participation, the rules have changed. Indeed, prior to the federal election, the federal government was proposing a 50-50 sharing program. That seemed unacceptable -- just before you get up, Mr. Speaker -- because it replaces a program the federal government used to pay 100 per cent for.

Mr. Neumann: Canadian Auto Workers representatives have approached me about the Ontario government’s negotiations with the federal government on this program. They feel it is of some benefit. Massey went into receivership almost one year ago now and there are workers, albeit not the vast majority of them, who still have not found jobs, who are on unemployment insurance and perhaps the unemployment insurance may be running out. Are there any meetings planned to negotiate with the federal government on this program?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: The terms the federal government has offered on the program for older workers have now been changed once again. I have recently written to the federal Minister of Labour, the Honourable Pierre Cadieux, and indicated that I think it is appropriate for Ontario and the federal government to sit down once again and see if we can ensure that older workers, like the workers my friend the member for Brantford is talking about, can benefit from this program. I hope to hear from him soon. It is important those negotiations and an agreement be reached as quickly as possible.

ABANDONED RAIL LINES

Mr. Farnan: My question is to the Deputy Premier. The maximization of the rails-to-trails concept demands that abandoned rail lines be converted to a continuous recreational corridor or linear parkway. The concept is destroyed if the potential trail is fragmented as a result of sections of the line being purchased by private individuals.

May I ask the honourable minister, what has the interministerial committee, established “to consider provincial acquisition of abandoned railway rights of way for transportation, recreation and other public uses,” done to ensure these lines are not fragmented?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: The committee met with the representatives who are interested in the very line the member is interested in, which is the former Canadian National line that runs from Cambridge to Harrisburg. Not everybody knows where Harrisburg is.

I was quite interested in the honourable member’s concept that it has to be continuous, because just in the past little while some bridges have been removed that only the most aggressive hiker would be able to negotiate. So there are these barriers that are bound to come forward.

However, I think the honourable member expresses a view shared by many, that the opportunity for at least some of these abandoned lines to be used for recreation and so on is an excellent one.

Mr. Farnan: I appreciate the honourable member’s support for this concept.

With considerable fanfare, the Ministry of Transportation announced, at the time of the formation of the interministerial committee, “If we do not act quickly ... we may be faced with the permanent loss of these valuable tracts ... .”

Given that two municipalities through which the Cambridge-Lynden line passes will be meeting on this very subject this week and have expressed interest in purchasing the line with the intent of selling sections into private hands, will the minister, on behalf of the government, give a guarantee today that the government will freeze the private sale of these lands, given his support for the concept, and hold these lands in public trust until such time as the interministerial committee can review in total the Cambridge-Lynden line and other lines of significance across the province?

1510

Hon. R. F. Nixon: The Minister of Transportation (Mr. Fulton) is responsible for the actions of that committee. When he is here, he might like to respond to the member’s comments. As for my point of view, I do not agree with the honourable member, who feels that all of these lines have to be dedicated for that purpose. I do not think that is practical and I feel that putting that forward as one of the alternatives is counterproductive.

The other thing that concerns me, frankly, is that the present owners of these lines are responsible for maintaining the fences, cutting the weeds and keeping the drainage in proper working order, and the idea that somebody, public or otherwise, is going to pay a large amount of money for acquisition of the lands does not make a lot of sense to me. I think we ought to see that certain public agencies take on the ownership of these properties, if that can be arranged. In some instances they may very well revert to private ownership, from which they were removed, in some instances by expropriation, back in the 1800s. This is not a simple problem, as the honourable member knows, and will require a good deal of careful thought.

INTER-CITY GAS CORP.

Mr. McLean: My question is for the Minister of Energy. Inter-City Gas Corp. was granted a retroactive rate increase by the Ontario Energy Board. The Ontario Energy Board then ordered the ICG to collect its retroactive rate increases for residential customers in a one-time charge that appeared on the December 1988 billings. This increase ranged between $50 and $70 for the average residential customer. Why did the minister allow this to happen? I know it is the energy board’s direction, but why did the minister not step in and save these senior citizens $50 or $70 extra?

Hon. Mr. Wong: The way that our system works in Ontario, the Ontario Energy Board is an independent board and it has the authority and the responsibility to make sure that when a company such as ICG makes representations to it with respect to rates, that it assesses all of the factual information to make sure that the rates are just and reasonable for the users of the energy that we are talking about. It is the responsibility of the OEB.

PETITIONS

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION

Mr. Beer: I have a petition signed by 100 persons, members of the Superannuated Teachers of Ontario in York region. The petition reads as follows:

“We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows:

“To amend the Teachers’ Superannuation Act, 1983, in order that all teachers who retired prior to May 31, 1982, have their pensions recalculated on the best five years rather than at the present seven or 10 years.

“The proposed amendment would make the five-year criteria applicable to all retired teachers and would eliminate the present inequitable treatment.”

That is a petition from 110 superannuated teachers in York region and I have put my signature to it.

POLICE SHOOTING

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I have a petition to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows:

“Whereas the Solicitor General’s recent establishment of a new coroner’s inquest and the Ontario Police Commission’s inquiry into special police units such as tactical and rescue teams is an expensive, dual exercise which will not answer the questions surrounding the tragic shooting of Bernard Bastien by members of the Ontario Provincial Police tactical rescue unit on August 14, 1988, in Anderdon township, Essex county;

“And whereas a new coroner’s inquest will only establish how Bernard Bastien died without the power or authority to determine responsibility and recommend changes in policy governing TRU teams;

“And whereas the Solicitor General has been vague and evasive regarding the nature and scope of the Ontario Police Commission’s inquiry into special police units she announced on Thursday, December 8, 1988, leading us to believe the inquiry will be far too general and not deal with the specifics of the Bastien shooting; and

“Whereas, Bernard Bastien’s family and the people of Ontario have a right to a full and frank airing of the facts surrounding the death of Bernard Bastien.

“We urge the Solicitor General and the government of Ontario to establish a full public inquiry, with complete investigative powers into Bernard Bastien’s death to ensure this kind of tragic event never occurs again in Ontario.”

This is signed by approximately 1,700 people from the county of Essex and I have attached my signature.

FOSTER PARENTS

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I have a petition to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“To the government of Ontario on behalf of foster parents:

“Mr. David Peterson:

“I believe that foster parents of the children’s aid societies provide a vital service in helping to protect Ontario’s abused and needy children. I believe that foster parents deserve our respect and must receive full repayment for what it costs them to take care of these children.

“I strongly urge you and your government to give additional money to the Minister of Community and Social Services, so that the rates paid to care for a child can be increased immediately.”

I sign this and this is signed by approximately 5,000 people in the county of Essex.

CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY

Mr. Velshi: I have a petition signed by about 400 people regarding the Church of Scientology and the problems it is facing.

“To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows:

“Whereas the crown in the province of Ontario continues a lengthy, futile and expensive prosecution against the Church of Scientology; and

“Whereas at no time in recorded history has an entire church been charged with a criminal offence for the actions of individuals, and freedom of religion in the province is at risk; and

“Whereas the alleged offences occurred over a decade ago and those responsible have been expelled from the church or rehabilitated,

“We petition the Attorney General and the government of Ontario to withdraw the charges against the church and end this prosecution.”

As required, I have signed this petition.

1987 CONSTITUTIONAL ACCORD

Mr. VeIshi: I have another petition. This is from an organization called the Voice of Women and it is to the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly.

“Petition against Meech Lake accord.

“Canadians must ensure that women’s equality rights are clearly written and well protected in our Constitution.

“The risks we see in the proposed Meech Lake accord should and must be removed before ratification. For women, any risk is too much risk.

“We reject any proposal for companion resolutions to ‘fix it up later,’ because we cannot trust all provinces not to exercise veto.

“The accord must be revised to read that nothing in it will abrogate or derogate from any of the rights and freedoms guaranteed in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.”

This is signed by a total of 36 people and I have attested my signature, as required.

MOTION TO SET ASIDE ORDINARY BUSINESS

Mr. Reville moved, on behalf of Mr. B. Rae, that the ordinary business of the House be set aside to discuss a matter of urgent public importance requiring immediate consideration; namely, that this Liberal government’s failure to establish an independent prosecutor and a process of independent investigation to deal with possibly criminal actions by members of Ontario’s police forces has contributed to a crisis of public confidence.

Mr. Speaker: In the absence of the member for York South (Mr. B. Rae), the member for Riverdale (Mr. Reville) has moved a motion under standing order 37(a). This notice was received in my office in the appropriate time. Therefore, I have to receive it as in order. I will listen to the member for Riverdale for up to five minutes giving reasons why this debate should continue and, of course, I will listen to representatives from the other parties for up to five minutes as well.

1520

Mr. Reville: In the past few weeks and days it has become apparent that there is a growing crisis of public confidence in the province of Ontario, particularly in Metropolitan Toronto and the surrounding area. It is not thereto confined, partially because many communities across the province have occasion to reflect on just how it is society should manage questions of policing and those very difficult questions when police officers may be accused of having committed criminal acts.

It is of concern, particularly to the New Democratic Party, that the failure of the government to establish an independent prosecution in these recent cases has contributed to the crisis in public confidence.

I know that all members of the Legislature will have been paying particular attention in the last few days, and particularly over the weekend, to the amount of concern that is being expressed on a number of sides of this issue. A number of those concerns, quite frankly, are being expressed in ways that I believe are inflammatory and do not contribute to a sense of security in the province in respect of these matters.

We are all concerned, I am sure, that situations are not allowed to get out of control and turn into any form of racial discrimination, and regrettably, the facts of some of the recent cases may lead some people to make statements that we would hope would not be made in a tolerant society.

We feel very strongly that this emergency debate is needed today before the crisis gets any bigger. We are hoping to convince the ministers of the crown who are responsible for policing and the judicial system to pay very careful attention to the opinions that will be expressed by members of this assembly on both sides of the House.

What we all seek is a system in which the police can carry out those responsibilities with which they have been charged by society in a way that is seen to be fair and impartial by all of our citizens, and in such cases where there is a question about police conduct, that those questions can also be resolved in a manner that is seen to be fair and impartial by all of our citizens. In that way, in cases where it is seen by crown law officers that charges should be laid, all of our citizens can view the laying of those charges and the consequent court proceedings with the sense that that activity has been undertaken in a way that is absolutely free of political interference, either in the laying of the charges or in the not laying of the charges.

I think back to other times and other occasions when there have been concerns that the police community relations were not as good as they should be and some of the activities that flowed from those concerns. It seems to me and to members of the New Democratic Party that it is particularly important for the government to hear the views of members of the assembly, many of whom will be passing along the views of their constituents during this debate.

Mr. Sterling: When an emergency motion is introduced in this Legislature, it is a bit of an oddity that we get to vote or we have the potential to vote on whether the debate should go forward. We do not often really have a time when the substance of the resolution is called for a vote.

On this day, we would indicate our party’s support for going ahead with this debate, although quite frankly, we have some reservations about the content of the resolution. In my question today to the Premier (Mr. Peterson), I indicated to him one method in which I thought we could address this very significant problem we are having in the history of our judicial system.

I am quite willing to listen to the New Democratic Party and any other member of this Legislature who has constructive suggestions about how we might alter our present system in order to meet what I consider a very critical time in our justice system, for it is the first time in our history that we have had a police force ask for the resignation of the Attorney General of the province, at least to my knowledge. I think it is more significant given the fact that the Metropolitan Toronto Police Force is the largest in the province -- larger than the Ontario Provincial Police; some 5,500 members who have decided that they would take what I believe is quite a dramatic step.

The Attorney General (Mr. Scott), in his answers to my questions today, I think would like to put this question in the political forum. He wants to address the situation in a manner where we are taking political stances against each other. Quite frankly, as I tried to state in my question, our party believes that this crisis with our justice system, and the questioning of the authority of the police and the implementation of that authority which is given on trust to the police, is a question which is not only of interest to the government, the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party, but is also a question of great importance to every member of this Legislature and every citizen of Ontario.

Therefore, we would have liked the Attorney General and this government to have acted as far back as August of last year, when my colleague the member for Parry Sound (Mr. Eves) called upon the Premier, in dealing with this specific case, before charges were laid, to have the standing committee on administration of justice look into what was going on with regard to this case.

Further, long before this last critical weekend in January 1989, on October 18 of last year, the member for Parry Sound introduced a resolution in this Legislature calling for a review of race relations in the criminal justice system. The government let that resolution fall as not worthy of debate.

We then have come to a situation, through lack of action by the government of Ontario, where both sides of this debate, the black community and the police, are asking questions and are getting no answers. Our suggested solution today in question period was to have the justice committee meet in camera, call before it the police and the crown attorneys who are involved in this case, ask them what has gone on in the last five months, why it has taken five months to lay the charges, what has happened, whether there has been interference on any side; to have those facts put before the justice committee in camera so there would be no leaking of the evidence out through the media to the potential jury that will be sitting and trying Constable Deviney, so that they could come out of that meeting and say that the rules of our justice system were followed to a T.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I want to begin my remarks by saying how truly remarkable it is for me to hear the member for Carleton say, both during question period and as he just did a moment ago, that what we ought to do is somehow convene a session of the justice committee in camera to adjudicate or at least examine some of these issues that relate to the policing matters that are currently before the Legislature and the public.

1530

I am not a lawyer -- the member for Carleton is -- but I find that suggestion breathtaking, because I cannot imagine that anyone in the general public or certainly anyone from the legal community would imagine that in this circumstance, or quite frankly in any other where there is a trial about to take place, it is an appropriate thing to do.

I have a great deal of regard for the intelligence and the enthusiasm of the member for Carleton and over his time in this Legislature, now some 11 years, he has made a number of quite remarkable suggestions, but none quite as remarkable as the one I have heard him make this afternoon now on two particular occasions.

I want to say that the government views this matter as one of importance. We certainly do not share the view that the situation has reached a critical level, but we do certainly view the matter as one of importance.

I believe the Attorney General, the Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith), the Minister of Citizenship (Mr. Phillips) and others with a leadership role in this executive council have been very sensitive in their address of a number of the community concerns.

I think I speak for all members when I say that I believe the Attorney General spoke today with clarity and with force as he outlined the Anglo-American tradition of dealing with these kinds of issues. The Attorney General will be in this House shortly to address that matter yet again.

I want to say to my colleague the member for Riverdale (Mr. Reville) that the government will certainly facilitate the motion standing in the name of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. B. Rae) because we as well are prepared to have a discussion in this House this afternoon about the issues that attach to this particular concern.

I repeat that the Attorney General, I believe, has made it abundantly clear what government policy is in this connection and most especially what the view of the government is with regard to the matters of what I would call due process.

In that regard, I simply cannot imagine the suggestion of the member from the third party as anything but entirely out of order and very counterproductive. We feel that, as a government, we have done a great deal in this area. We have acted, through a number of ministers and a number of policies, I believe with dispatch and with sensitivity. We have a record that we are quite prepared to defend and speak to here this afternoon.

Without taking any further time, I am obliged to say that notwithstanding the fact that my good and able friend the Minister of Housing (Ms. Hošek ) has come to this place this afternoon to defend her spending estimates, as she is quite able and willing to do, and I just want to say to the Minister of Housing that we are very anxious to proceed with that debate --

Mr. Breaugh: One more time: Get lost.

Hon. Mr. Conway: -- because, of course, there are those in the opposition -- I note the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) is very keen to have the housing policies, the spending estimates of my honourable friend the member for Oakwood, dealt with at an early time. We will have my colleague just set aside those estimates for a little while longer while we move as an assembly this afternoon to deal with these matters.

I repeat, my colleague the Attorney General will certainly be joining this debate to put once again the government’s position, which, as was indicated earlier this afternoon during question period, is very clear, very strong and I think very much to the issues at the heart of this debate.

Mr. Speaker: We have now dealt with this motion under standing order 37(a), (b) and (c). We now come to 37(d). I have listened very carefully to the three members, as I am sure all other members have, but now under 37(d) I must put the question, shall the debate proceed?

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: The debate will proceed. All members who wish to speak will be recognized for up to 10 minutes. The debate will continue until we have run out of speakers or the clock strikes six.

INVESTIGATIONS OF POLICE ACTIVITIES

Mr. Breaugh: I think it is kind of unfortunate that we do have to set aside the business this afternoon to deal with this matter. I think in truth, though, in emergency debates sometimes we take a little liberty with the word “emergency.” This is one occasion when I would say no liberties are being taken at all. I think there is a crisis of some proportion that has to be addressed. I think it is rather unfortunate that the legislative process is stumbling a little bit on this matter.

This afternoon, I heard the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) give us a little lecture, under new terminology, on the Anglo-American judicial system. This has nothing to do with the study of law in that sense. This has nothing to do with the courtesy and conveniences of the courts. This is a rather more brutal question. It is about whether the population as a whole feels that the political system, the judicial system and the police enforcement system work well and fairly. I think it not unkind or inaccurate to say that as of this afternoon they do not. It is all in question.

It was noted earlier today, and I want to note it again because it is an unusual situation: I have never seen officials of a police association or a chief of police call publicly for the resignation of an Attorney General in this province. Since I have been a member here that has never happened.

There certainly have been grumblings about other attorneys general. There have been lots of things said behind closed doors and in negotiations that it did not work very well as far as the police force was concerned. But it is a highly unusual step to see them make a public statement calling specifically for the resignation of the Attorney General of Ontario.

Whether he does or does not resign can be set aside for the moment. The fact that they have done that is something that this Legislature had better hear. The Legislature of Ontario had better hear that there is discontent on a fairly large scale.

As we were debating last week a piece of legislation which would extend the complaints system on an optional basis throughout Ontario, we discussed at some length what is appropriate, what is reasonable, how we do this and what is the purpose of it.

I want to state again, in my view, the purpose of dealing with this matter at this time is not that there are some citizens who are unhappy or feel that the system does not work well. It is not that there are some police officers who are unhappy or feel that the system does not work well. We will never overcome those two problems. What we as a Legislature have to deal with is that the society in which we live now thinks the system does not serve us well.

I would warrant that members, most of them here who have spent some time around their ridings over the Christmas break, are like me. I am taken aback by the number of people who want to talk about the actions of the police force, the actions of the government of Ontario and their perspectives on all of this.

I was taken aback somewhat that over the Christmas season, when normally this is not a topic of discussion in my living room, it was -- by people who are not members of a minority group, by people who are not associated with the police force in any way, by ordinary citizens who are upset that the system in which they live now has some glaring faults. I think those lessons have to be learned. They have to be heard here, in this chamber.

Again, I listened to the Attorney General give us a little lecture this afternoon, saying: “We cannot interfere with the judicial process. I am accountable, but you cannot ask me questions. It would be good to talk about this, but there is no place to talk about it.”

I would agree with those members who have said it would not be appropriate to send this off to a committee in secret to deal with the matter. We do not need more secrecy on the matter. We do not need more in-house work on the matter. We need to find, now, a public way to deal with complaints against police officers that is fair to both sides.

We will never find a system that pleases both sides. That should not be the point of the exercise. It should simply be a matter of devising a technique that allows the complaints to be heard in the first place and all parties to be dealt with fairly and reasonably with some kind of due process in the second place.

1540

The Attorney General may take the point of view that the courts, now, will do that. I think I heard him, in response to questions today, say something along those lines, that due process will now occur. That is true perhaps for the police officers who are charged. I do not see how that provides a reasonable process for minority groups who feel that they have not had their chance to say their piece.

In the larger question, I do not think that serves the public well. Are the rest of us to sit around now, for six months or two years or however long it takes, to find out what are the findings of the court? And what are we to think now of the police officers that we deal with each and every day in our lives?

In my view and in my experience with matters like this, these are not easy questions, but I will put these as little warnings for the members. The worst of all worlds is when a police officer feels that the system has broken down and says, “I must do a job that the courts were designed to do”; it is when a police officer feels, “The only kind of justice that will be meted out in this instance is mine.” It has nothing to do with courts and lawyers; it has to do with life on the streets.

The second part of that equation, and an unfortunate one, is when a minority group says exactly the same thing, because what that really brings us to is almost a total breakdown of the law and the way in which this society lives.

It is also true, and I have heard this said, that there are many people to whom this is simply an academic question. They are unlikely to be challenged late at night by a police officer for any reason. They are unlikely to be members of a minority group who will be beaten up somewhere. They are unlikely ever to be police officers charged with a major criminal offence, so they will just let it happen. Those of us who have friends in the United States will know that is a fairly common phenomenon there. If you do not like what is happening in downtown Baltimore, you move out and live in the suburbs and lock your car on the way in and out of town.

I do not think this society can withstand that for very long. I think there have been questions raised now by both sides in the controversy that the Legislature of Ontario must answer. There are minority groups that, whether members agree with them or not, have raised their concerns to the point where it will now have an impact on the rest of us. Those concerns must be addressed and addressed now. There are police officers who have now raised publicly questions about the relationship of the Attorney General to them; and if they are not addressed by this assembly, it will not get better, it will get worse.

There are those who would say this is a classic political move, that one in the first instance lays charges against the officers and therefore in the assembly no real questioning and answering can occur because it is before the courts and the Attorney General will rise again day after day, as he did today, and say: “The matter is now before the courts. I can’t discuss it here.” Some will see that as a solution. It is not. It adds to the problem. The fact that no one has offered explanations to the public and to the individuals involved makes it worse. The fact that the political system does not seem able to respond to it makes it worse. And the longer it goes on, the worse it will get.

I would caution members, as one final little reminder: If they think they can deal with this as isolated incidents, let me be the one to tell them they are wrong. If they think this has only happened once or twice in the history of Ontario and it will not happen for another couple of years, they are wrong. It will happen again tonight. Somewhere tonight there will be a police officer making that judgement call. If he does not feel that the system -- the judicial system and the political system -- is a fair and reasonable one, there is an immense danger that he will step across the line of judgement which takes him from a good officer to one who makes a serious error. On the other side of the coin, there will be young people in particular who will say, “The system is all broken down anyway; I don’t have to pay any respect to anyone.”

Let me end with this. I would be a terrible cop. I could not stand at the Canadian National Exhibition and have a young kid spit on me or call me the names that they do at public events these days. I could not exercise that kind of restraint. We can ask our police officers to show a good deal of restraint, but I think we are at the limits right now. I think that for me personally the key to that was when an association and a chief of police said publicly there is something wrong and a minister of the crown must resign. This government must respond to that.

I am not particularly interested in whether this current Attorney General steps down or not; that is not the question. The question is that when they have lost faith completely in our political system, the Legislature must respond. That is what this debate should be about this afternoon.

Mr. Runciman: I am not speaking in support of the emergency resolution that the official opposition has introduced. Essentially, we agree with the thrust that an emergency debate is justified, but I think we have some difference of opinion with the official opposition with respect to just how to define that crisis.

We do not, in our view, see it as a crisis of public confidence with respect to the conduct of police forces in this province. Quite the contrary, we see it as a crisis with respect to the possibility of, and the accusations being made regarding political interference in decisions made with respect to whether charges should be laid in this particular instance.

I think our view is supported when someone of significant import in the police community, such as Chief Marks, has called into question some serious doubts about the objectivity of the crown and the possible interference of the government with respect to the decision to lay charges.

I want to read into the record some of the quotes attributed to Chief Marks: “According to my information.. that whole package (of evidence)” -- this is related to the Constable Deviney case -- “was forwarded to the Attorney General’s department and the decision to lay charges was made there.”

The Attorney General denies the charge that he has interfered with the Deviney case and, of course, has gone on at length to defend the Ontario Provincial Police investigation, stating that it is a complex issue.

When we have someone like Chief Marks suggesting that this was not dealt with in the usual manner, that this case was dealt with somewhat differently from cases involving police officers in the past, I believe it deserves more thorough answers than the Attorney General and the government have been prepared to offer up to this point.

I think what we should be dealing with, rather than the motion put before the House this afternoon, is a resolution to make it crystal clear to police across this province, but I think especially to the Metropolitan Toronto Police and the Peel Regional Police Force, that they have the full support of the vast majority of Ontarians.

I do not think there are any of us who are going to suggest that the police are not capable of making mistakes in the line of duty, but I think we have tended in this instance, seemingly in any event, to forget that these officers are innocent until proven guilty. I think it is imperative that we maintain the balance between stating our concern over questionable actions of police forces and our support for their dedication to their duties.

The Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith) is in the Legislature this afternoon. I want to express some concerns about her role or her lack of participation in this whole matter with respect to her ongoing responsibilities in the executive council of this government.

I would not for a moment suggest that the Solicitor General should be acting as an apologist for police forces, but I think she does have something of a role to play in terms of being an advocate for police forces and police officers across this province. I simply believe she either has been unwilling or unable to fulfil that role within the executive council.

Perhaps, giving her the benefit of the doubt, I can appreciate that it might be somewhat difficult to stand up in a situation like this with someone who seems to swing as much weight as the Attorney General in this government’s cabinet. But in any event, I think this is the kind of situation in which she should be standing up and making her own views very clearly known.

I think this is just one instance -- and I would like to put a few more on the record -- where I believe the Solicitor General has not been fulfilling her mandate. As someone suggested in a newspaper this weekend, she does not seem to have an agenda of her own for the ministry to try to improve policing operations across this province and work in a much more co-operative and supportive manner for police forces across this province.

1550

I want to talk about the Ontario Provincial Police in eastern Ontario, an area which I think I know reasonably well, where the manpower of the OPP is causing significant concerns. We have a number of areas of provincial highways, Mr. Speaker -- and you personally should be familiar with this situation -- that are not patrolled during certain hours of the early morning. The forces are inadequately manned to deal with the demands that are now placed upon them. The minister has not seen fit to deal with that. In fact, all we hear about is the possibility of closure of certain police establishments in eastern Ontario. That is the way she deems fit to address that particular concern.

We can look at the antirackets squad dealing with white-collar crime. It is severely undermanned, unable to deal with significant problems in white-collar crime. In fact, during the summer months we see the force being depleted further, to be drawn off for traffic duty, for Ontario Place duty, significant matters like that, while the antirackets squad faces more and more manpower problems.

The member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay (Mr. Black) made some recommendations with respect to beefing up the drug squad forces in this province. What is the minister doing about that recommendation? We hear she has indicated to the OPP to find the necessary funds within their own budget. What does that really mean? In reality, it probably means further cutbacks, to address the concern expressed by the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay.

Another point I should bring forward is the recent furore over the use of soft-tipped bullets by the police forces in this province. We take a look at the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, who are using it, and many police forces across Canada and certainly in North America are using the soft-tipped bullet. In my view, what we are doing is, again, tying the police forces’ hands, or one hand or one arm, behind their backs, and saying, “The criminal element can use that kind of ammunition, but you cannot use similar ammunition that will have the kind of stopping force that is necessary.”

In any event, the Solicitor General has a recommendation before her urging her to legalize the use of this kind of ammunition, and she has been dilly-dallying with respect to that as well.

I want to talk about what I perceive to be a double standard with respect to the way this matter has been dealt with. It is certainly a concern of mine and it should be a concern of all members of this House. I raised the point in the House last week about the fact that in the past few weeks a police officer had been killed in the line of duty as a result of a traffic mishap. Also, a woman police officer had part of her leg amputated after being hit by a car when standing behind her cruiser. I do not recall the Solicitor General or any member of this House standing up to express concern or to express condolences to the family of the officer who lost his life.

I want to draw the attention of the House to the fact that at the funeral of young Wade Lawson -- and I am not being critical of this, but I want to point out the strange way this whole matter has been approached -- I am led to believe by the media that two cabinet members attended. I am not being critical of that, but when the police officer lost his life in the line of duty, I do not recall a cabinet minister being present for that funeral.

I think that is an appropriate analogy to draw here. We have someone who was shot down -- we do not know the facts of the case, but he was driving a stolen car -- and two cabinet ministers see fit to attend that funeral. When a police officer is killed in the line of duty, we do not even have a statement in this House expressing regret and condolences to the family. That should raise some very serious questions with respect to how this whole matter is being dealt with and how big a role politics is playing in this whole matter before the public now.

I simply want to say that I disagree with the intent of the motion by the New Democratic Party. Instead, I think we should today be asking you, Mr. Speaker, and members of the Legislature to join you in stating our support for police forces and to express to them the respect they deserve.

The Deputy Speaker: We usually go clockwise, but I presume there is another arrangement I just found out about.

Mr. B. Rae: I understand the Attorney General does not want to go until some of us have spoken. I regret the fact that the Liberals have not put up another speaker. It is a rather curious procedure, but that is the way they have decided. Does the minister want to speak, because I will go after the minister?

The Deputy Speaker: Usually we follow the rotation and this time it will be the turn of a government member to speak. If somebody is going to have a different arrangement, the Deputy Speaker would like to know.

Hon. Mr. Curling: I want to thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me the opportunity to address this House on this very important issue. I rise today to speak to the resolution put forward by the honourable Leader of the Opposition (Mr. B. Rae).

Today, as with each day, we are debating the law in this House. In this case, we are debating a very highly technical question of criminal justice administration. I am no lawyer. I have neither the legal training nor the desire to speak in any detail about the matters so eloquently laid down by my colleagues from the legal profession. I am sure the Attorney General in his eloquence will articulate his position and the position of this government.

I wish to speak from a vantage point that is unique in this House. I speak not only as a member of the assembly but also as a member of a community I am personally familiar with, having been a part of it for 23 years in this country: the black community. We all know that in this province we have one law that serves both the law enforcers and the communities those enforcers serve.

The black community in Toronto and indeed across the province has a profound and troubling concern that perhaps the law has not historically worked for them, that perhaps it has not been upheld to the degree they expect and deserve as citizens. Other groups also express the same vague sense of concern. What is critical in all this is that everyone should accept the challenge and ask, “Am I questioning the law in a constructive way?”

There is nothing wrong with questioning the law. The right to be critical of the law and its procedures is at the core of our democratic society, but what cannot be questioned and indeed what no one in the black community is questioning is the rule of law itself. It is understood implicitly and explicitly that the rule of law must be upheld at all times. If there is one point of law or its administration that needs alteration in order to achieve justice more fully, people will speak out for that change, but at the same time it is understood that ignoring the law or cutting corners or exerting undue influence on its working strikes at the heart of the larger community or democratic society.

When we come together as legislators in this assembly, our first duty is to uphold the law. I think those who suggest that the Attorney General in some way breached his oath should take a few minutes to consider the magnitude of those statements. On reflection, I am sure they will consider them. Similarly, there is suggestion that the system is unworkable and that it is impossible for justice to be done under our current justice system.

Let me say this: there is a criminal justice process. The Attorney General and the crown have followed it. There is a process of law enforcement, and the police have followed it in their historically professional manner. There is a political process of discussion and debate in this House, and we are following it. Above all, there is a rule of law; my community knows it and follows it.

It would be a sad day for any minority to have charges laid in order just to appease that community. It would be a sad day, because the ultimate protection of minorities is the law. Anything which cuts into the law cuts into the community’s protection, and that is fully understood in the black community. What is understood also is that no one is above the law, that no one can act without consequence and that no one can use the law for political purposes.

1600

There is a great deal of frustration surrounding these recent events and issues. No one wanted any of this. There is a sense that no one wanted this to happen. There is a sense that it should not have happened at all, the way it is making people ask the question why. All parties have to start asking why when these things happen. That is what democracy is all about. But the best way to get the answers is through the justice process that we do have.

It is premature to suggest that the system has failed when it has only begun to address the central question in the various cases. No one, no matter what his involvement, can allow his frustration to get in the way of the workings of justice. Although there has been concern, disquiet and some degree of anguish over the past several months, I think we have to say that cool heads are prevailing. In the black community there is a search for understanding and renewed dialogue. The same is being exhibited by the police. The same calm, good sense is generally prevailing in this House. We must be thankful for this and not allow our fragile freedoms to buckle under the pressures and passions of the moment. I am confident that all sides in this large and wide-ranging debate will continue to approach it in a constructive manner.

Allow me to make a few comments on the speech of the honourable member for Leeds-Grenville (Mr. Runciman), who stated that I was one of those members present at the funeral. I have attended many funerals. This troubling situation has troubled a wide community, and I felt that as an elected member I should be there if I could lend any part of my elected process or my respect -- if I dare say -- to that community. Sure, we do not stand in the House each day on some of the tragedies that happen. But when a community or an organization needs consoling, to question the fact that an elected individual sees fit to go to a funeral -- no one questioned the fact whether I knew the family or not -- but he sees within himself that it is not critical that I should attend the funeral to show respect to those individuals and those families.

I have seen members from the opposition attending funerals, of course, and I was pleased to see that we live in a country where anyone would come to that funeral. The honourable Leader of the Opposition was at the funeral, and it really pleased my heart to know that I live in a democratic country where we can see the opposition understanding a community’s concern. It is sad that members of the other side would see it as not a good approach.

I continue, as an elected member, to share my concern, to be there when I am needed and at times when I am not even called upon, because I feel that those communities need us to show some sort of leadership. Leadership is a grasped opportunity, Mr. Speaker, not a pushed opportunity. I want to thank you for allowing me to speak, and I hope the same sanity will prevail as we debate. Let the trial begin.

Mr. B. Rae: I appreciate the opportunity to participate in the debate. I want to outline for members my concerns, as I have done in many conversations with the Attorney General, both publicly and privately.

I think it is fair to say I believe -- and I know the Attorney General does not agree with me, but I want to say it again as a matter of record -- that when an action takes place out of which criminal charges could possibly emerge against a member of a police force, the investigation of that charge should be supervised by a prosecutor who is independent of the government and independent of the police.

That investigation will very naturally involve members of police forces, because it will, being a criminal investigation, naturally require the participation of people who have expertise in the area, but it would not necessarily be drawn from any one particular police force. The decision as to whether or not to lay charges should be made as quickly as humanly possible, it should be based on all the evidence that is gathered and it should be made in a manner that is not only independent but is seen to be independent.

We are in a somewhat difficult situation. We have a number of conflicts that have been made with respect to the process of the laying of charges in this case, comments made by members of the police force of Metropolitan Toronto, including the chief of police of Metropolitan Toronto, which I believe are highly prejudicial to the conduct of the trial and which pose a great problem for me in that if I comment on them extensively, no doubt there will be those who will say that my comments are equally prejudicial.

Since the comments were raised last Thursday by my colleague the member for Sarnia (Mr. Brandt) with apparent approval by him, and repeated again by him outside the Legislature, I do want to say to the Solicitor General, who is here, that I hope she is discussing with the government appointees on the Metropolitan Toronto Police Commission the conduct of those senior officers of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Force who have made particular statements about the conduct of the investigation.

In particular, I want to say to the minister that I hope she will consider seriously the impact of those statements, the impact not only on the administration of justice but on race relations in this city and in this province. I say to her in all seriousness, I am as profoundly troubled by the statements that have been made as I have been by any statements made by people in positions of responsibility in our city and in our province.

To say that, of course, one will be criticized; but I say that if people are saying things -- for example, it has been alleged that there was an investigation of the Lester Donaldson case by “the Metro force,” by the homicide detectives of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Force.

It is my understanding -- and I can say to the minister that I was at the Donaldson house some two days after the shooting -- that from the outset the investigation was being held under the jurisdiction, auspices and authority of the Ontario Provincial Police and not under the authority of the homicide squad of the Metropolitan Toronto Police.

When I was there, the OPP and the Metropolitan Toronto homicide squad came up in the same car. Perhaps the Solicitor General will appreciate why I say this when I say she needs to have an investigation that is seen from the outset as being an investigation that is conducted completely independent of those who are potentially responsible for the commission of a crime.

When I suggested to the Attorney General that it was important that there be someone completely independent who would be surveying the evidence from the very outset, I say that because I think, frankly, the decision whether to lay charges has to be made in a way that is seen by everyone involved as being an independent process.

1610

There have been a number of other comments. I do not want to refer to them, because in referring to them one contributes to a deterioration in understanding. But I want to say that a number of comments have been made about the responsibility of people in the black community for the laying of these charges. In my view it is an affront, not only to the black community but to all of us who believe in the administration of justice, to suggest this is an issue in which you have the black community on one side and the rest of our community on the other side. I resent being placed in that position. It is an entirely inappropriate thing to do.

It is most unfair to the black community when you have, for example, a senior officer of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Force saying in the Toronto Sun: “We have this violent (black) gang robbing chicken places and beer stores all over the west end. These black activists claim to be so involved in the black community, then why aren’t they telling us who these people are who are committing these violent crimes?” He then goes on to say, “I’m concerned we’ll have another shooting if we don’t get these blacks who are doing the armed robberies.”

What have we come to? Would anyone for a moment make the suggestion that somebody who is an activist who is not a black knows about the extent of criminal activity in any given community? It is an affront to common sense.

The issue here is the question of the appropriate use of force by officers in the course of their duty. That is the issue. The second issue we are discussing is, how can we in our society best maintain a sense of confidence among all sectors of our community in the administration of justice and in the administration of the police power?

The Attorney General says, in response to my questions today, that if the process is not followed that has always been followed -- that is to say, you have a police force investigating another police force, at the request of the force whose members are potentially involved in a criminal activity. So the Ontario Provincial Police were not called in by the Solicitor General; the OPP was asked to come in by the Metropolitan Toronto Police Force. In the case of the death of Bernard Bastien, the Windsor Police Force was not called in by the Solicitor General; it was the OPP that asked the Windsor Police Force to do the investigation of those officers involved.

What I am suggesting to the Solicitor General and the Attorney General is that this is not good enough because it continues to leave the sense, in the public’s mind, that you have police simply investigating the police, without the supervision and without the questioning, if you will, without the dialogue and dialectic going on with someone who is responsible, who is seen as truly independent of any outside force or pressure whatsoever, and who is seen as offering that independent advice, at which point a decision is made whether to lay a charge.

I want to make it very clear that I have no evidence, and I would not say it unless I had the evidence in front of me, of any interference or lack of interference in the charges that either were laid, in the case of Wade Lawson or Lester Donaldson, or were not laid in the case of Bastien. I still say it simply is not good enough to say we do not have that evidence. The question really is, can we say with confidence that the process has been seen by everyone as being one genuinely and truly independent of the police, or indeed of broader political and governmental concerns?

These are some of the most difficult issues we have to deal with in this House. One has to be very careful in raising them. One has to be very careful in assessing their importance. It is not going to be easy getting through this.

I do not think the Minister of Skills Development (Mr. Curling), who spoke, necessarily hit the nail on the head when he said how cool and rational everybody in this debate was being. He may be right in hoping that would be the case, but I am afraid I call it a little differently.

I think some things have been said that everyone needs to assess in terms of their impact, in terms of their potential impact on the course of good community relations in this city and in this province. I think we need a different process if and when a similar tragedy ever recurs. I think the time to start the discussion about that process is now.

Having said all that, I hope I have not said anything that will in any way prejudice the outcome of events that are now being taken before the courts. There is much to be done by the Attorney General, and I might add by the Solicitor General. I look forward to hearing their responses to the comments I have had to make.

Mrs. Marland: In rising today to speak to the motion of the member for York South (Mr. B. Rae), “that the ordinary business of the House be set aside to discuss a matter of urgent public importance requiring immediate consideration -- namely that this Liberal government’s failure to establish an independent prosecutor and a process of independent investigation to deal with possibly criminal actions by members of Ontario’s police forces has contributed to a crisis of public confidence.”

I want to say at the outset I do not support this motion. I think that if anything is contributing to a crisis in this entire situation it is the politicizing of it. I am gravely concerned about the road all of us are being headed down.

I am reluctant to enter into this debate today. I am not going to address the issues that have already been addressed by the previous speakers because I feel that, fortunately for all of us no matter what our backgrounds are, no matter what our colours are, and fortunately no matter what our beliefs are, there is a process not only in this province but also in this country that ultimately protects all of us. I have complete confidence in that process.

I want to say that fortunately for me, my family and my relatives, we are blessed with friends from all communities and all ethnic backgrounds. I never look at people when I look into their faces and wonder whether they are different from me, depending on what colour those faces are. I have been blessed with a very rich legacy from my parents, who happen to be incredibly wonderful people who taught me at a very young age to know that the most important experience we can ever have in our lives is to know people, to have the opportunity to meet people, to work with them, to interrelate with them and to socialize with them.

Since I was a very little girl, I was fortunate, growing up in England, to be in a community that represented a cross-section of both socioeconomic backgrounds and ethnic-racial backgrounds. I must say that rich legacy my parents bestowed on me has taught me to realize that I can look into any face of any colour and see, beyond that face, the person.

To me, personally, it is people who matter. I am not concerned whether a person I am sitting across from at a table can get up and walk from that table or is sitting behind that table in a wheelchair. I am not concerned whether that person can even see me. I am concerned that person knows I care about him and that through my knowing him I hopefully can understand him.

1620

I think what is happening in Ontario today on the issue that is addressed in this resolution, which I totally do not support, is that people are losing the perspective of what is at stake. What is at stake are the rights and freedoms of everybody. Because we have a process that, through statute, ultimately protects the rights and freedoms of everyone, I am not bound, fortunately, to listen to radical expressions on any side of any issue.

All of us know that down through history we have always had radicals on every issue, for centuries. I suppose we can even talk about the people who were radical enough to make it possible for me to stand in this House as an elected female member of a Legislature. If we go back to the radical women who chained themselves to the railings in England when they were first fighting for women to have a vote, if they had not done that I would not, obviously, be standing here representing men and women who today have a vote.

But I want to say that radicals on any subject anywhere in this world do not carve out, ultimately, the best possible solutions on any subject. The fact this very sensitive subject is now deteriorating into the kind of political debate it is, is something that gives me personally a great deal of concern. I hope that when the government’s Attorney General addresses and responds to this motion today, he will very carefully choose his words so that we do not continue to prejudice the outcome of what has already been started.

I certainly do not plan to stand in this House today and make any comments that will cause prejudice on either side of this issue, because on both sides of this issue, as with any issue, there has to be fact and there has to be fiction. Because we have a process under way that fortunately for all of us will establish what is fact and what is fiction, therefore, I believe we are all ultimately protected. Certainly all of us, within our own hearts on any issue, have to be ultimately satisfied that we have done the best we could possibly do with our opportunity today to serve the public of Ontario.

It is in the best interests of the public of Ontario that this motion is not supported by the majority of the people who represent that public.

Hon. Mr. Scott: I am grateful for the words members of the House on both sides have contributed to this debate, and I am particularly grateful and conscious of the warning the honourable member for Mississauga South has just given that we all -- and she said I -- should choose our words carefully as we participate in this very sensitive exercise.

I want to make plain that over the last six months I have been careful to say as little as possible about these subjects, notwithstanding the rhetoric in the streets and in the assembly and in question period, which is focused on whatever is the current news item of the day. I have been conscious to do that because of the role I perform in our system. I am grateful for her observation that is the correct kind of reticence to show.

Let me begin by saying that I think this debate and the resolution that is put forward has three separate but connected strains. The first is our concern for civilian review of police misconduct; the second is our concern for an independent criminal prosecution; and the third is our concern, heightened over the last few months, about deteriorating relationships in the community that may involve the police, members of racial minority communities and perhaps others.

While these three issues are presented by the facts that are before us, they are really separate. I wish just to say a word about two of them briefly and comment at more length on the third.

First, the last: If there is evidence of deteriorating relationships between the police, racial minority communities or others, it is to be deplored and each one of us has an obligation to do what we can to improve that relationship. It is absolutely inconsistent with any reasonable notion of a democratic society that this deterioration should take place. All citizens of our province are entitled to equal treatment, and at the same time, every member of our police force is entitled to the support, and we pray the confidence of each of us as he or she goes about a very pressing but absolutely essential public duty.

I leave to the Clare Lewis task force and other groups that are working on this highly sensitive matter a judgement as to what best can be done to improve a deteriorating situation.

With respect to the first issue, the issue of civilian control of the police, I listened carefully to what the Leader of the Opposition said, and in so far as he is asserting that there must be civilian control of the police, I agree with him. In the case of the Ontario Provincial Police, that civilian control is exercised through the office of the Solicitor General, reporting to this assembly. In respect of the Metropolitan Toronto Police, it is exercised through the Metropolitan Toronto Board of Commissioners of Police and the Solicitor General, reporting to the assembly.

In so far as it is desirable, as he said, to have civilian review of complaints of police misconduct, I agree with him. The government of Ontario has established as a pilot project in Metropolitan Toronto a civilian Police Complaints Board, which has done very good work. The government has had in for some years -- we are still anxious to pass it -- a bill to permit the extension of that civilian control of complaints about police misconduct further across the province, and the Solicitor General, as he knows, has initiatives in her own department to fortify that kind of principle.

But if the Leader of the Opposition is saying there should be civilian investigation of criminal misconduct, which I heard him say, he is there treading on very novel ground. There is no country in the western world living in a free democracy which allows the investigation of crime and its prosecution to be conducted by other than professionals.

It is my respectful view to the assembly that before we set up civilian investigators of crime to investigate and roam from one end of the province to the other, we want to very carefully consider it, because we will be the first free democracy in the western world to put the investigation of crime out of professional hands.

1630

I do not say it is impossible, but I say it is a matter of very great novelty. Our last concrete experience with it was the French Revolution when innocent people -- some guilty people too, but many innocent people -- at the hands of these civilian investigative committees went in the tumbrel to the guillotine. That is the second issue.

The third issue has to do with the independence of prosecution and that has to do with the office of the Attorney General. The role of the Attorney General, as chief law officer of the crown, supported by a professional staff, and we have in this province the most distinguished professional crown attorney staff in the country, is serious and important. I direct, through my agents, crown prosecutions. I prefer indictments. I have the right to stop a criminal process which is taken by others, and my staff and I give legal advice to the police, if it is required, following an investigation and before the police decide whether to lay charges.

Because of the importance of this role, the Attorney General and his staff act on their own. The matters I decide and my staff decide in connection with the criminal law process are not discussed in cabinet. There is no minister who can direct me to take a step. There is no Premier in the British Commonwealth or in the Anglo-American law system who is so powerful that he can direct an Attorney General to act, and when there is we have Watergate.

The independence of the Attorney General from his political colleagues in respect of the criminal process is an important constitutional principle which I have to uphold.

The facts of this case are, in one sense, straightforward. A man was killed in his room in Toronto on August 9. An investigation was undertaken by the Metro police immediately but shortly thereafter it was decided that the investigation should be conducted by another force unrelated to the jurisdiction of Metropolitan Toronto and should be supervised by a crown attorney from outside Metropolitan Toronto.

The OPP undertook the investigation and Mr. Meinhardt, the crown attorney in the county of Victoria, was appointed to provide any legal advice it might require. That investigation report produced a series of reports delivered, as usual, at various stages. The investigative work, which included some forensic scientific work, was completed on November 30.

Following that, Mr. Meinhardt made a summary of the factual conclusions in the investigation which was received in the office of the Deputy Attorney General on December 14. At that time, a task force, under the assistant deputy attorney general, criminal law, of four other senior criminal lawyers was appointed to review the adequacy of the investigation and the advice the police officers had requested.

That task force met five times and I believe on January 9 -- I think I have the dates right -- concluded what advice should be given to the police officers. The Deputy Attorney General came to me, told me the advice he proposed to give. I asked him about it. I said I agreed with the advice he proposed to give and that afternoon, a senior superintendent of the Ontario Provincial Police laid the criminal charges.

That is the way the process works and a trial, presided over by a judge and a jury of 12 of our fellow citizens, will decide whether an offence was committed, bearing in mind that we have a presumption of innocence until proven guilty in this province. The idea that that process should be supervised by an independent prosecutor is simply inconsistent with Anglo-American tradition.

Mr. Speaker, is the time up?

The Acting Speaker (Mr. M. C. Ray): The time has expired.

Hon. Mr. Scott: Can I have the leave of the House to complete in about three minutes?

The Acting Speaker: Agreed?

Hon. Mr. Scott: I simply draw briefly to the attention of the House the observations of Professor Edwards in his major text on the office of the Attorney General, that accountability requires an Attorney General who will supervise the prosecution of criminal offences. When does the accountability begin? Not when the charges are laid, but as Professor Edwards says, when the trial is over. He emphasizes that point. Lord Devlin, one of the most distinguished jurists in England, in the same text, makes precisely the same point.

You will be interested, Mr. Speaker -- and I tax you only a moment longer -- that following Watergate in the United States, it was proposed that there should be no politically accountable Attorney General speaking and answering questions in the legislature, that there should be an independent prosecutor. Sam Dash, who ran the Watergate hearings under Senator Sam Ervin, gave evidence against that proposition. Here is what he said:

“Central to the question is the fact that such a public officer, the independent prosecutor, would be largely immune from the accountability that prosecutors and other public officials constantly face. Lack of accountability of an official on a permanent basis carries a potential for abuse of power that far exceeds any enforcement gains that might ensue. An independent prosecutor reports directly on ongoing investigations to no one, takes direction from no one and easily abuses his power.”

To sum up, the system, the process that was applied in this case and all other cases that have come through the ministry, as far as I know in the last three and a half years has been precisely the same: the process we have followed in the Anglo-American system for almost a thousand years. I do not say I am not prepared to consider the proposals that the honourable leader has put forward, but they are proposals totally inconsistent with our tradition.

Now the time has come, the charge having been laid, to await a trial. At the conclusion of the trial, when all the evidence is put before the public and our 12 fellow citizens who will preside at that trial, it will be time enough to ask if the process worked. I believe that the process is working and will work. It would do us all good, as the honourable member for Mississauga South (Mrs. Marland) suggested, to reduce the rhetoric, to reduce inflammation and to allow this venerable process, which focuses on innocence and requires proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, to work its way.

Mr. Hampton: I have had the privilege of hearing a number of speakers in this debate and of considering some of the comments that have been made. I think it is only appropriate at this time to try to bring the debate back again to the focus I think it deserves.

I listened carefully to the Attorney General’s statements about the need and the theory of Anglo-American jurisprudence for an independent Attorney General. In fact, only a couple of years ago I remember attending a conference at the University of Toronto where a learned professor lectured for many hours -- or it seemed like many hours -- on just that need, the need for the independence of the office of the Attorney General. One of the points he made was that he lamented the fact that too often in the holus-bolus of modern day politics, that independence does not always appear to the public as it should. But I think the independence or the theoretical independence or need for the independence of the office of the Attorney General is not the key issue here.

1640

Similarly, it has been said we are really talking about the process in our society of an investigation of an alleged crime, the laying of charges and then finally the proceeding through the court. I do not think we are talking about that process either. If we try to focus simply on that process and then apply that process to the events which have happened in Ontario in the last six months and say, “If we let the process work its way through, we will see that everything is good and fine,” I think again we are mistaken. That process, the judicial process, is not the question either.

Let’s just stop for a minute and think about some of the events that have occurred in Ontario in the last six months. We have had one shooting of a black gentleman. It has taken six months for charges to evolve against the police officer who was involved in that case. We have had actions by a special squad of the police in the Windsor area where, by some process of mistaken identity, a completely innocent person was gunned down by police bullets. We have had another process only a few short weeks ago where an individual, a young black person, was shot in the back of the head by police officers. As part of the investigation of those events, it was discovered that the bullets used, hollow-point bullets, are not bullets which police should ordinarily be using in the course of performance of their duties.

When one looks at this combination of events I think the conclusion, or if not the conclusion the concepts which start to appear in the eyes of the public are worrisome. What are some of those concepts which have started to appear? One of the concepts, one of the concerns out there is:

Who is in charge of the police forces? That is one of them. How can these things happen? How can a completely innocent person be gunned down in Windsor by a special tactical squad of the police force? How can another young person be shot in the back of the head and the bullets used are bullets which are not supposed to be used by a police force? How can another gentleman be shot within the confines of a small rooming house situation with the allegation that there was an imminent attack upon a police officer?

How can these things happen? That is the question being asked out there by the public. How can these things happen in this space of time? What is going on? Who is in charge? What are the controls? That is one set of questions. I happen to agree with the Attorney General that another question brought to mind other than who is in control and what the directions are is: What should be the avenue out there for dealing with complaints brought by individual citizens or groups of citizens against police conduct? What should be the avenue for dealing with that? What should be the avenue out there that will allow those kinds of concerns or suspicions or accusations to be dealt with in a way which, first, avoids some sort of accusation every day in public; and second, avoids a situation where the whole thing is handled behind closed doors or gets away from the situation where the police are seen to be investigating the police, or finally, gets away from the situation which is perceived to be political; that is you let the situation boil until it becomes a political issue and then the chief politicians in the province must step in and do something to either settle it or empty it of the volatility that has become involved?

I think one of the things that has come out of this is that the whole process that is there in this province for dealing with complaints about police forces or dealing with concerns about the behaviour of individual police officers, the mechanisms that are there, just do not do it.

Finally, we have the kind of situation that has come to a boil within the last four or five days. Members of the community are not happy with the way in which investigations have been conducted or they are not happy with the way in which things have been handled internally and they have expressed themselves in a very forthright, one might say almost aggressive, manner. The police, who have also felt that there has not been an adequate system to address these complaints, an adequate system to air these complaints, have reacted. Finally we have, I would say, the least favourable way of dealing with these, the least adequate way of dealing with these things: We have had what the police are terming, or has been termed by members of the public, an attempt at a political solution.

We have expressed no judgement on that, but that is again the perception that is out there and that surely describes how inadequate the systems are for dealing with these problems.

If members sit back for a while and they watch how this issue has grown and how it has spread and how the pressure has increased, surely the conclusion must be that we do not have an adequate system for dealing with complaints about a police force or about police conduct, that we do not have a system that is adequate for mediating between citizens and police officers, whom we give a great deal of authority to and who generally exercise that authority very well and very properly.

Surely that is the question, and if we bring it down to the events that have happened in the last few days, what we are saying and what the Leader of the Opposition has said -- a position I agree with -- is that in this situation the way that was open to provide some stability to the process, to provide an airing of the concerns, an airing of the problem, was to appoint an independent prosecutor and to conduct an independent investigation. That would have led, I suggest, to many more members of the public being satisfied with what was happening, and I would suggest it would have been a more proper way to deal with it from the perspective of the police as well.

The Deputy Speaker: Do other members wish to participate in the debate? If no other member wishes to participate in the debate --

Mr. Reycraft: I hear someone coming.

1650

Mr. Reville: I apologize for my absence, but it is not our turn.

It gives me pleasure to participate in this emergency debate. I listened carefully to the member for St. George-St. David, our Attorney General, speak, and I appreciated his forbearance as he took us through only part of a thousand years of Anglo-American tradition. I should note that although he refers back to the days of the French Revolution when indeed there were civilian tribunals that not only investigated crime but prosecuted crime -- I am sure we remember from our history books the names of Robespierre and Saint-Just and Mme Lafarge -- I think we are aware that not only were guilty people punished but so too were some people who were undoubtedly innocent.

The Attorney General might have shared with us some of the more recent examples of civilian tradition and civilian tribunals that have been set up by people who had despaired of their established systems ever working at all. Those civilian tribunals have been in evidence in several places in very recent history and clearly, I think, the Attorney General does my leader and the New Democratic Party a huge disservice when he compares what we are suggesting to the days of the French Revolution.

In fact, I do not believe my leader suggested at all that the investigation of crime should be taken out of professional hands in any way whatsoever. The suggestion was that those professional investigators who would undoubtedly be police officers would be reporting to a prosecutor who was independent of the political system.

The concern is mounting not because we feel that the Attorney General is somehow a captive of the cabinet or is behaving in a political way. That has not been our contention, nor do I believe you will hear any member of my party make that contention in any way whatsoever. Rather, we believe that this matter is urgently in need of addressing because of statements that have been made and perceptions that are being held by diverse segments of our society.

The segments of society I am talking about go far beyond the black community on the one hand as a minority group that is trying to express the concerns of that community, and various members of the police force on the other hand who are trying to express the difficulties that are faced in the difficult job of policing, but include all citizens who must have confidence not only in the way in which we are policed but in the way the criminal justice system operates.

It is that confidence that we feel is in danger of being damaged severely, not just by the events that have taken place but by the way in which those events are being interpreted by many people.

I do not mind telling you, Mr. Speaker, that I have been shocked by the comments made by senior police officers. I think it is highly inappropriate for senior police officers to have made some of the comments that have been made. I am very concerned to know whether the Solicitor General, who has responsibility for policing in this province, has been in contact with Mrs. Rowlands at the police commission to indicate that the Solicitor General is very concerned by the comments that are being made by senior officers of the Metropolitan Toronto Police.

I get concerned as well when I hear not only from my constituents but in the media that some of the police officers have taken job action in response to events that have taken place. The notion that police officers have decided to lay down their guns and thereby not be available for their assignments is of concern to all of us. I am not suggesting that action necessarily has to be taken against those officers who were involved in job action. I do not know what the extent of the job action was, but I think it is the government’s responsibility to ensure that all of our citizens feel as secure as possible. The cases where people may be apprehending that the presence of the police force is going to be somehow diminished because the police are angry about a situation are not going to give people a feeling of confidence at all.

The Minister of Skills Development, not only as the representative of the black community but as someone who was mentioned in connection with his attendance at a funeral, quite rightly points out that it is inappropriate to criticize the mark of respect that he was showing by attending the funeral. I agree with that.

I disagree, however, when he says that the best protection of the minorities is the law. I am surprised that the Minister of Skills Development would have said that, because of course he knows, as we all should know, that at various times in our history -- and at times when we contemplate that very history we should be ashamed of that history -- the law has not been a protector of minorities at all. In fact, laws have been passed, not only in our jurisdiction but in other jurisdictions, and indeed are in place today in many jurisdictions, which are designed to diminish the rights of minorities. To suggest, in virtually the same breath, that we all must have cool heads and leave the finding of answers to the justice system does not address the much bigger concerns about police-community relations, and particularly police relations with minority groups.

There is no question that in due course the justice system will produce for us an answer to the questions in the two cases that are before the courts, about whether offences have been committed. But the justice system will not deliver us answers on other questions: To whom are the police accountable? How should the police carry out their mandate? How can community groups and minorities within our communities be assured that their concerns are being addressed and that there does not lurk within any of our systems -- whether it be the system of keeping the peace or the judicial system -- systemic discrimination? It is insidious. We know it exists, and I think we are all committed to making sure that those forms of systemic discrimination are eradicated.

I do not think it is appropriate for the government to duck the issue, and there are very real issues here about the way in which our policing is carried on and the way in which citizens who have concerns that they have not been dealt with fairly by the police can bring those concerns forward.

Mr. Cousens: I think it is significant to note that the Attorney General did come and make some remarks, but he is no longer in the House.

Mr. Reycraft: He is outside.

1700

Mr. Cousens: I think that on an issue as great as this, one would have expected him to be here and to be participating --

Mr. D. R. Cooke: You weren’t here for his remarks, were you?

Mr. Cousens: I did hear his remarks. I am just saying that the Attorney General should be here in the House and listening to the things the members are saying on an issue that is as important as this. I think he has shown a great deal of arrogance, and I think the people of Ontario have reason to be concerned with what the Attorney General is doing in the House. I do happen to agree with what the Attorney General had to say in his speech, however.

Mr. D. R. Cooke: You haven’t got anything to say; 10 minutes ago you didn’t have a speech.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Cousens: Mr. Speaker, would you take this member, who is not even in his own seat, and have him not do what he is doing?

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. One member at a time.

Mr. Cousens: I just have to say in beginning this that we are dealing with a subject of great public confidence; it has to do with the Attorney General’s department and the Attorney General is not even in the House; I wanted to make note of that.

I also would like to comment on the remarks that were made by the member for Scarborough North (Mr. Curling) when he was talking about the eloquence of the Attorney General. Until now we have not had a great deal of eloquence, but I did hear what the Attorney General had to say and agreed with him in principle and, in large part, with the position that he was taking with regard to the recommendations that are defined in the New Democratic Party special motion. I do agree that the Attorney General is correct that if we were to establish an independent prosecutor and a process of independent investigation to deal with actions, it is certainly a process that is outside of the jurisprudence tradition of our democracy and the democracies that we have been associated with.

Mr. D. R. Cooke: So you disagree with Norm Sterling?

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Cousens: I would therefore like to comment on a number of the other issues that come out of this.

I have to say, Mr. Speaker, I take great offence. We have an honourable member who is not sitting in his own seat and yet is participating. He is sitting in the seat of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Wrye) and he is making interjections. Would you please do your best to try to control the Liberals in the back benches who are trying to move to the front benches and really do not have that much to offer but do have a way of making their points get on Hansard? It is probably the only way they can make speeches.

There is a crisis in public confidence, and that crisis is probably the concern that led the New Democrats to bring forward this motion. I am concerned, as I know all members of this House would be concerned, with what is happening, and certainly the perception that we have in reading the newspapers, with Constable David Deviney being charged after this incident, the delay that took place before he was charged and the fact that two Peel constables have also been charged after a recent incident. It has led to a public perception that is indeed a great concern to all of us.

In that light, I think we have to face up to certain things. In his remarks, the Attorney General admitted that the situation is deteriorating. The fact he admits that is indeed, I think, a step forward. I would hope that he would have something in mind as to how we, as legislators, can work towards addressing the concerns that are coming forward from everybody.

The media, certainly within my own community, are saying, “What is happening?” The confidence within the public at large in the Attorney General or his conduct, or what is happening within his ministry, is causing people who have been active within the police system and in the protection of the public in this province in the past to say: “This would not have happened several years ago. What is there now that is leading these events to be going out of control the way they are? Does it have to do with the leadership that is within the Ministry of the Attorney General?”

I am concerned with some of the points that are raised. In fact, when you have the independence of the Attorney General, as described by him earlier, it still raises very serious concerns as to how far this independence can go and the immunity with which he will act.

I just do not know how to handle all this, and neither does the public at large; that is why we have a question before ourselves today. What can we, as legislators, do to instil more public confidence in the judicial system? What is there that we can do to help rectify a situation that seems to be worsening, if there is such a word in the English language?

I have more questions I do not have too many answers on this whole series of events.

Why the delay of approximately five months in the placing of charges? I just have not had anyone explain to me with any kind of reasoning that I can fully understand why there was such a lengthy delay.

I would also like to know, was there any pressure that was placed on the Attorney General or his ministry? I think that is one of the things that seems to happen. People are wondering whether the Attorney General’s officials, who seem to be the ones who responded to the outcry, were doing this as something they really felt they had to do, and if they felt they had to, why it is they did it.

Certain senior crown attorneys’ recommendations that there not be charges placed were overruled by the Attorney General’s staff. I just ask, then, why they were overruled. I guess, as the Attorney General said earlier, that will come out in the court case.

Are there other issues within the system or within society that are contributing to this lack of confidence we are now seeing, this crisis of confidence? I am just concerned that there is a problem developing which, unless we had this debate today -- and most of us are laymen. I am not a lawyer. The few lawyers who are here, I suppose, will speak, but as the general public is being represented by legislators, I respect the fact that I am getting complaints, concerns and worries from the public at large who are saying, “I want to be supportive of the police, I want to be supportive of the system, yet what is happening is causing me to think that there might be something wrong.”

I would like to be satisfied that the Attorney General is paying attention to these worries and these concerns. He has come into the House now, but I think the only reason he is here is that --

Hon. Mr. Scott: I didn’t know you were speaking.

Mr. Cousens: I know. What I have to say probably is not that important to the minister. It just represents one of 130 ridings.

The fact that I happen to agree with the general thesis of his presentation today is one thing. The concern I have on the other is, what can we do to restore the confidence of the people of Ontario in the whole judicial system and in our police force? If there is anything that is a crisis, it is that. It is probably the only thing I agree with in the New Democratic Party motion, that there is a crisis of confidence. The moment those scales tip, even in the slightest degree, then we as legislators have to be sensitive to it.

If the Attorney General can come up with some suggestions and report back to all of us in the House, I would appreciate having any kind of statement made by him that can help satisfy the concerns all of us are raising in this emergency debate today.

I do not think the minister can operate in isolation and in immunity to the groundswell of concern that is happening. I hope we can bring it under control. I hope we can satisfy the questions that are being raised. I would be most grateful if the Attorney General would look at the record, at some of the questions I have raised and possibly share some answers with me.

This is a concern. Because of the fact that we in Ontario have such a great tradition to be proud of, we should work to make sure we contribute to building a stronger Ontario, a strong judicial system and police that are there doing their jobs who have great public support for what they are doing. When there are problems, let us work together to try to solve them. Let’s not have them come up and surprise us and cause us to have this kind of debate again in the future.

Mr. Kormos: I have no difficulty agreeing with the content of the motion to the effect that there is a crisis of public confidence. Quite frankly, the crisis of public confidence originates from within the civilian members of the public as it does from within the policing public. There has been talk of complaints received, and I have heard as many complaints from police officers as I have from civilians or non-police-officers in the community.

One of the problems perhaps related to the most recent charge, that is, the charge laid against a Metropolitan Toronto Police officer, is the mixed messages that the community and even we here in the Legislature have been getting. I did indeed listen very carefully to what the Attorney General had to say earlier this afternoon. I recall a question asked of the Solicitor General as recently as last week. That was interesting as well, because as it turns out, when the Solicitor General was asked last week when a decision would be made as to whether to charge the Metro police officer in the Donaldson shooting, some five months having passed since the shooting, indeed the charge had not only obviously been sworn or laid but the process had occurred the morning that question was asked here in this assembly.

1710

It was remarkable not because the question was asked too late but it was remarkable that -- notwithstanding that the decision obviously had been made, and not only had been made but had been developed to the point where a charge was laid and that process was undertaken -- the Solicitor General, in response to the question in this Legislature, clearly had not known that the decision had been made, had not known that charge had been sworn and had not known that process had issued because her response was, “Well, the decision will be made shortly.”

Indeed, if the timing of the question was inappropriate, the timing of the answer was even less appropriate because she had no idea of what had been happening. It had already happened and she could only promise a decision to be made somewhere down the road.

As well, when I speak of mixed messages, a part of that question was the matter of who was making the decision. The source of confusion and, in my submission, what accounts for at least some of the crisis in public confidence is really the development of a cynicism that has been growing for some time here in this province. It is not purely a Toronto matter, because the cynicism that has developed has not been developing just in Toronto or just among racial minority groups. It has been developing in communities across the province.

The press reports, including one of the more recent ones, on January 4, indicated that an investigation had been made by the Metropolitan Toronto public complaints commission and that it was awaiting a decision on whether or not charges would be laid; one week later, on January 11, they said that the Ontario Provincial Police was considering whether or not to lay charges. The thrust of that article in the Toronto Star was that the OPP would make the decision.

At the same time, in an earlier article dating back to August of last year, it was indicated by OPP Detective Inspector Howard Williams that senior crown attorney Chris Meinhardt will decide whether or not charges will be laid against Metropolitan Toronto Police Constable David Deviney.

Surely if that comment were to have been made by a constable on the street, he or she could be excused by virtue of not knowing the process to be incorporated. In this particular instance dealing with the detective inspector, somebody who obviously was responsible for overseeing or pursuing the investigation itself, when the clear message is that the Attorney General’s office is going to decide whether or not charges are going to be laid, we in the community have not just an opportunity but can come to no other conclusion than that this is how the process is taking place. That conflicts so thoroughly with subsequent comments to the press by the OPP. which says that it merely has received recommendations but the decision is pending -- which suggests that it indeed is going to be making that decision.

One of the sources of cynicism and indeed one of the sources of crisis -- and that has been talked about here already -- is the matter of the significant delay in deciding whether or not charges are to be laid. There are people here who will know full well that the courts have decided that a delay in prosecution after a charge has been laid is significant in that it deprives an accused person of the right to defend himself.

That is why the Charter of Rights guarantees trial within a reasonable period of time, or what is colloquially known as a speedy trial. The courts have at the same time indicated that a delay in mere prosecution -- that is to say, before the charges are laid -- is not one for which the state can be held accountable, notwithstanding that the same difficulties in defending oneself exist when there is a delay in the charge being laid as when there is a delay in the prosecution of a charge that has already been laid.

The cynicism that is being spoken of is cynicism among police officers who recognize that in the case of the Donaldson shooting a Metro police officer had to live for a period in excess of five months with the threat of the prospect of criminal charges and with the knowledge that his ability to defend himself or to properly pursue the facts was going to be affected, or at the very least infected, by the process of time between when the incident occurred and when the charge was actually laid. Yet he, because of the nature of the beast, was not going to avail himself of any charter defence.

The lack of public confidence has been documented by this very government. In February 1988, the Solicitor General and the Lieutenant Governor signed an order in council which created the Commission of Inquiry into the Niagara Regional Police Force. One of the terms of that order in council was “Whereas the expression of such concerns” -- admittedly it says “may have resulted” -- “may have resulted in a loss of public confidence in the ability of the force to discharge its law enforcement responsibilities ... .”

Here was an opportunity the government had to actively seek out and pursue those areas in which the public had lost confidence, those areas which could be highlighted as areas where the public has lost confidence. It was an area where, at the same time, the government failed to (1) meet monetary obligations to the regional municipality of Niagara and (2) to pursue those avenues that were initially suggested to it by the Niagara Regional Board of Commissioners of Police. I am talking specifically of inquiries as to the role of the Ontario Police Commission, the office of the Attorney General, the office of the Solicitor General and earlier inquiries into the Niagara Regional Police Force.

It is a matter that is of as much concern to members of the public as it is to police officers specifically. The impression is that justice is not being done. That is an impression that has to be rectified, that has to be corrected. I would submit that the government (1) should be aware of that impression on the part of the public and (2) should be ready to remedy it.

If it requires creating an independent body to conduct investigations and prosecutions, then the government should be ready to investigate that. But it remains that neither the public nor the police in the communities across the province are pleased with what has been done to date. That has to be stood up to and responded to by the government.

Mr. Wildman: I am pleased that the House has allowed this debate on a very serious matter. It is a matter that none of us in the assembly should take lightly. As many members will know, I personally and my party have long advocated a system of civilian review of complaints related to policing in the province. We welcomed the decision by the government some time ago to initiate such a review for Metropolitan Toronto.

We had always expected that that would lead to a system which would be expanded across Ontario to other municipal police forces, and not just to municipal police forces but also to the Ontario Provincial Police, not because we do not have confidence in the integrity of the police in carrying out their work in protecting public safety in the province, but because we understand, as I think most people do, that in any situation where you have possible differences of interpretation with regard to the enforcement of the laws of the province, you can have some very difficult situations develop.

As we have seen in the province, police are seen by some people, perhaps a significant group of people in the community, as being overzealous or not as cognizant as they should be about the rights of individuals or groups. At the same time, you may have the police themselves concerned that they are not being properly equipped to carry out their responsibilities in enforcing the laws of this province and of the communities in Ontario.

I come from an area of the province in northern Ontario where we have a very serious difficulty. I know my friend the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Kozyra) will recognize, as will other members from northern Ontario, that there is a difficult problem in ensuring that the visible minority -- which in our part of the province is largely the native community, whether they be treaty Indians or Metis or nonstatus Indian people -- is properly represented in the police and that its concerns are properly represented in terms of policing in Ontario.

1720

I think it is a tragedy that when one does a survey on the jails in northern Ontario, one discovers a very high percentage of Indian inmates, completely out of proportion to the total of Indians in the population. I must emphasize that I have done no scientific survey on this; I am just saying what I am saying from my own experience.

I must say that the reasons we have so many native people in our jails and so many of them return to jail after being released are that our justice system does not properly deal with the native culture; that native people themselves are not aware of their rights, and, I submit, that perhaps they are not well enough represented within the police forces. Certainly they are not well enough represented on the bench or at the bar. I mean “the bar” in a certain sense. I always find it very strange that lawyers use that term.

There have been efforts by governments, both federal and provincial, over the years to try to get Indian policing into the hands of the bands themselves in terms of native people and treaty people. We have the band constable program. It is a very good program. It is an effective program, because one has a member of the community trained in policing and community relations who can deal with problems within the community without having, in many cases, to call in people from outside who may not have the same understanding of the culture and the community.

That is a step forward, but it is a very small step. There are many bands, many Indian communities in this province, that do not have their own constables. They do not have the funds for the constables. The federal government is not providing more funds to expand the program. The provincial government has expressed some interest in doing so, but has not been able to get agreement from the bands to proceed.

I think that kind of program is an example of a very small step in what we should be doing across Ontario to improve the confidence the people have in the police and the understanding that the police have of the community they serve.

I saw recently in a television report the percentage of visible minorities who are represented on the Metropolitan Toronto Police Force in this community. I was surprised at the very small percentage of blacks and Asians represented among the police in this city. We are a multicultural, multi-ethnic and multiracial community, particularly in this city, but we are becoming more and more so across Ontario.

I think the experience we have seen in other jurisdictions, in the United States, Great Britain, Europe and certainly in other parts of the world, is that in that kind of community one must ensure that the police reflect the community. The police must never become a minority within the community in the sense that they see themselves as separate from the community rather than representative of the community.

The experiences we have seen in Metropolitan Toronto, Mississauga and other areas in southern Ontario over the last few weeks alarm me because they give me the impression that we may be on the way to developing a situation where the police do not see themselves as representative of all the elements in the community. Certainly those different groups within the community do not see the police in that way.

It reminds me of the situation we have oftentimes in northern Ontario and other parts of Canada, the division between the native community and the police and the native community and the justice system. We have had investigations in Nova Scotia in that regard. We now have a commission involving one judge who is of native extraction and another judge in northern Manitoba who are travelling around northern Manitoba and finding out exactly how the Indian community in Manitoba sees the justice system and sees the police. It is not a pretty picture.

We should be moving farther to respond to those problems in the northern part of our province and in the bands and the reserves in southern Ontario as well, but at the same time we should not be allowing that kind of relationship or lack of relationship to develop between the blacks or the Asians and the other visible minorities and the police in southern Ontario.

We have a chance here to move forward to ensure that the police represent the community they work for and that the people see them as representing them, or we have the chance to have further violence and difficulty between the police and the community.

Mr. Villeneuve: I, too, rise to participate in this debate with a degree of reluctance and apprehension. We in rural eastern Ontario certainly look towards our police to solve many of the problems which some of our municipalities and some of our local residents have problems with. I personally have many friends in municipal police forces and the provincial police force, as well as knowing several in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. I personally have a great deal of admiration for the police, always remembering that they, like you and me, Mr. Speaker, are very human and subject to the frailties of being human.

We have had some experiences, as the member for Algoma, my predecessor in this debate, mentioned. We have a fairly large community of native people just south of the city of Cornwall. They live on a reserve. They are the Mohawk people, the Akwesasne band. We have had a number of problems, which I believe were handled very well by a number of police forces, including the Akwesasne’s own police force on the island of St. Regis.

However, as members may know, we are talking about a problem that appears to have polarized, a major problem developing into both a perceived political problem and a problem of policing. Visible minorities very often react in a much different way. Minorities have people who were not born and raised here in Ontario and Canada -- indeed, North America -- and who react in many different ways to what we, as people who accept many of our traditions, our folklore, would take for granted.

I believe there is a communication problem, but never in the history of Ontario has an Attorney General been asked to resign his position by a police department. It is to the credit of the police department that it has continued to do its duty in spite of a great deal of pressure that has been brought on it, both as a police force and as individual members who are now being singled out, singled out in a way that concerns us all.

1730

I think that when we speak of the treatment of visible minorities in Canada, in Ontario, we always have to be very sensitive to a situation that can create problems because of a communication breakdown, a lack of knowledge of what makes a race or an individual who is not familiar with our customs here in Ontario -- what makes that individual tick.

As we discuss some of the problems that are being faced by both the black community here in the city of Toronto and those responsible for law and order, we come to a very major dilemma. There have been some rather long waits by both our minorities and our people charged with enforcing the law. There has been a long wait. Anger has crept in, in a rather quiet fashion, and we now have a very volatile situation that will wind up in the courts. It is a rather sad situation in that it has become, to a degree, politicized.

I can recall sitting on the other side of the House with another Attorney General of a different political stripe who always spoke of the fact that if any political position should not be politicized, it was very well that of the Attorney General, the AG of the largest province in Canada, the one responsible for law and order in the province.

I remember speaking to Roy McMurtry at a time when I believe he was running for the leadership of our party, and having a great deal of respect and admiration for the man because he had been, in his many years as Attorney General, to some degree above the political hassles that tend to occur and revolve around politicians both in this chamber and outside, particularly at election time.

I think I can understand the dilemma, and I can also understand that the long wait faced by our visible minorities waiting for what they perceive as justice, by the individuals -- remember, these are human beings who operated and who operate as professionals but are also subject to the stresses of being human beings.

As politicians, we sometimes tend to try to bite our tongue and do something only after giving it serious consideration and thought. The police very often have to make a very quick and split-second decision, a decision that sometimes can be the right one and sometimes can be the wrong one. They are mere mortals, as we all are, and therefore we have to remember that the decision, right or wrong, is hopefully always done with good intentions.

I find it somewhat amazing that the members of the Liberal Party are not participating at their regular turn in this debate. I realize it was not brought forth by that particular party.

I found it strange when I was debating last week on policing and security around our court system that the bill was brought in by the Liberal government. Many, many negative things are being said by our local municipalities. I certainly hope to bring forth some of the concerns expressed to me by some of our municipal officials on the weekend. Again, we have our Liberal members putting out great reports to constituents saying how great the legislation is that is being brought forth by different ministries, but they do not seem to be willing to participate in the debate when it touches rather negatively on many of the areas and many of the people they represent and speak for. Therefore, I find it somewhat strange that we have limited participation by the Liberal frontbenchers and backbenchers in this particular debate.

The member for Ottawa South (Mr. McGuinty), who is in the chamber today, had no hesitation in bringing forth a private member’s motion saying how well he and his members of the eastern caucus had been doing over the past period of time. I was sorry, I say to the member for Ottawa South, that I was not able to be here that morning because I could have brought him several areas -- as a matter of fact, quite a number of areas -- that are of concern to me and have not been addressed in any way, shape or form by this government since taking office in 1985.

In conclusion, I find it somewhat worrisome to have to participate in this emergency debate today, one that has polarized and a lot of which is probably perception, but perception tends to become reality if it is spoken of and discussed often enough because someone says, “I hear that this is happening,” or, “I hear that is happening,” and someone says, “No, it’s much worse than that.”

I think we all know what can happen in some of the situations that may or may not be factual. Once they get bandied around, it turns out to be a negative situation for all concerned. I think this is what we are facing in the situation, a very volatile situation that both our visible minorities and, I think, our very valiant and capable police forces within Ontario are faced with in the immediate future.

The courts will inevitably decide, as was mentioned by the Attorney General in answer to a question today. The courts have a way of taking a rather long period of time. There is an old saying that time heals everything. Well, time, I am afraid, will not heal some of the rather deep divisions we have facing our municipal, provincial and federal police forces, again, I remind members, all being manned -- I say “manned” in the broad sense because we have many ladies who are now members of our constabulary.

I think we have to respect these people very much because they have a job that those of us who sit in this chamber could probably not do nearly as well as those who are doing it today.

The Acting Speaker: Are there other participants in the debate? There are no other participants in the debate, so the debate is thereby concluded.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

House in committee of supply.

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF HOUSING / CREDITS, MINISTERE DU LOGEMENT

Hon. Ms. Hošek: I am pleased to present to the House today the estimates for the Ministry of Housing for the fiscal year 1988-89. Housing is a top priority in this government, so l am confident that the hours we are going to spend together in debate will be both constructive and productive. I welcome the opportunity to discuss the goals and achievements of the ministry and I look forward to hearing your ideas and suggestions.

Before we begin to deal with specific items, I would like to remind members this government has a specific housing policy that is guided by a commitment to provide adequate and broadly affordable housing for Ontario residents. To do that, it is important to recognize that what we have been doing this year, and continue to do, is the result of a fundamental shift in philosophy and policy initiated by this government when it took office.

Our actions are part of a long-term, comprehensive strategy. I want to talk about the major components of that strategy right now. We have been driven by a concern for the lack of affordable accommodation and we recognize that accessible housing is necessary to keep our economy strong and therefore we set to work to assume a more active and responsible role.

1740

Here let me say that the concerns about housing should really affect not just the people who are concerned about the effect of housing needs on people of very low income, but also on people of moderate income, many of whom are finding it very difficult to begin to achieve the housing goals they have set for themselves.

If we live in a province in which a significant number of people feel that their dreams about home ownership are threatened, I think that has a significant economic impact on the province as a whole and on their commitment to their life plans and the economic work that they plan to do.

The first step that was taken by this government was to establish a separate Ministry of Housing with sole responsibility for the provision, maintenance and protection of affordable housing in Ontario. After doing that, the government began to develop a housing strategy that would be comprehensive, co-ordinated and responsive to public needs. To do this, we focused on three crucial areas: housing supply, protection for renters and partnerships with municipalities and with the building industry.

On the supply side, we have made significant inroads. We have taken over primary responsibility for the provision of social housing from the federal government, which used to be responsible for this fact of Canadian life. We have assumed a much greater financial role. As the need for such housing continues to grow, while federal commitments continue to lag, we have stepped in with programs funded entirely by the province.

On the rental housing front, we have taken decisive action to preserve the existing supply of rental housing by halting indiscriminate conversions, demolitions and luxury renovations of rental housing stock. We have introduced a new rent review system to provide fair treatment for both tenants and landlords, and we have extended that review process to include virtually all the rental housing that exists in this province.

But to build housing we need partners. We have made considerable headway in opening the lines of communication and developing an atmosphere of partnership with the community.

We have successfully invited different sectors of the community to share the responsibility of providing housing. As a result, we have forged new partnerships with municipal and private nonprofit groups, municipal governments, other provincial ministries, the private sector and also the federal government.

Maintenant que j’ai exposé les grandes lignes de la stratégie, permettez-moi de vous donner des exemples précis. Comme je l’ai indiqué ci-dessus, notre ministère a, maintenant plus que jamais, pris à sa charge un plus haut niveau de responsabilités pour la création de logements à but non lucratif partout dans la province. Non seulement nous avons assumé toute la responsabilité administrative des programmes conjoints fédéral-provincial, avec une importante augmentation du rôle que nous jouons dans le partage des coûts, mais nous parrainons aussi des programmes subventionnés uniquement par la province.

En vertu de cette combinaison de programmes, il me fait plaisir d’annoncer que, pendant l’année qui vient de se terminer, nous avons lancé des programmes qui doubleront la mise en oeuvre des logements à but non lucratif dans cette province.

Homes Now, which was first announced in the April provincial budget, is the largest nonprofit housing initiative ever undertaken in Ontario. It will provide $2 billion in low-cost financing, out of the Canada pension plan funds, for the creation of 30,000 homes over the next three to five years, enough to fulfil the housing needs of about 90,000 people in this province. Just to give people a term of reference about this: If all those homes were built in a single community, that community would be the size of Oakville.

We launched the program in October, after extensive consultations with nonprofit producers across the province, our partners in the program, to create a delivery system that will ensure these units are produced as quickly as possible. We have already announced multiple project allocations, totalling 3,000 units, to four major producers of nonprofit housing with proven track records, and further allocations are pending and will be announced as soon as they are made.

Up to 70 per cent of those 30,000 units will be occupied by low-income tenants, who will pay rents based on their incomes rather than on the size or the type of the unit they require.

Homes Now is our biggest nonprofit production initiative to date but it is not the only one. Two other unilateral provincial housing production programs previously announced continue to move forward this year. Under a special unilateral provincial nonprofit housing program, a total of 47 nonprofit housing organizations in 22 municipalities were given the go-ahead to produce more than 4,000 housing units for low-and moderate-income households including families, seniors, childless couples and singles of various ages.

Unit starts and completions continue to climb under Project 3000, which is a special provincial initiative designed to produce rental housing specifically for people with physical, developmental and psychiatric disabilities, for homeless individuals, for battered spouses and for low-income single people.

These unilateral programs are in addition to the nonprofit housing units which we provide together with the federal government through the federal-provincial nonprofit housing program. Under that program, we made allocations this year for about 7,000 units to be built. Unfortunately, the federal government has not seen fit to honour its full commitment for the 1988 allocations. We are continuing to work with our colleagues in Ottawa to resolve this very serious shortfall.

Whenever I talk about nonprofit housing, people have one main question: When will they be built? When can people move in? Though we cannot expect these buildings to go up overnight, we have made significant achievements already. Just recently, I participated in opening ceremonies in the city of Trenton for a beautiful nonprofit town house and apartment development. The Minister of Tourism and Recreation (Mr. O’Neil), in whose riding the project is located, joined me at the party to celebrate the opening, as did all the volunteers who worked so hard to make sure the project got built.

Looking around that room, one saw how many people in the community it took to get that project started and completed, how much community support had been garnered in the process, how much public education had taken place, so that many more people in the community now understood the housing needs of the community better and had put forward their own efforts to make a difference. For every single project we fund, there is a nonprofit group of volunteers working very hard to bring the project to fruition and a community that has thought through the question of the housing, has been educated about it and has worked actively with a nonprofit group to help bring it about.

Permettez-moi de faire une observation au sujet du genre de logements que nous créons dans la province aujourd’hui. Je suis fière non seulement de la quantité de logements créés, mais aussi de la qualité de ces logements. Nous travaillons avec des organismes et des groupes locaux -- comme nous l’avons fait à Trenton -- pour aider la communauté à répondre à ses besoins en matière de logements. Nous leur donnons des fonds et des subventions pour combler la différence qui existe entre le prix des logements et ce que les gens ont les moyens de se payer.

Il est important de noter que c’est la communauté qui crée les logements, qui les construit et qui en assure la gestion. C’est pourquoi nous avons un mélange sain de gens avec des antécédents différents au point de vue social, ethnique ou financier, et ces gens vivent ensemble comme voisins et amis.

It is important that as a result of our nonprofit housing we are creating communities, communities with mixed-income residents, some of whom get significant support with their rent, some of whom get little support with their rent and some of whom are able to pay the rent that would normally be charged in that building. We are also helping the community build an integrated location where people of various incomes and ethnic groups can live together in harmony.

As members know, building housing depends entirely on one other extremely important factor; that is, finding suitable land. In this area as well we are taking very significant steps. Housing First is our provincial government policy and it targets that all appropriate surplus government lands will be used for housing. Working with the Ministry of Government Services, we are releasing those lands on a site-by-site basis and we require that on those lands at least 35 per cent of all the housing that is developed will be broadly affordable.

1750

This year, under the policy of Housing First, we have committed nine sites, including one in Mississauga, one in Stoney Creek and one in Guelph. There are six in Metropolitan Toronto: one in North York, one in Scarborough, two in Etobicoke and two in the city of Toronto. All of these sites will be used for the creation of affordable homes.

We are also actively encouraging other levels of government, including municipalities and the federal government, to adopt policies such as our own Housing First policy with their own land. I am extremely pleased that one very major landholder, Metro Toronto, has made the commitment to make its lands available for Housing First, but so far our efforts to evoke a similar commitment from the federal government have been much less successful.

An exciting example of the kind of land and production initiative that we are interested in encouraging is the agreement that we worked out with the city of Toronto last July. The province and the city will work together in a $1-billion housing development which will transform 70 acres of underutilized industrial land in downtown Toronto to provide homes for about 12,000 people. This project, which is called St. Lawrence Square, will add between 6,000 and 7,000 units of housing, and will include homes for seniors, families and people with special needs.

Approximately 60 per cent of the housing in St. Lawrence Square will be affordable to low-and moderate-income earners, who will be expected to pay no more than 30 per cent of their income on housing. The city will fund the project through loans, which will be guaranteed by the province.

I would like to move on now to talk about another of our very important actions. This is really crucial. With the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, we have initiated a draft policy statement on housing and land use which will fundamentally change the way communities are planned and built in the future. When it is implemented this spring, our policy will provide a clear statement on housing under the Planning Act.

This is a tough and comprehensive policy. It requires municipalities to plan for an increased supply of residential lands. We are asking municipalities to plan for the development process and to make sure that a supply of land available for building is kept at the ready at all times so that there will not be the kind of congestion and backlog in the flow of land into the building process that we have found, especially in areas of high need and high growth at the present time.

We are also expecting that the official plans of municipalities will be required through the planning process to ensure a full range of housing types in the community, and include in those housing types a minimum of 25 per cent broadly affordable housing in all new residential development. What that means -- I think this is a very important breakthrough -- is that instead of letting the building and planning process go on as usual, with its tilt towards providing housing at the upper end, at the more expensive end and leaving the housing for moderate income people to either a haphazard or a rather sketchy process, from now on the planning and building process itself will have built into it the requirement that housing for people of low and moderate income be built as part of the development of any major municipal neighbourhood.

Instead of people of low and moderate incomes being, as they are now in many eases, an afterthought to a building process and a planning process that has become largely responsive to the upper end of the marketplace, from now on under this policy, people of low and moderate income and the housing that serves them will be built into the building and planning process from the very beginning.

I cannot really overestimate the importance of that fundamental shift in the way in which we plan and the impact of that shift on our housing needs in the future.

Plans will be required through the planning process to ensure a full range of housing types in all communities, including a minimum of 25 per cent broadly affordable housing in all new residential development. The policy also requires municipalities to adopt strategies to increase housing supply by making better use of the stock of housing we already have. This is an area of incredible opportunity. For instance, we know there are many opportunities for the creative use of existing housing. Infill, conversion of underutilized commercial and industrial properties and the conversion of single-family homes to increase rental accommodation all offer the potential to create thousands of rental units across the province.

The other important thing about this is that in many communities across the province now our housing stock is in fact being underused. The irony of that taking place at the same time as housing needs being so great is not lost on anyone in the ministry, least of all on me. In many of the communities I am talking about, what we have is an infrastructure of roads, schools and sewers which was very expensive to build and invest in and which is being underused because the number of people inhabiting those buildings is much less than the community was originally planned to hold. We are asking municipalities to indicate areas in their communities where greater use of the housing stock could be expected and to designate the ways that will happen in their communities.

The importance of our policy statement is truly far-reaching. It will ensure that we build housing for people of different income ranges right from the planning stages. We know from experience that it is poor planning to do it any other way. In practical terms, it will mean that children are much more likely to be able to start raising their own families near the neighbourhoods where their parents live, that workers who provide services to our communities will be able to afford to live near those communities instead of having to commute extraordinarily long distances and that communities will be made up of all kinds of people reflecting society at large.

This draft policy will fundamentally alter the way planning for residential uses is done in most urban areas of Ontario and will provide the basic framework for most of our policies and programs to come. Equally important, the draft policy statement reflects our commitment to work closely with municipalities to streamline the planning process and reduce the time it takes to approve planning and development applications. In the building industry, as we know, time is money. The policy statement is sensitive to this fact and addresses it.

As required by the Planning Act, we are also consulting with municipalities and interested groups across the province. As I said earlier, our goal is to put the policy statement into place, finally, this spring.

While I am talking about provincial and municipal co-operation, let me say how pleased I am that our efforts have secured joint agreements with two municipalities this year. These agreements, which are framework agreements to work together to meet mutually agreed upon goals in relation to housing, are with Ottawa and Peter-borough and represent our mutual commitment to work together for broadly affordable housing.

While similar agreements are being negotiated with other municipalities, I want to stress that our role as a partner is not limited to municipalities.

One of the highlights this year was the agreement between my ministry and the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Toronto to provide broadly affordable housing on church lands. His Eminence, Gerald Emmett Cardinal Carter and I signed the agreement just before Christmas, marking the first such agreement by the province and a major religious denomination. The agreement will result in the speedy creation of more than 800 housing units on church lands identified by the archdiocese as suitable for housing. In addition, under our nonprofit programs we will set aside a reserve allocation of units for the archdiocese.

We are confident that the archdiocese will be a major contributor to the supply of nonprofit housing in the greater Toronto area. I am particularly pleased about this agreement because it illustrates a point we have been making for a very long time, that providing adequate and broadly affordable housing is not solely the responsibility of governments. Partnerships like this one are essential if we are to make progress in meeting the housing challenge.

Today, there are already more than 50,000 nonprofit housing units in Ontario, sponsored by hundreds of nonprofit community groups, municipal nonprofit corporations and housing cooperatives.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Sweeney, the committee of supply reported progress.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.

16 janvier 1989