Ontario Hansard — 13 December 1984 (32nd Parliament, 4th Session)

1984-12-13

Ontario — Debates (Hansard)

role="main" class="main-container container js-quickedit-main-content" id="main-content">

December 13, 1984

32nd Parliament, 4th Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

VISITOR

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION

PUBLIC TRUCKING LEGISLATION

ORAL QUESTIONS

ABORTION CLINIC

ROLE OF PROVINCIAL AUDITOR

FAMILY LAW REFORM

EMPLOYEE HEALTH AND SAFETY

APPEAL OF SENTENCE

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

FRENCH EDUCATION LEGISLATION

ORAL QUESTIONS (CONTINUED)

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

ABORTION CLINIC

ACTIVITIES OF POLICE

INDIAN BAND AGREEMENT

SUNCOR

OHIP PREMIUMS

ASSISTIVE DEVICES PROGRAM

MUSEUM LABOUR DISPUTE

PETITIONS

ROMAN CATHOLIC SECONDARY SCHOOLS

REPORT ON HUMAN RIGHTS

SEVERANCE PAY

ROMAN CATHOLIC SECONDARY SCHOOLS

REPORTS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND OTHER STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

SECURITIES AMENDMENT ACT

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

CITY OF WINDSOR ACT

BARGNESI MINES LIMITED ACT

CITY OF ST. CATHARINES ACT

TOWN OF COBOURG ACT

CITY OF NORTH YORK ACT

THEATRES AMENDMENT ACT

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

EMPLOYMENT SECURITY INITIATIVE

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

VISITOR

Mr. Speaker: Before proceeding with the business of the House, I would ask all members of the Legislative Assembly to join me in recognizing and welcoming in the Speaker's gallery Mr. Hikaru Oka, Consul General of Japan. Mr. Oka is visiting the Legislature today as my guest.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, at the annual conference of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario this past August, my colleague the Minister responsible for Women's Issues (Mr. Welch) announced the province had established an affirmative action incentive fund to encourage municipalities to increase the number of women in their work forces and to provide educational and developmental opportunities for their women employees.

With funding provided by the Ontario women's directorate, my ministry will be delivering a two-year affirmative action program for which guidelines have now been sent to all municipalities in the province. Municipalities that participate will receive grants of up to $20,000 in the first year and $18,000 in the second year to assist them in appointing coordinators who will develop and administer affirmative action programs.

To ensure that as many municipalities as possible are able to take advantage of this assistance, including those that may feel they are not large enough to warrant the appointment of a full-time co-ordinator, we are encouraging counties and regions to participate and to make the services of their co-ordinators available to their local municipalities. My ministry and the Ontario women's directorate will also organize seminars and training sessions to assist the co-ordinators in carrying out their responsibilities.

Approximately a dozen of the largest municipalities have already implemented significant and successful programs for their women employees, and, since the AMO announcement by my colleague the Minister responsible for Women's Issues, many others have contacted us to express an interest in the new program. We feel local governments are in a unique position to encourage an awareness of affirmative action and to provide opportunities for women. We are confident this assistance will induce more municipalities to participate.

PUBLIC TRUCKING LEGISLATION

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring the honourable members up to date on the status of my ministry's proposal to install a new Public Trucking Act in place of our current Public Commercial Vehicles Act.

As the House is no doubt aware, we have had a long-standing commitment to revise the outdated provisions of the PCV Act, provisions that no longer reflect the economic realities of our times. They have, in the eyes of many, become a hindrance to free trade and efficiency within the trucking industry.

In previous statements I described how we have stepped up our efforts in the direction of regulatory reform since the release in June 1983 of the report Responsible Trucking, which was the final report of the PCV Act Review Committee. That committee had a mandate to make recommendations for forward-looking legislation, legislation that would prepare the highway transport industry to face the future with confidence while at the same time supporting Ontario's manufacturing and distribution sectors as they tackle the challenges of the 1980s and beyond.

The committee's findings formed a blueprint for reforms to the trucking act that will fall far short of the virtual deregulation that recently occurred in the United States. The essential difference is that Ontario intends to retain an important role in seeing that the best interests of both the industry and the public continue to be met.

Our implementation steering committee has been at work for the past 18 months mapping out exactly what the role will be and assembling all the other essential details of the new act. I am now pleased to inform the House that the draft legislation is ready to be tabled. We would like to take this opportunity to solicit further comments on its form and content from all interested parties. All submissions should be forwarded to the executive director of our transportation regulation operations division, Mr. Harold Kivi.

By asking for more public input, we hope to reinforce the spirit of consensus and co-operation that has characterized our regulatory reform process from the start. We have greatly appreciated the contribution of the private sector, particularly that of the trucking industry, in bringing the bill to the stage it is at now. We are counting on that participation to continue as we begin the implementation process next year.

It has been through the joint efforts of many different interest groups that the new bill has taken shape. We believe the consultative manner in which the legislation has been drafted makes it that much more responsive to the needs and desires of the people it will ultimately serve.

Because we are vitally interested in continuing this exchange of viewpoints, we are putting the draft legislation forward for public discussion during the next couple of months before introducing it for first reading when the Legislature reconvenes next spring. I would stress that our target date for full implementation is still January 1, 1986.

2:10 p.m.

We have made a commitment to the industry to implement this legislation in stages, thereby giving current operators time to adjust before introducing new competition to the market. We still intend to honour that commitment and to make every possible effort to ease the transition of existing licence holders. That is precisely why we have chosen to grant revised operating authorities only to those already working in the industry when the licence rewrite process gets under way in 1985.

In conclusion, the tabling of this new bill in the Legislature is merely the initial step towards complete regulatory reform. There are many bits and pieces that remain to be ironed out in the next year. For instance, revisions to the Highway Traffic Act and the Ontario Highway Transport Board Act will be required before the system is firmly in place. It is, however, essential that we get the process in gear so that more valuable time is not lost before we create a climate that will foster fairness, efficiency and innovation in the Ontario highway carrier industry.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ABORTION CLINIC

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Solicitor General.

I am sorry the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) has consistently refused to show up in this House since issuing his statement last Tuesday, because many questions are developing that need his attention.

I read a disturbing

article in the Toronto Star this morning that says a raid on the Morgentaler Clinic had been approved for 11 o'clock today, "but sources say McMurtry's office intervened to stop the raid -- at least until next week." It went on to say this involved "a `political dispute' with McMurtry's office."

Will the Solicitor General comment on the article? Is it valid? What is the nature of the political squabble?

Hon. G. W. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, in regard to the content of the article, I understand there was a press conference at one o'clock today between John Takach, Assistant Deputy Attorney General, and Chief Marks of the Metropolitan Toronto Police. Both of them contradicted some of the content of that

article and emphatically stated there was no political squabble whatsoever.

They stated there was no difficulty about what was taking place and they were following the usual police procedures. They stated the chief of police and the investigating officers were conducting discussions on evidentiary and law matters, as is the usual custom for crown law officers and a chief of police.

Mr. Peterson: I always find it disturbing in this discussion that the Attorney General washes his hands of the matter, even though people he is responsible for now are involved with the police, and the Solicitor General always claims ignorance of the matter, saying it is not his involvement --

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Peterson: The minister does not talk to the Attorney General, and the Attorney General does not talk to the minister. No one knows what is going on.

Is the Solicitor General now persuaded that the law is being violated? Are the police going to raid that clinic and lay charges, or are they not? Is the minister going to allow this to continue and make a mockery of the law?

Hon. G. W. Taylor: I have explained previously to the members of the Legislature that I do not direct the laying of charges, nor does any other political official. A few years ago, someone who held this office made telephone calls through genuine interest and a number of people got thoroughly upset about that. Now the members are asking me to direct the police to lay charges. From time to time I can instruct them to carry out an investigation.

I understand the police are conducting an investigation. When that investigation is completed and they have discussed it with the crown law officers, which is the normal procedure and not an unusual procedure, they will lay such charges as the evidence warrants. I cannot explain it any better than that. I am sure I would not be allowed to direct charges to be laid or not to be laid.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, if the Solicitor General is in the soup at all, it is precisely because he has been quoted in the popular press as having made certain statements with respect to his personal views on the likelihood of the police laying charges. He is quoted as saying he expects the police to lay charges.

Can he tell us what impact the acquittal of Dr. Morgentaler and his associates by four different juries in Quebec and Ontario has had on the legal thinking of the law officers of the crown and on the legal thinking of the police department with respect to the appropriateness of a raid?

Hon. G. W. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I would say it has some bearing but not an enormous amount of bearing. As each individual charge comes up, if there is evidence to warrant it, a charge will be laid.

The fact that there have been four acquittals in different areas means four juries disagreed with the facts as presented in the law on those cases. It does not change the law in any way. The law is still the same, as I understand it. The federal law sets out that an abortion may be conducted only in an accredited hospital that has a therapeutic abortion committee. When the committee has made a decision to carry out an abortion, that is when an abortion can be carried out.

I understand this is a very emotional situation. I have different points of view coming from different areas, one that is pro-life and one that is not anti-abortion. These different views make it very difficult to present information.

Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, the issue raised by the leader of the third party was dealt with by Mr. Justice Parker in the original disposition of this matter in Regina versus Morgentaler on July 20. In addressing this issue, he clearly stated it is not a breach of the principles of fundamental justice for an accused to be charged and prosecuted for an offence, notwithstanding his acquittal for a similar offence at a different time, in a different place and involving different parties, and one that occurred some 10 years ago.

Does that not give the Solicitor General a clear direction to disagree with the position taken by the leader of the third party?

Hon. G. W. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I did not think I was agreeing with the leader of the third party. Each time a set of facts warrants certain types of information, charges can flow out of that. It does not matter how many times an individual has been discharged before, in my opinion.

Mr. Rae: It is an abuse of process and the minister knows it.

Hon. G. W. Taylor: It is not due process. The leader of the third party says it is an abuse of due process.

Mr. Speaker: Never mind the interjections.

Hon. G. W. Taylor: It is very hard to answer questions on such a very emotional issue. Many participants are very heated on this subject, be they from one spectrum or the other. It is very difficult to have these continual emotional questions put when I am trying to answer them with a straight feature of the law, as I understand it.

There are enough lawyers in this House. I believe all three questions today came from lawyers. I am sure they all understand the questions in law, although there will be three different opinions since there are three different lawyers. I am trying to present the facts as they are, how we see them and how we deal with the law.

Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Speaker, here is a question from a nonlawyer. As the Solicitor General rightly points out, the law of Canada, which the government of Ontario is bound to uphold, clearly says a legal abortion in this country and in this province can be carried out only in an accredited hospital -- in Ontario, one that is recognized by the Minister of Health (Mr. Norton).

Since that is not being done and since there seems to be some difficulty in the police carrying out their responsibility, can the minister advise me why a group of private citizens is being denied the right to seek an injunction to close that clinic?

Hon. G. W. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of a group of private citizens being prevented from seeking an injunction to close the clinic. If the member will inform me further on that, I may possibly answer the question. I am not aware of that group.

2:20 p.m.

Mr. Sweeney: To assist the Solicitor General, he is probably well aware that the Attorney General said he would not help

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

ROLE OF PROVINCIAL AUDITOR

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, is the Deputy Premier aware of what happened in the standing committee on public accounts this morning, when the member for Lakeshore (Mr. Kolyn), a member of that committee, tried to censure the Provincial Auditor for remarks he made on a television show with respect to the carrying-out of his duties?

After this discussion, tribunal or investigation into his remarks this morning by the Tory majority, the auditor was quoted as saying that if everything he said was to be subject to dissection by certain members of the committee, he would be less than honest if the actions of the Tories did not make him more cautious about public statements.

Does the Deputy Premier not feel he has a responsibility not to muzzle the auditor? Why would he not have a discussion with his back-bench members of that committee to make sure they are not stifling that very important instrument of this body?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, there were three questions. The answer to the first two is no. As far as the third question is concerned, I do not feel the auditor needs more than the legislation that has put his office in place. He is a servant of the Legislature. I would not think he would feel any inhibition in the discharge of his responsibilities, which are clearly set out by the legislation of this place.

Mr. Peterson: The Deputy Premier is uninformed of the facts. Let me recall another discussion in this House with respect to an independent auditor's investigation into Ontario Hydro. In response to a question from my colleague the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway), the Treasurer (Mr. Grossman) said it was unfair for that member or anyone else to suggest there was a Tory-majority conspiracy directed by this government to prevent such an investigation. That is what the Treasurer said.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Peterson: Is the Deputy Premier aware that the auditor said the Tory majority did curtail the nature of the investigation to some extent? How does the Deputy Premier reconcile the two statements? Here we have the auditor saying he is being stymied by the Tory majority and is now feeling intimidated in speaking out on these matters.

How is the Deputy Premier going to prevent the auditor's work from being stifled? How is he going to maintain the integrity of the position that his colleagues are trying to destroy? It is a very important question, going to the very root of the functioning of this parliament.

Hon. Mr. Welch: There is a tremendous importance attached to the role of the auditor. I have no evidence that anyone on this side, either singly or in a group, is attempting to interfere with the auditor's discharge of his responsibilities.

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, does the Deputy Premier feel it appropriate that the majority on the committee should have curtailed the auditor's investigation of Ontario Hydro, as he said this morning did happen? Does he feel that is an appropriate function of the majority on the public accounts committee, which is charged with surveying the expenditure of public funds in Ontario and ensuring there is not waste? Does he not believe that committee should exercise its mandate and encourage the auditor to investigate waste of public funds wherever and whenever it may occur?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, it is very unfortunate the question is not being placed in full context. The committee is completely in charge of its own operations. During the time I have been here, the Legislature has functioned through its standing committees, and the committees have every right to take whatever decisions they want to take. I am not aware of any evidence showing the majority on the committee has attempted to interfere with the auditor in the discharge of the responsibilities clearly set out in the act from which he gets his authority.

Mr. Peterson: There is evidence from the auditor's mouth himself that the Deputy Premier is wrong. He says his work has been curtailed by the Tory majority and he is going to feel less able to stand up and speak independently without going through this kind of inquisition. The evidence is there, whether the Deputy Premier knows it or not.

As the senior member of the government here today, would the Deputy Premier personally investigate this matter in discussions with his own back-bench members of that committee and report back to the House tomorrow morning on what he is going to do about it and where his government stands? His committee members may have been running out of control, and I will respect it if he comes back here and tells us that he and the Premier (Mr. Davis) have instructed them not to curtail the auditor's activities. Surely the Deputy Premier owes that to this parliament.

Hon. Mr. Welch: I think we might approach this from two points of view. First, I do not know how any standing committee of the Legislature could interfere with the auditor, whose mandate and responsibilities are clearly set out in legislation. It is through the legislative mandate that he has his responsibility.

I would also remind the Leader of the Opposition that if he rereads the auditor's report overnight, which has just been sent to the standing committee, he will find the auditor was very positive in indicating, as far as he was concerned -- and I think I am almost quoting from the report -- he had received all the information and explanation he requested as part of his annual audit. He says that in his report.

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Are we to understand the members of the government have the right to stonewall the opposition?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Rae: I wanted to listen to that, Mr. Speaker.

FAMILY LAW REFORM

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Deputy Premier and Minister responsible for Women's Issues. Given the extraordinary answer in this chamber by the Provincial Secretary for Justice (Mr.

Walker) on the vital question of family law reform, how can we draw any other conclusion from this whole fiasco with respect to family law reform and the Tory cabinet than the following: There has been a draft document circulating that has been vetoed and scuppered by the right wing of the Tory party prior to the Tory party convention in January, and that is the reason this legislation has not been forthcoming in this session, as was promised on many occasions by the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry)?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, in a phrase, that is all nonsense. There is absolutely no question but that it is absolute nonsense. This party and the government stand committed to making improvements with respect to family law reform. The House has the commitment of the Attorney General and my commitment. In the consultative process, which has taken longer than we anticipated, there is no question of anyone on this side of the House scuttling anything. We stand committed to improving the whole question of family law, as was indicated by the Attorney General some weeks ago.

Mr. Rae: We have headlines here. It has been indicated for years by the Attorney General. The indications are there. It is not indications we want; it is the bill.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Rae: If the explanation is not the one I have given, what is the explanation for the delay?

Hon. Mr. Welch: This party makes no apologies for being a consultative administration. I think that has to be one of the strengths of this party, about to enter another decade of success. Let us wait until 7:30 tonight to see just exactly what is going to happen as well. I think that will be some indication.

Political decision-making is finding some type of balance in all these matters. We stand by our commitment. The member's

interpretation is absolutely false.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, how can the minister say there is no bill when his colleague the parliamentary secretary to the Attorney General, the member for Carleton East (Mr. MacQuarrie), said yesterday there was a draft bill and it was being circulated.

Hon. Mr. Walker: Did he say it to you?

Mr. Peterson: That is what he said.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Peterson: Is the minister accusing him of telling a lie? Is he telling us his parliamentary secretary in that area has not been informed? Who is telling the truth, you or him?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: You or he, for goodness' sake.

Mr. Speaker: The grammar lesson will come later.

Hon. Mr. Welch: I was at the meeting with the parliamentary secretary to the Attorney General and many others, and we listened very intently to the representations made by the coalition. I thought he was very fair in his answers as he explained the process. It is not a matter of who is telling anything else, except to reinforce the commitment of this particular administration to further improvements with respect to the whole question of the distribution of family property on the dissolution of marriage.

2:30 p.m.

Mr. Rae: How can the Deputy Premier explain the fact that in the minutes of the House leaders the question of family law reform was discussed? The statement was made that something would be forthcoming by the end of the session. We had a clear indication from the Attorney General countless times, to no less a source than the Toronto Star itself, saying it was imminent and the legislation was there.

We had a clear indication yesterday from the leader of the dinosaurs himself, the Provincial Secretary for Justice (Mr. Walker), the leader of the right wing in the cabinet, saying there was no such proposal, that there was not one proposal but there were several proposals.

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Rae: That means family law reform has been scuttled by the dance of the dinosaurs across the way prior to the Tory convention. Why did the minister lose his courage on the way to the Tory convention over family law reform?

Hon. Mr. Welch: That is absolute nonsense and the member knows it in his heart of hearts. The greatest example of his commitment to women's issues is the frustration and the filibuster he made with respect to Bill 141, denying women in this province what they are entitled to.

Mr. McClellan: Where is the bill? We have not seen it on the order paper.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: It is a physical impossibility to filibuster a bill that has not been called. If the minister wants to debate it, he should call it.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: I am going to adjourn the House for 10 minutes.

The House recessed at 2:31 p.m.

2:41 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: I believe we were at the point where we were going to have a new question from the member for Sudbury East.

Mr. Martel: I notice we had a 10-minute penalty without even any high-sticking involved.

EMPLOYEE HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour on a rather complex issue. I wonder whether the minister is aware of the following:

On April 2, 1984, Falconbridge purchased radioactive scrap metal, which was for processing in its Falconbridge smelter; the purchase was licensed by the Atomic Energy Control Board. The material contained 11 per cent nickel and seven per cent uranium, or 21,000 pounds of uranium. Content of seven per cent uranium is three times higher than they are mining at Elliot Lake. The company did not notify the union or the workers of the radioactive nature of the material, nor did it provide any protective clothing or safety equipment to the workers.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Martel: I am coming to it. This is very important.

The company took no special precautions to handle or process the material.

Can the minister indicate what action he intends to take against Falconbridge, since the company violated the Occupational Health and Safety Act by failing to advise its workers that the material was hazardous, by failing to take special precautions when handling the material or to provide protective equipment, and by attempting to process this material secretly when even the medical staff did not know what precautions to take?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the circumstances the honourable member is describing, nor can I recall this matter being brought to my attention by the workers or the trade union in question. If it had been brought to my attention, I assure the member I would have investigated it quite some time ago. I am really surprised this happened a number of months ago and nobody has seen fit to complain officially.

Mr. Martel: Dr. Aitken was in to do some of the testing.

Is the minister aware that Falconbridge in its cutbacks eliminated the job of the person responsible for identifying hazardous materials; that the members of the Sudbury Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers Union took Geiger counter measurements of radioactivity that ranged from nine to 14 millirems; that the workers at Pickering who are doing the retubing and who are exposed to three millrems an hour are equipped with special clothing; and finally, that the dust from the pellets, which went on to the beams, when tested four or five months later, tested beyond the regular ground levels for this material?

Since there are no safe levels for uranium exposure, since uranium dust is a chemical hazard to kidneys and since nickel dust is hazardous, what measures is the minister going to take to determine whether anyone was affected by either exposure or dust inhalation? What is the ministry going to do to ensure other companies cannot bring this type of material in when the workers do not know it is there and do not know how to handle it?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: In the interval of time since the original instance happened, as described by the member, I have had mounds of correspondence with the union in question on various matters and I have been in that company and I have held meetings with the union on various matters, but this was never brought up in any of those meetings or in any of the correspondence. Therefore, I am not at all familiar with the problem.

I certainly commit myself to looking into it immediately, as I do with all these matters once they are brought to my attention. I am not in a position to visit every work site in the province and to know what is going on at every work site.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, when the minister does investigate this whole matter -- and I hope he will do so and not blame the workers, as he seemed to be doing just a minute ago -- will he look into the whole attitude of Falconbridge, which was prepared to dump the radioactive waste into slag heaps, which are a source for slag that is used on roads and driveways in the Sudbury area?

Can the minister tell us how this material is going to be disposed of? There are still 200 barrels of material there. If it were not for the union, the company would have dumped it on the slag heap and it would have been spread throughout the community.

Finally, since 148 barrels of the radioactive material have already been used, can the minister tell us whether the nickel, the precious metals or the cobalt that was removed from those 148 barrels, which were contaminated, is being used to produce spoons, chair legs or any other products?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, the members from the Sudbury district have been providing me this afternoon with one perspective on the problem. I would like to get all the perspectives on the problem, and I will do so. If appropriate action is required, I assure the members it will be taken, but first I have to establish the full context of the problem.

APPEAL OF SENTENCE

Mr. Edighoffer: Mr. Speaker, because of the prolonged absence of the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry), I will direct my question to the Provincial Secretary for Justice.

On Christmas Eve three years ago a man by the name of Raymond Rueger became angry that the stores had closed before he had done his Christmas shopping. Consequently he took his frustrations out on a 33-year-old St. Marys woman, Marilyn Arthur, by forcing her car off the road, murdering her and leaving the woman to die in the ditch by the side of the road.

The man was initially convicted of first-degree murder in September 1982 by an Ontario Supreme Court jury. His conviction was changed last month to second-degree murder by the Ontario Court of Appeal and, as a result, a 25-year term with no parole may be reduced to a 10-year term with parole on the grounds that the man was under the influence of alcohol.

Is it not time the provincial secretary and the chief law officer of the crown became concerned about the way the laws of this land are manipulated? Will he personally look into this case and appeal the reduction in sentence?

2:50 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, I am familiar with this case only in the sense of the newspaper coverage when it happened and during the trial a couple years ago. That is my only knowledge of the case; I do not have any knowledge beyond that. However, I will pass along the honourable member's concerns to the Attorney General.

It is, however, the right of any individual under certain circumstances to appeal sentences, whether the appeal be by the crown attorney appealing the degree to which a sentence has been rendered or by the person convicted. Presumably in this case, the convicted person has appealed and the judges of the Ontario Court of Appeal have seen fit to reduce the sentence to second-degree murder. It is the right of a person at any time to appeal and to have the case rendered.

I cannot offer the member an opinion on the specifics of the this case. It would have to be looked at by the crown law officers to determine whether any further appeal would be warranted.

Mr. Edighoffer: Just to be a little more specific, Mr. and Ms. Arthur, the parents of the victim, stated in a letter to me earlier this week: "What must the police, jurors, detectives and many others on this case feel now? It makes a mockery of a trial." They went on to say: "The people of St. Marys and district are very appalled and angry at this happening. What safety will there be for our grandchildren?"

Does the minister not agree that what is disturbing about the verdict of the Court of Appeal is that many people now will feel, according to our laws, the drunker a person is, the greater the chances are that a lesser conviction will be registered?

Hon. Mr. Walker: That might be a conclusion that some might draw. There might be other circumstances here that would warrant a different opinion. In any case, I think it is appropriate for the crown law officers at least to look at the matter and consider the information the member has brought to us today and the question he has raised. I will see to it that this happens.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if we might revert with agreement to statements. The Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson) has a statement she would like to make.

Mr. Speaker: Do we have unanimous consent to revert?

Agreed to.

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

FRENCH EDUCATION LEGISLATION

Over the years, this government has achieved steady progress in the provision of French-language education. This bill marks yet another significant step forward. It provides, for the first time, for direct control by elected trustees representing the francophone community of schools and classes where education is provided in French for French-speaking pupils.

Throughout the 1970s, the issue of governance of French-language schools and classes became one of increasing discussion. The concept of electing a group of trustees on the basis of language, regardless of education tax support, was first proposed by the government in 1979 in a document entitled Education Green Paper, Government Statement on the Review of Local Government in the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton.

This concept formed the basis of a report prepared in the spring of 1982 by a joint committee representative of the French-language community in this province and the government.

As a result of the report of the Joint Committee on the Governance of French-Language Elementary and Secondary Schools, a discussion paper was published on March 23, 1983. In the discussion paper the government indicated it was prepared to take positive action on the majority of the major recommendations of the joint committee.

The successor to that bill, now identified as Bill 119, has been the subject of positive debate and support in this session of the Legislature and it achieved third reading yesterday. At the request of the boards that probably would be affected by the proposals in the discussion paper concerning the governance of French-language schools and classes, the government delayed action until a committee of trustees, representative of all the affected boards, had an opportunity to propose alternative approaches to governance.

After due consideration of the report of the trustees' committee to the government in February 1984, and after consultation with those school boards and francophone associations -- a process that also involved both the Premier (Mr. Davis) and the minister responsible for francophone affairs -- the government developed the legislation proposed in the bill to be introduced later today.

This bill is introduced to allow widespread consideration of the legislation during the recess. It is the commitment of this government to reintroduce the bill as a high-priority item at the earliest opportunity in the spring so that it may become law in time to affect municipal elections in 1985.

ORAL QUESTIONS (CONTINUED)

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. It also deals with the area of promises unkept by this government.

The minister will know he was quoted in August 1984 as stating he would be bringing forward legislation to increase the fines under the Environmental Protection Act to bring them to a level that would act as a realistic deterrent to the volume of pollution in Ontario. Can the minister explain why no such legislation has been brought forward by the government?

Hon. Mr. Brandt: Mr. Speaker, as the leader of the third party is fully aware, this House has had a rather full agenda over the course of the past few months. As a result, we have not had a time frame in which to introduce the legislative and regulative changes mentioned by the honourable member.

So there will be no misunderstanding on the member's part, I want to reconfirm in the most sincere fashion possible that I am irrevocably committed to a change in the regulation that would allow for an increase in the fines somewhat comparable to the rate of inflation since the last change was made. We are still committed to that and it will come forward at the earliest possible opportunity.

Mr. Rae: This is the government that thinks a determination of what the official tree of Ontario should be is more important than the protection of the environment. That has been its legislative priority since last year.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Rae: Since March, the minister has been in possession of the Peat Marwick report, which was a devastating indictment of the level of fines and which said the level of fines was nothing more or less than a licence to pollute in Ontario.

Given the worldwide concern about problems of environmental pollution and the need for environmental protection, why did the government not find the time to introduce legislation with respect to protecting the environment, when it managed to bring forward legislation designating the white pine as the official tree of Ontario?

3 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Brandt: I find that an extremely narrow and focused question in the sense that I know the leader of the third party is aware other mechanisms are available to this government to protect the environment that go well beyond simply levying fines.

On a number of occasions in this House and outside this House, I have said it is quite proper and very possible to reach agreement with companies whereby they voluntarily agree to improve some of the environmental abatement programs that are necessary in their operations.

The Niagara report was released in this House not more than a few weeks ago. It indicated that, at that time, conditions in Ontario were quite superb when compared with other jurisdictions. It showed there were very few problems not being addressed; it also showed we were so far ahead of other jurisdictions that it caused some embarrassment over there.

The reality is that the only questions the members could ask were about the state of New York and other jurisdictions. The province is in good shape, and I intend to see it continues to be.

Mr. McGuigan: Mr. Speaker, does the minister not think the cutbacks in the federal environmental outlays and his refusal to bring in a change in the amount of fines to back up his environmental system are sending the wrong signal to people in Ontario, in the rest of Canada and in the United States? Is he not sending the wrong signal to the polluters?

Hon. Mr. Brandt: Mr. Speaker, not at all. During the course of the past year, my ministry has increased by twofold the number of fines it has assessed across this province, indicating one cannot in any way degrade the environment of this province without suffering the consequences.

Second, in regard to the federal cuts, the honourable member will be pleased to know the federal minister has reintroduced the herring-gull egg monitoring program in her budget; it will continue. The cuts that were identified earlier are now not going to take place to the same extent as it was earlier understood.

ABORTION CLINIC

Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Provincial Secretary for Justice with regard to the operation of the illegal abortion clinic at 85 Harbord Street in the city of Toronto.

On December 4, the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) rose in the House to give the reasons he was appealing the Morgentaler decision. He stated in part:

"My responsibility as Attorney General relates primarily to the conduct and supervision of proceedings after they are initiated by others. Police officers are entitled to the legal advice of my crown law officers in considering the legal and public interest implications of a contemplated prosecution.

"I have...no power to prevent a police officer or, indeed, any citizen from proceeding before a justice of the peace to seek the commencement of a criminal prosecution so long as it is supported by reasonable and probable grounds."

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Williams: Given that, and given the fact that serious allegations have been made in the media today, as referred to earlier in question period, that someone from the office of the Attorney General had intervened to stop a raid on the clinic by the chief of police and his law officers; given that serious allegation and the apparent contradiction --

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Williams: -- and given one more fact, that the Solicitor General gave us second-hand information at best --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the member place his question, please?

Mr. Williams: -- as to whether there is a conflict, will the minister impress upon his line minister, the Attorney General, to be in this House tomorrow to give two assurances to this House personally; namely, that there was no interference either by himself or any of the officers of his ministry --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the member resume his seat, please.

Would the provincial secretary ensure the attendance of the Attorney General in the House tomorrow?

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, you have to be kidding. I will certainly draw it to the attention of the Attorney General's office and would hope the message can be conveyed to him. I believe he is out on the land these days. I will have it communicated to him that his presence is requested.

Mr. Williams: The supplementary is the remainder of the question that I was prevented from asking, and that is whether he will be here to assure the House personally that neither he nor any of the officers of his ministry did intervene as suggested in the news story. Second, will he give the assurance that he will immediately -- not next week or next month, but now -- invoke the full power and authority of his office to assist the chief of the Metropolitan Toronto Police to carry out his responsibilities in laying a charge against the operators of the illegal abortion clinic to stop them from carrying on their criminal activities?

Hon. Mr. Walker: I will certainly communicate the message as indicated, but I must remind the honourable member the notes of the statement given at the joint press conference with Chief Jack Marks of the Metropolitan Toronto Police and John Takach, Assistant Deputy Attorney General and director of criminal law, indicate, and I quote:

"There is absolutely no truth in any suggestion that there are any differences of opinion between the force, as represented by the chief, and the crown law officers. There is absolutely no truth in any suggestion that there has been any political squabbling or political interference or anything of that nature involved in this case."

That is the information from a statement given today at a joint press conference with Chief Marks and Assistant Deputy Attorney General John Takach, and I cannot add to or subtract anything from those comments.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, would the Provincial Secretary for Justice, either before or after he talks to the Attorney General, also tell this House his understanding of what an acquittal means?

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, I do not think we need to answer that kind of question.

ACTIVITIES OF POLICE

Mr. Elston: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Solicitor General. He will recall that on June 7, 1984, my colleague James Breithaupt, QC, the former member for Kitchener, requested some information from him with respect to Mr. Jack Ellis and some allegations regarding an arson and insurance fraud scheme then under investigation by the Ontario Provincial Police anti-rackets squad. As the Solicitor General will recall, they were following up on an investigation by the Belleville OPP that had been discontinued.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Elston: Mr. Speaker, I am just setting out the circumstances.

Mr. Speaker: I think we are all familiar with it.

Mr. Elston: Will the Solicitor General at this time provide the answers to the questions raised by my colleague Mr. Breithaupt and by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Peterson) as to why the Belleville OPP discontinued the investigation of this matter, and why there had been such a long delay in making a report on the matter under consideration?

Hon. G. W. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe there was a delay. They were discussing the matter and there was a situation whereby they were putting more officers into that area. They were consulting with the crown attorneys on what was transpiring. There was also some information regarding the Ontario fire marshal's office, but I do not think it was anything other than the ordinary delay of carrying out investigations.

Mr. Elston: Can the minister provide the House today with a report as to the outcome of those investigations and what action is anticipated with respect to the filing of that report by members of the anti-rackets squad of the OPP?

Hon. G. W. Taylor: I am not sure whether there is anything I can provide to the Legislature. I shall refresh my memory on the matter and see if I can provide the honourable member with answers to those questions that were asked so long ago.

INDIAN BAND AGREEMENT

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development with regard to the lack of progress in having Great Lakes Forest Products reach an out-of-court settlement on the mercury pollution for the bands of Whitedog and Grassy Narrows.

3:10 p.m.

Considering the fact that Great Lakes has invested approximately $33 million in a newsprint mill in Washington state, even though the company argued in 1982 that economic conditions were one of the major obstacles to reaching a mercury compensation settlement, and considering the fact that the provincial government has said it will cover any costs over $15 million for compensation, why is it that one year after the federal government asked Great Lakes to make a conditional offer of settlement, we have yet to have an offer from the company?

Hon. Mr. Sterling: Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to note that while I do not defend Great Lakes in its settlement with the two bands involved, the Whitedog and the Grassy Narrows bands, it has invested some $450 million in this province.

Finances are not really the consideration in the settlement of this issue. The settlement of this issue deals with the satisfaction by Great Lakes that it can in some way obtain a release of obligation after it makes a settlement.

Last May I spoke to the Honourable John Munro, who was then the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, and asked that he and I meet with Great Lakes and the two bands in order to try to resolve the problem and have Great Lakes put an offer on the table. Great Lakes still refuses to put an offer on the table.

In July this year I met with lawyers for the Indian bands, along with counsel from the office of the Attorney General, and since that date we have been waiting for the federal government to come forward with a named representative in order to negotiate a settlement.

Yesterday I talked to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development from Ottawa, the Honourable David Crombie, and he promised to give me an answer next Monday or Tuesday about who that person might be, in order to try to bring together the various parties to resolve this long-outstanding issue.

Mr. Wildman: Since the minister has mentioned the investment of $450 million by Great Lakes in this province, it is also interesting to note that Great Lakes has received about $51 million in public grants for renovating the Dryden mill. Is it not the case that both levels of government and the bands have responded positively to every request from Great Lakes and yet we still do not have an offer from that company?

Can the minister assure me that he and his federal counterpart will ensure we do have an offer? Does he not agree this has gone on too long? Is it not a fact that some of the $33 million that went to Washington state should have gone to the bands?

Hon. Mr. Sterling: The last statement, concerning what part of the money goes where, is rather ridiculous.

Mr. Wildman: Oh, come on. It has been more than 10 years.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Sterling: I cannot assure this House or the member opposite that Great Lakes will put an offer on the table. As I have said to this House before, it is a civil dispute between Great Lakes and the two bands.

I have one of two alternatives. I can wash my hands of the whole affair and say: "I am not going to be involved. I am going to let the whole thing go the way of the courts. Let the bands sue Great Lakes." However, the matter has gone on for six years and the bands have not chosen to sue. They have not gone ahead with a suit.

My only reason for becoming involved in the issue is to try to bring Great Lakes to the table to present that offer, but we cannot force the company to do anything it does not want to do.

Mr. Reed: Mr. Speaker, surely the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development knows full well that he cannot wash his hands of this issue. This is the first time I have ever heard a member of the government say the government might consider washing its hands of the issue. Surely the minister knows it is his government and his government alone that must bear the moral responsibility for this fiasco, which has gone on for 14 years.

Is the minister going to set a time line on the solution of this problem, or is he not?

Hon. Mr. Sterling: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the honourable member did not hear what I stated. I said I was absolutely rejecting the notion that I would wash my hands of this matter. It is my intention to try to bring the parties to the table in order that an offer can be put forward. I make no apologies for that.

SUNCOR

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy. I might say, on this second-last day of the House and perhaps of this whole parliament, that the minister was the coach of a losing team yesterday: Ontario Hydro against the members of the provincial parliament.

Mr. Speaker: Now for the question.

Mr. Sargent: His son was the star of the game, playing goal for Hydro. That is how hard up they are; they have to go down and get a young guy 12 years of age.

The minister was not party to the fiasco I am going to tell him about, but maybe with the hat he wears he will be able to give us some answers here. The issue of Maclean's magazine that is on the news stands now features the fact that McLeod Young Weir was very close to the Ontario Tory government. In view of the fact that McLeod Young Weir engineered the $650-million Suncor purchase by the Ontario cabinet in this washroom deal --

An hon. member: Washroom deal?

Mr. Sargent: It is in the same offices and shares the same washrooms.

Mr. Speaker: Now for the question, please.

Mr. Sargent: In that $650-million deal, it was entitled to a commission of $6.5 million. The company did not take its commission, and I would like to ask the minister, why did it work for nothing on that?

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: Mr. Speaker, the member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Sargent) always arrives at some very novel conclusions and, indeed, poses some rather novel questions to me on occasion.

I would say the outcome of the hockey game will simply prove once and for all that Hydro is under control.

I am not familiar with the

article the honourable member refers to in his question. McLeod Young Weir did serve in the Suncor purchase as advisers to the government in providing the government with an estimate of the value of the shares of that corporation. I am not aware of the substance of the

article nor am I aware of conditions arrived at with respect to the advice that was given, or of any fee that was charged or not charged.

Mr. Sargent: The minister will recall that Mr. Kierans was Deputy Minister of Energy. He was not available for our hearings at that point; he was visiting some friends in Newfoundland and could not show up.

After the deal was put through, he became head of McLeod Young Weir. So we have that firm turning down a $6.5-million commission --

Mr. Speaker: Now for the question, please.

Mr. Sargent: -- and this man comes in. Why? Did he make a deal beforehand to become president of this big company? It now handles all the government's financial dealings. Can the minister tell the House how many deals have been handled by McLeod Young Weir since Mr. Kierans became president, since the Suncor deal?

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: I have been around this Legislature only since 1981, but I am not aware that Mr. Kierans has ever served as the Deputy Minister of Energy. I assume that in his capacity as head of McLeod Young Weir he is now in a position to provide the kind of advice the government needs on occasion, and his expertise is sought out and appreciated.

3:20 p.m.

OHIP PREMIUMS

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health. Why is it that when a person in this province turns 65 he is not notified that he is entitled to free premiums for the Ontario health insurance plan? Why does he continue to be billed for OHIP premiums after the age of 65 unless he fills out a form applying for a free premium?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that we receive notification from the federal authorities at the time individuals turn 65. That leads to their application for free premiums. I am not sure what problems the honourable member is referring to specifically. It is the first time it has been raised with me as a problem. I would be glad to check into the administration of it. If the member is aware of problems of a general nature or if he has a specific one, I would check it out for him.

Mr. Cooke: I do not have a specific problem. It is the general problem. We spoke with the ministry people at OHIP in Kingston and learned there is no notification given to OHIP and the computer is not programmed to deal with people who turn 65. Is the minister not aware that there are literally hundreds, if not thousands, of senior citizens in this province who are not aware that they are entitled to free premiums after the age of 65 and therefore are being billed for and are paying OHIP premiums? If they do somehow discover they are entitled to free premiums, they then have to apply for a refund.

First, with all the millions of dollars he spends on advertising, does the minister not think the program should be advertised? Secondly, since the computer is programmed so that when a person turns 21 he or she automatically pays his or her own OHIP premiums, why can we not just change the computer programs so that when someone turns 65 he or she automatically gets free premiums and does not continue to get bills.

Hon. Mr. Norton: As I said to the member, I am not at all confident his information is correct. My understanding is that we receive a computer tape from the federal authorities on a regular basis. There is a delay, I believe, so it does not arrive in our possession in time for immediate implementation. I will check that out for him if he wishes.

I very much appreciate his support for advertising on the part of my ministry. Should I decide some time in the next six months to embark on a major advertising program on the generosity of this government to the senior citizens of Ontario, I hope he will be as supportive at that time.

ASSISTIVE DEVICES PROGRAM

Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Health. On May 1 the former member for Hamilton Centre asked the minister when he would extend the assistive devices program to cover adults over 19 years of age. At the time, the minister said, "I expect it will be before the end of this session of the House."

Successive cases of need were presented to the minister during the following months. The most recent commitment by the minister, made in this House on November 13, was that "implementation will be under way before next summer." Why is the minister waiting so long, particularly since War Amputations of Canada will no longer be funding the provision of prosthetic devices after December 31 of this year?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this question because it affords me an opportunity to correct the information in the latter part of that question, which is broadly believed across this province. It is true the War Amps had indicated their intention to terminate the funding of that program at the end of this calendar year. I have now in my possession a letter from them agreeing to extend that program until July of next year. I have given a firm commitment, based upon a commitment from this government, that the assistive devices program will be extended, commencing next July.

Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Speaker, as I understand the minister's reply, he is not showing the spirit of this Christmas season then, is he? We are going to be waiting and waiting for some response.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Haggerty: I have yet another case for the minister which points to the urgency of the need to expand the program. A constituent of mine has been referred to the Ontario March of Dimes for assistance in obtaining a mobilized scooter costing $2,195. Voluntary agencies cannot possibly continue to meet the needs of the hundreds of people needing assistive devices. Will the minister act now?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I cannot arbitrarily act now. I have indicated the commitment I have been able to give firmly to the people in need of this assistance. Since the member alleges I am not acting in the Christmas spirit, I can only say I am the Minister of Health and not Santa Claus.

MUSEUM LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr. Grande: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Citizenship and Culture. Is the minister aware that negotiations between the Royal Ontario Museum and the Ontario Public Service Employees Union have come to an impasse with management wanting to strip away the grid from the contract the workers have had for the last three years? Is the minister also aware that during the control year, last year, the Inflation Restraint Board came out in favour of maintaining the grid?

Is the minister further aware that, to maintain the grid, we are talking about only $75,000 to $80,000 in the life of a contract? Does the minister or the Royal Ontario Museum want to have a strike at the museum, the first strike in the history of that institution? If not, what is the justification for this refusal to bargain in good faith?

Could the minister indicate how the Royal Ontario Museum can be $2.5 million in deficit and be in a state of tremendous financial crisis, but at the same time not be able to find $70,000 for good working relations at that place?

Hon. Ms. Fish: Mr. Speaker, I certainly do not ever want to see strikes anywhere -- I do not think anyone in the House does -- and I believe that is the case with the workers, the members of the board, those in management and any of our agencies, such as the Royal Ontario Museum. My understanding is that negotiations have been proceeding. They have been in mediation. Discussions are continuing, and I understand progress is being made.

PETITIONS

ROMAN CATHOLIC SECONDARY SCHOOLS

Mr. Eakins: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario signed by 142 secondary schoolteachers from the great county of Victoria. The petition reads:

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

"Whereas any action to extend public funding to separate secondary schools in Ontario would represent a fundamental change in public policy in our province; and

"Whereas people in a democratic society have a right to be consulted prior to implementation of policies which change long-standing relationships; and

"Whereas there is an understood convention in democratic societies which respect the rule of law that before fundamental changes in public policy are implemented such matters should be debated in the Legislative Assembly with an opportunity for the public to appear and be heard;

"We petition the Ontario Legislature to call on the government to debate the issue of extension of public funding to separate secondary schools prior to implementation, such debate to include consideration of the issue by an appropriate committee of the House with an opportunity provided for people to appear and be heard."

Mr. Worton: Mr. Speaker, I have a similar petition addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It is signed by 84 staff members of the Guelph Collegiate and Vocational Institute; 46 staff members of the Centennial Collegiate and Vocational Institute; seven from Branch 10, a consultants group; and 52 staff members of the John F. Ross Collegiate and Vocational Institute.

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, in accord with my duty to present petitions from my constituents to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, I would like to submit the following petition:

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

"Whereas any action to extend public funding to separate secondary schools in Ontario would represent a fundamental change in public policy in our province; and

"Whereas people in a democratic society have a right to be consulted prior to implementation of policies which change long-standing relationships; and

3:30 p.m.

I have petitions from residents of the riding of Beaches-Woodbine and from residents of the riding of Riverdale, which is not represented in this House at the present time. I present them to you from these constituents.

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition, which reads as follows:

"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 any action to extend public funding to separate secondary schools in Ontario would represent a fundamental change in public policy in our province; and

"Whereas people in a democratic society have a right to be consulted prior to the implementation of policies which change long-standing relationships; and

"Whereas there is an understood convention in democratic societies which respect the rule of law that before fundamental changes in public policy are implemented, such matters should be debated in the Legislative Assembly with an opportunity for the public to appear and be heard;

This is signed by 42 constituents of the great riding of Oshawa.

Mr. Reed: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition which is identical to those previous petitions, with the exception that it is signed by the teachers of Georgetown District High School.

Mr. Gillies: Mr. Speaker, I have an identical petition signed by 32 teachers from the ridings of Brantford and Brant-Oxford-Norfolk.

Mr. Speaker: Just so the member for Essex South (Mr. Mancini) will not feel discriminated against, I felt his petition should be last because of its importance.

REPORT ON HUMAN RIGHTS

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition, which reads as follows:

"Under standing order 33b, we, the undersigned, petition that the annual report of the Ontario Human Rights Commission for the fiscal year 1983-84 be referred to the standing committee on procedural affairs."

This petition has been signed by 20 members of the Liberal caucus.

SEVERANCE PAY

Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions. The first reads as follows:

"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:

"We, the undersigned, former employees of Hart and Cooley Manufacturing Co. of Canada Ltd., Local 3952-6, request that an investigation of the Employment Standards Act,

section 40 and subsection 40(

a) be initiated by the employment standards branch,

"We, the undersigned, feel that we should have received our severance pay on termination from Hart and Cooley Manufacturing. We have not been dealt fairly with concerning our severance pay.

ROMAN CATHOLIC SECONDARY SCHOOLS

Mr. Haggerty: The second petition reads as follows:

"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 any action to extend public funding to separate secondary schools in Ontario would represent a fundamental change in public policy in our province; and

"Whereas people in a democratic society have a right to be consulted prior to implementation of policies which change long-standing relationships; and

This is signed by 93 petitioners.

REPORTS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

Mr. McLean from the standing committee on general government reported the following resolution:

That supply in the following amounts and to defray the expenses of the Ministry of Community and Social Services be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1985:

Ministry administration program, $28,634,000; and adults' and children's services program, $2,481,200,700.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND OTHER STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS

Mr. Sheppard from the standing committee on regulations and other statutory instruments presented the committee's report and moved its adoption:

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

Bill Pr8,

An Act respecting the City of North York.

Motion agreed to.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Wiseman from the standing committee on social development reported the following resolution:

That supply in the following amounts and to defray the expenses of the Ministry of Colleges and Universities be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1985:

University support program, $1,287,548,200; skills development program, $647,269,400; and student affairs program, $141,458,400.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

SECURITIES AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Elgie moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Drea, first reading of Bill 159,

An Act to amend the Securities Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the Securities Amendment Act that will replace the existing provisions of the act relating to takeover bids and issuer bids.

The existing provisions contain technical clauses that have created difficulties. This bill represents the results of a review of the provisions that was commenced by the Ontario Securities Commission in 1982.

Although the bill replaces the existing code for takeover bids and issuer bids in its entirety, it maintains a commitment to the basic principles expressed by the 1966 Kimber report and inherent in the current legislation that all holders of the same class of securities be treated equally and that shareholders be given sufficient time to form a reasoned judgement as to whether to tender their shares.

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Miss Stephenson moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Wells, first reading of Bill 160,

An act to amend the Education Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, this amendment adds a new

part XIa to the Education Act to provide for the governance of French-language schools and classes under

part XI of the act where the number of French-language resident pupils of the board is 500 or more or represents 10 per cent or more of all the resident pupils of the board.

The legislation provides for the election of additional members to school boards, commencing with the 1985 school board elections. These additional members will have exclusive jurisdiction in respect of certain matters regarding the operation of French-language schools and classes. School board electors will be called upon to decide whether they wish to vote for these additional members or for the election of the regular members of the school board.

The number of additional members to be elected will be determined by such factors as the size of the board and the number of French-language resident pupils of the board. It is anticipated that 43 school boards may be required to have additional members.

These amendments incorporate many of the proposals with respect to the governance of French-language schools and classes that were set out in the discussion paper released by the government in March 1983.

3:40 p.m.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

CITY OF WINDSOR ACT

Mr. Newman moved second reading of Bill Pr24,

An Act respecting the City of Windsor.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

BARGNESI MINES LIMITED ACT

Mr. Williams moved second reading of Bill Pr35,

An Act to revive Bargnesi Mines Limited.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

CITY OF ST. CATHARINES ACT

Mr. Bradley moved second reading of Bill Pr40,

An Act respecting the City of St. Catharines.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

TOWN OF COBOURG ACT

Mr. Sheppard moved second reading of Bill Pr44,

An Act respecting the Town of Cobourg.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

CITY OF NORTH YORK ACT

Mr. Williams moved second reading of Bill Pr8,

An Act respecting the City of North York.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

House in committee of the whole.

THEATRES AMENDMENT ACT

Consideration of Bill 82,

An Act to amend the Theatres Act.

section 1:

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Chairman, clause 1(1)(

a) defines "board" as "the Ontario Film Review Board referred to in

section 3," which we will be coming to, but this definition is an opportunity for me to bring before the House our position on the amendments to the various clauses in this bill.

We have decided not to move any amendments to the clauses. We feel the bill is so flawed, because of the continuation of the Board of Censors under the new name, Ontario Film Review Board, and in several other respects, that we intend to vote against the bill unless it is substantially changed. We did vote against it on second reading. It is not that we are any less concerned about the problems of violent and sexually exploitive pornography than any other members in this House; it is simply that we feel the problem can be dealt with through a different route.

No party has a monopoly on concern for the rights of people -- men, women and children -- to have protection from and to protect themselves from pornographic exploitation that has a theme of violence or sexual coercion. It is a matter of balancing those rights against rights of expression guaranteed in our society by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is also a matter of protecting ourselves and our communities from the tyrannies of unbridled censorship or unbridled freedom of expression.

Bill 82 is an effort to deal with this dilemma and we have found it wanting. The change of name in the

section we are discussing does not in any way transform a censor board into a classification board, which is what we favour. We feel the route we propose for eliminating unacceptable violent and sexually exploitive material and hate literature from our society is not that of bureaucratic fiat but the enforcement of clear prohibitions in the law fully subject to appeal and due process.

p.m.

We believe the law on obscenity and discrimination in the Human Rights Code against various vulnerable groups needs strengthening, but we propose that once that law is strengthened, we will not need a censor board to tell us what is unacceptable. A board would simply classify material according to that law and according to community guidelines. In this way, not only will we preserve our rights to legitimate freedom of expression and cultural expression, but we will also have a more effective way of controlling and eliminating the excesses that society abhors, and it will be part of our criminal law and human rights law.

Our main objections to Bill 82 are fourfold. First, the guidelines to determine community standards are not in the legislation. I know the minister has circulated a draft regulation to the parties setting forth the guidelines; it arrived on our desks today. During second reading we protested that we were debating a pig in a poke because we did not know what the guidelines were.

It is true we now have a draft of what the minister proposes, but we have to recognize that a regulation can be changed by an order in council any day of the week and therefore we have no guarantee the guidelines before us, even if adopted by cabinet tomorrow, will be in effect for any length of time.

We still think the guidelines should be written into the legislation and that this Legislature should have an opportunity to debate them. If I discuss the guidelines before this committee, I will be considered out of order because I will be discussing something that is not in the legislation. That is not a satisfactory way of dealing with this problem.

Our second reason for not supporting the bill is the continuation of a censorship board with arbitrary powers to prohibit or cut films and to extend those powers to videos and films sold at retail for home viewing. We are not opposed to the regulation of this kind of material or to the extension of regulation to videos and films for home viewing or for sale. However, we do not support the use of a bureaucratic, government-appointed censor board to do the regulating. We fear such censor boards pose too many dangers of thought control and control of political dissent.

That is why we propose an alternative route, a classification board that would be independent, public and representative of the community; it would indicate which material conforms with the Criminal Code and the Human Rights Code. It would then be an offence under the Theatres Act for such material to be shown if it were classified as not available to the community, as containing child pornography or as not being suitable for people under 18.

We think the classification system can achieve those methods by referring to the three pieces of legislation. If materials were in violation of any of those three pieces, they would in effect not be shown. However, there would always be a right of appeal, and that is our third reason for opposing the present legislation. The original legislation presented to us had no right of appeal from decisions of the Ontario Film Review Board beyond an appeal to another panel of the board; there was no appeal to the courts.

The minister now has supplied the opposition parties with a proposed amendment that would provide for some appeal to the Divisional Court. I am glad he has listened to our arguments that we need due process of law and the right of appeal from a government-appointed board that meets in secret and that is not necessarily chosen by anybody except the government.

I am somewhat troubled, however, by the wording of the minister's amendment. We will get into this when he introduces it. It appears he is allowing an appeal to the Divisional Court of the board's "decision as to approval." This appears to indicate that he is not allowing an appeal on the question of the classification awarded to any piece of material or to any suggested cuts in any film or video that comes under his new board but only an appeal on the question of whether to ban it. We believe for whatever board has the regulatory powers in this field, whether it be the minister's board or a classification board, all decisions should be subject to appeal and due process of law.

Our fourth reason for opposing the bill is that we feel the legislation still gives the board powers that will enable it to harass producers and exhibitors of films and videos, and particularly, in the cultural field, small producers who perhaps have a film that is shown for only one or two nights. The legislation still gives the board power to seize their equipment as a means of enforcement. I believe one judge said in a recent case that the equipment had not committed the alleged offence; it was the producers. Why should expensive equipment be subject to seizure in this kind of law enforcement?

There are other areas of possible harassment. In clause (c), as set out in

section 16 of the bill, the enforcers can take into account the fact that the producer or exhibitor has in the past indicated an unwillingness to comply with the law. It seems to me that kind of judgement on past actions should not be part of the assessment.

Last July, the New Democratic Party convention adopted a motion as to how we think this field should be dealt with. That was discussed on second reading at considerable length, but it does set forth the alternative route. It is a more honest way of approaching the regulation of the exhibition of movies and videos in our society.

The government appears to be giving what looks like a political answer to a community concern. It appears to be doing something, but it is doing it by very heavy-handed legislation that extends the power of a board that deals behind closed doors on the basis of standards that are set by regulation.

Our difficulty with the way the government is dealing with pornography is that it is pandering to public opinion and headline writers at the price of a more comprehensive solution to the violent or sexually coercive pornography that does exist in Ontario today. We certainly all recognize that it does exist.

4 p.m.

When the minister introduced the bill, he drew attention to the Decima Research study on the subject, one of the few polls that have been released to the public. Judging by its reports on about 1,000 interviews with randomly selected residents of our province, there is great public concern about this.

Whether the government's approach is the real answer or whether we should be looking at the cause of the commercial demand for this kind of material, perhaps the real answer to the flood of commercially exploitive material that degrades women, children, minorities and other vulnerable groups is a program of education to raise public awareness of the offence to human dignity caused by violent or sexually coercive pornography, especially as it affects women in their struggle for social and economic equality.

We also believe, and we expressed this in our resolution last July, that there should be fully funded school programs on human sexuality to emphasize responsibility, mutuality and the equality of all human beings. That sort of approach is what we would like to have seen, rather than the kind of legislation that is before us today, and that is why we are in effect saying:

"Let us not deal with this bill. Let us get rid of it and start over again."

Mr. Reed: Mr. Chairman, I will try to deal with

section 1 in this debate. I would just like you to know that I am not going to deal with each individual clause; I think my position in opposition to this bill is very well known to the minister and to the Legislature.

To change the name of the censor board is truly a fraud, and I think the minister must agree with me. He has taken this censor board and doubled its powers in this bill. Now he is going to try to make the thing a little more palatable by saying, "We are going to call it the Ontario Film Review Board instead of the Ontario Board of Censors," when in fact it is now the Ontario Board of Censors in spades.

It is not the style of this minister to undertake a fraud of this kind with the people of Ontario. I feel genuinely upset that he would try to pull the blinds down and make it appear as if this bill were something a little less insidious than it truly is.

I am not sure whether it is parliamentary in committee to say that the government or the ministry is misleading the people of Ontario by changing the title of this bill. If it is, given my interest in staying here and listening to the debate as it goes on, I suppose I will have to withdraw it. It is nothing less than a misguiding of the citizens of this province if they think that all this bill provides is a film review board that subjects film and videotape to classification, because the minister knows it vastly expands the powers of the Ontario Board of Censors and makes it far more powerful than it is at present.

I know the purpose of the bill or the sum total of the bill is also intended to misguide the people of the province and pull the blinds down around Ontario so that we may all wrap ourselves in the provincial flag and say, "What decent, good people we are because we are not subjecting ourselves to this awful stuff." The awful stuff will come to the Ontario Board of Censors. The board will tell us what it is right and good and proper for us to see and what it is not right and good and proper for us to see, and because of that we will somehow be misguided into believing this material does not exist. I suggest this is a fraud and is misleading to the citizens of this province.

I also believe very deeply it is time that confidence was placed in all the citizens of this province to become their own censors through changes in the Criminal Code. We all know there is material being produced which should not be produced. Whether one is on one side of this issue or on the other side of this issue, we all have a certain common ground of belief. The work should be done with the federal government through changes to the Criminal Code.

Deep down, the minister knows this bill will accomplish nothing. It will not attack the problem in any way, shape or form. He also knows it will probably exacerbate the problem, because anybody who wants to sell tickets or exploit publicity surrounding a particular film will inject some controversial item into the film and enter into a public debate as to whether it should be shown uncut in Ontario.

The title of this bill is fraudulent and the bill itself is fraudulent. I really think it is not in keeping with the character of the minister to support legislation of this nature.

Section 1 agreed to.

Section 2 agreed to.

section 3:

Mr. Elston: Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of points to raise in relation to

section 3. It was my understanding at one point during the deliberations in committee that perhaps we might have a consideration as to whether there would be a classification of films under the title of educational.

Perhaps some consideration might be given to whether there would be appropriate allowances made for those people in the professions of psychology or psychiatry who might be using certain films in therapies or even in terms of the use of films for presentations of educational material to groups assembled, particularly the types of groups or activities carried on at universities and about which we received a number of deputations from the faculty association of the University of Toronto and a couple of other places.

I would also mention the conversation I had with Liz Avison from the University of Toronto library, who was also concerned about the showing of material. Might I have some indication at this point from the minister about the results of the deliberations which had been indicated in committee would be made for those categories?

Could he comment on the appropriateness of providing the university setting with the ability to use certain films, particularly when we consider the draft regulations we were handed and which might very well be used to eliminate a good part of the films generally used in therapy sessions, as outlined by one of the attendees at our committee, Dr. Sommers? If the minister might comment, I would be very pleased to understand why no amendments are proposed.

4:10 p.m

Ms. Bryden: On

section 3, I notice the powers of the Ontario Film Review Board do not make any distinction between regulating public and private productions. Certainly productions for commercial use should definitely be subject to regulation, but I question whether a production such as Not a Love Story by the National Film Board, which was produced for educational purposes, should be subject to the board.

I think my colleague from the Liberal Party was getting at this point, too. There are various kinds of educational productions, generally but not always produced by public bodies, which perhaps should be exempt from the powers of the board, or at least exempt from the requirement for prior approval. Most of them are not likely to be shown commercially or to large audiences. If anything was considered contrary to the Criminal Code, action could be taken afterwards without any great problem or damage being done to society.

Would the minister comment on the possibility that certain classes of films and videos that are shown for very limited showings of one or two days, that are not shown for profit or that are shown to small community groups, might be exempted by the board from being subjected to prior approval? The showings would be to fairly small groups and in nine cases out of 10 there would be no problem that the community would object to what was being shown. They might be very useful educational or cultural productions and exhibitions.

Prior approval is apparently required at the moment for everything, either by application or by actual viewing by the board. Could not exemptions be allowed? Would the regulations allow the board to exempt whole classes?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Chairman, the issue is whether there will be some exemptions in the regulations. I do not think there is any doubt there will have to be in the area of education. We will be having meetings with the groups about the extent of it. The group that appeared before the committee has been in touch with us already and meetings have been set up with it.

I have had some discussion with Dr. Sommers and I expect we will be having more discussions with him and with other psychiatrists about the appropriateness of exemptions beyond the educational and therapeutic roles to the more commercial role in which he has expressed an interest. That is something that requires further discussion.

Members of staff met with various art groups during the fall. I must confess we have not yet made any determination, but some consideration will be given to whether exemptions might be appropriate in some areas. However, I think the member is quite wrong when she says there always had to be prescreening of films for the art community. Those who have followed the course of events know the board has been very accommodating in approving those films by documentation, almost without doubt on every occasion it was asked for.

These are matters we will be looking at and we will have to delay proclamation of some sections of the act until those parts are dealt with.

Mr. Reed: I have to go on record as saying that the agreement of the minister to provide exemptions and so on destroys the case for censorship if one is on the pro-censorship side. We heard the case for censorship that said this material desensitized people and had an adverse effect on society and all that sort of thing. Now the minister is saying: "There are two or three classes of people. There are different kinds of people and some can see this material and some cannot."

Let me give another reason exemptions should not exist. Arguments were made about the damage to performers from this material. We talked about kiddie porn, sexual violence depicted in films and so on. Very serious concerns were expressed about that, some of which I expressed. The minister says, "Some of these films are educational," so now it is going to be all right. He knows the damage to the performers talked about has already been done.

Performing in a film is not third person, once removed. For someone such as myself it is the first person singular, or for my family the first person plural. It is a very personal thing. The minister is aiding and abetting the whole situation he is trying to control when he suggests one can say, "This film is considered pornographic or obscene and cannot be shown to general audiences because they are going to be affected, but it may be just fine as an educational tool."

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I appreciate the sincerity of the member's views and I am not going to respond in any way to the criticism that there is some fraudulent intent or some intent to mislead. I am not even going to ask the member to remove that from the record, because I think he feels so strongly about this issue that he wants to speak out about it in a strong way.

Let me assure him it would be unusual for this member to find he was doing something he felt was misleading or fraudulent. He may have strong feelings about it; I have strong feelings as well. However, I am not going to let that enter into our discussion today.

There is no intention of exempting any area that would be involved in the obscenities the member and I are talking about, so let us not stray from the garden path here. We are talking about things that degrade women and exploit children. That is what we are all about and there is no way we are going to get into any game that involves exempting any group to have any privilege -- if it is a privilege, and I do look on it as one -- of having that material available to it.

Mr. Elston: This is a short intervention. I appreciate what the minister is saying. We want to reflect on films as they depict women and children. However, I hope we are dealing with people in all senses of the word, no matter what their sex or age.

I have been in areas where people have suggested they have seen degrading films about men as well as about women. I want to be sure the very important aspect of the film industry we are dealing with does not confine itself to women and children. Some steps have to be taken to ensure that sexual activity involving the degradation of people or persons -- that is now the commonly used word -- is what we are really getting at.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I think the matters that have been dealt with by the board confirm that the interest crosses all those lines.

Mr. Elston: When will the regulations with respect to educational exemptions, etc., be available? Will there be an opportunity for us to participate in or be advised in any sense about the meetings? Earlier in our interventions in the debates on this bill, we pointed out that one of the problem areas was that some of the community standards being developed were not being done in public or by a committee of members of the Legislature.

We will not be involved in the private meetings that will go on between the minister and his staff and the members of the various groups. In that regard, I would like to indicate to him that we are interested in being advised and being participants in the development of programs and policies to be handled and applied by the film review board.

Perhaps the minister will comment on the means by which he intends to keep the members of the Legislative Assembly involved in the development of the community standards, which would include the exemption areas. I would be pleased to have that information today.

4:20 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I think the member will acknowledge that I have endeavoured to share information with the opposition that has not been traditional. It has always been assumed that the government's role is to govern and to deal with matters that fall under regulation in that way. But I did respect the opposition parties' interest in the regulations that were to be applied, and I did forward copies of the proposed regulations to them, asking for any comment they might have on them by a certain date.

With respect to the exemptions, frankly, we have not even made any decisions in any area on those. I certainly will give some thought to the member's request, but I cannot make any commitment at this time.

Section 3 agreed to.

section 4:

Mr. Chairman: Hon. Mr. Elgie moves that

section 4 of the act as set out in

section 4 of the bill be amended by renumbering subsections 7, 8 and 9 as 8, 9 and 10 respectively and by adding thereto the following subsection:

(7) A justice of the peace shall not issue a warrant under subsection 6 to enter any place actually being used as a dwelling unless the inspector satisfies the justice of the peace under oath that he has reasonable grounds to believe the place is used as a business premises occupied by a film exchange."

Hon. Mr. Elgie: For many years the definition of "exhibition" has been quite clear in the Theatres Act. I was rather surprised when one individual raised the possibility that the expression "exhibiting for indirect or direct gain" gave him serious concerns about the possibility of an inspector obtaining a warrant to enter a home where a film was being shown for some indirect gain that might come to the individual owner of that home.

During all the years the definition has been in place and movies have been shown in homes, there has never been an incident of anything like that. But I felt that to make it absolutely certain in the public's mind that this bill is not intended to allow entry into private homes to see what people are looking at, the issue of whether an inspector can get a warrant is confined to commercial distribution -- in other words, operating a film exchange in one's home.

Ms. Bryden: I want to speak on

section 4 generally, but we are dealing with the amendment at the moment.

Mr. Chairman: How would it be if we dealt with this motion and then came back to the member on the

section as a whole?

Ms. Bryden: We did not carry

section 4.

Mr. Chairman: No. This is just an amendment. Then we will come back and we can address it as amended. Shall we put the question?

Mr. Elston: I just want to ask whether there was any particular reason the minister stayed with film exchanges and did not deal as well with film depots and all those other sorts of things.

There could be a situation in which films could be considered to have been assembled or put together in a house as well. I presume the intent is really to indicate there have to be reasonable and probable grounds to believe the building is something other than a house. "Film exchange" and "film depot" are defined in the act. I just wonder whether there was any particular reason one was put in -- I know the reason is distribution -- and the other, "film depot," was not also included.

A film depot is described as "any building or premises in which film is assembled for shipment." Presumably, the question of whether a house is a film depot becomes subject to some kind of test of information assembled as well.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: The only thing I can gather is that film depots have never been matters that have been dealt with under this act, other than for health and safety reasons. That is what I am advised. If the member wants to stand that aside, I will be glad to get further information on it.

Mr. Chairman: Shall we put the motion?

Mr. Elston: Did the minister say he was going to get more information? I did not quite hear him.

Mr. Chairman: Shall we stand down the amendment then?

Mr. Elston: The member for Beaches-Woodbine (Ms. Bryden) has other comments on the

section in any event, so perhaps that would be appropriate at this time.

Mr. Chairman: Fine. We will stand down the amendment for a moment and continue with

section 4.

Ms. Bryden: Subsections 4(3), 4(4) and 4(5) provide the three stages of enforcement against what is considered an improper exhibition of a film or advertisement when action is to be taken.

I am not clear exactly what the process is under subsection 4(3). It says, "The inspector may, by written order, direct that the projector, film or advertising, as the case may be, be turned over to the inspector." It does not say to whom the order is directed, whether it is to the distributor or to the operator of the projector. I think that should be clarified.

Also, if the order is not complied with, the premises may be sealed for 10 days, that is, the material cannot be removed. There is a question whether the seizing of the projector is a proper penalty. Particularly for a small operator, the projector can be a very expensive piece of equipment. It seems to me the penalty should be in the form of a fine or something of that sort, rather than the seizing of equipment.

These kinds of clauses have given the censor board a "hobnailed boots" reputation of charging in and seizing equipment without any opportunity for the person who is charged to take the matter to court. He can only appeal to the censor board. I do not think these measures should be in the enforcement procedures of the act. There should be the laying of a charge under the Criminal Code and due process, if necessary, not raids on art galleries, such as the A Space gallery, or on small exhibitors or small film showings.

Mr. Chairman: Any other comment on

section 4? If not, is the minister ready to return to the amendment?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I am advised by my staff that the depot refers only to a storage place. The concerns expressed under the act dealt only with the safety aspects of depots because they contained flammable film. They were monitored for fire safety and adherence to fire regulations. They have not been looked upon as places of distribution and they have never been treated that way.

With respect to the concern of the member for Beaches-Woodbine about inspectors, let me assure her that if she takes the time to look at the powers of inspectors under the existing act, she will see these powers have been reduced considerably, in line with what we perceived as acceptable in a free and democratic society under the Charter of Rights. I believe the powers set out in this act will meet the test of that charter.

4:30 p.m.

Ms. Bryden: I recognize they have been reduced. I would like to be assured that raids on exhibitors or small art galleries will not be the pattern or tolerated under this legislation, and that when there are charges laid under the law there is a right of appeal if there is a conviction.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: The member is not perceiving the role of the staff quite accurately. It is not a matter of a raid. It is a matter of making certain those covered by this legislation are in compliance with it. Set out are the standards about when they may enter, what people may do when they enter and what they may refuse to do. Upon refusal, the inspector then has certain options with respect to getting warrants. It is all set out very clearly.

As I said, I believe it will meet the test of the charter. I do not think the member is accurate in calling them raids. Some have used that word. Some have said they did that for their own purposes. There has always been a degree of concern about the behaviour whenever an entrance has been made or whenever there have been discussions about licensed premises.

Ms. Bryden: Speaking to the amendment, while I understand its purpose is to make it clear that the showing of films or videos in the home cannot result in a raid on the home or any sort of action against the showing in the home, I am troubled by the fact that clauses 4(2)(

a) and (

e) refer to any other premises where film is exhibited.

Could that not be a home? Clause (

a) states, "to inspect...theatres, any other premises where film is exhibited," and the same with

section (e), "to enter any theatre or other premises in which film is exhibited." Is there not a danger that could also be considered a dwelling?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I have two comments with respect to the member's remarks. Justice Bernstein in the A Space art gallery decision emphasized the propriety of the conduct of the inspectors in that case. That has always been the kind of conduct utilized when they have been performing their duties under the act.

The act clearly states under subsection 4(5) that one cannot enter "a dwelling place without the consent of the occupier." Subsection 4(6) goes on to say that if there is no consent, and if it is on reasonable and probable grounds thought to be a distribution centre, then one has to get a warrant. I do not know what more one can do to make absolutely certain that the rights of the home owner in a dwelling are protected. We have gone to the absolute limits because of our great respect for privacy.

Motion agreed to.

Section 4, as amended, agreed to.

section 5:

Mr. Elston: This

section deals with the powers of licensing, the refusal to issue licences, or suspending licences if certain orders are not complied with. This may be an appropriate time to raise the question of the licensing activity and how it will be handled by the ministry.

Concerns were raised, by distributors particularly, that some people might be refused licences in the initial phase of the operation of this bill because of prior problems with films they had thought were appropriate. This might be a good time to try to get the minister to indicate what the general policy of the ministry is going to be with respect to the drawing up of the regulations to provide licensing for the first time under this act.

As the minister knows, film distributors and operators of retail outlets are quite concerned that the allowing of a conviction to be obtained by the crown as a matter of convenience puts a criminal conviction on the record of distributors and film rental outlets. The regulations may have to deal specifically with that point when licences are first issued. I would like some comment at this time on whether that will happen.

The other area of concern about licensing is in relation to the regulations. How much is going to be charged for licences and how will the price be determined? When we consider the fact that some distributors have large volumes of material to distribute, while others are not so large, it may be interesting for us to hear what types of programs might be considered for the regulations the minister is currently having drafted.

Those are the concerns I have. The minister may not be able to answer them entirely now, but he might be able to provide us with some sense of direction about how licences are to be given out and how the price for licences is to be developed.

The Deputy Chairman: Does any other honourable member wish to participate? is the minister going to respond?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: The director has been giving considerable thought to the whole matter of how that process will unwind. I gather her next step will be to have meetings with the distributors and with the retailers to try to work out some timetables that are reasonable and that still meet the requirements of the act, so we can get on with it. We will do everything possible to dovetail within a reasonable time frame.

The member raised the question of the issuing of licences and the past conduct of the people involved. That is a difficult one for me to answer without having a specific case before me. As the member knows, other matters are raised in this House where statements are made that perhaps the minister should have looked at who had invested some money in a hotel in a certain city or who had had some association with some other enterprise.

The circumstances will vary from time to time. I can assure the member that is one of the reasons the act provides for an appeal to the courts in the event there is a rejection on a basis that the applicant deems not to be reasonable.

Ms. Bryden: Regarding the licensing provisions, I am sure the minister is aware that the --

The Deputy Chairman: Can I ask where the honourable member is? We are on

section --

Mr. Wildman: Right over there.

The Deputy Chairman: I know. I cannot miss her. Are you on

section 5?

Ms. Bryden: No,

section 6, cancellation of licence.

The Deputy Chairman: Shall

section 5 carry?

I would like to know where we are going so we do it in some form of system.

Ms. Bryden: This is

section 5 of the bill. It replaces

section 6 of the act and deals with licences.

4:40 p.m.

With regard to licences, I presume all retailers who sell films now are going to have to have licences under this act. I remind the minister that during second reading we discussed the problems of small convenience-store managers who sell a certain amount of this material and will probably be required to have licences. I am sure he is also aware that these store owners are required to buy municipal licences, particularly in municipalities such as the city of Toronto, if they carry things such as Penthouse, so-called adult literature.

These licence fees can be quite onerous on these very small retailers. I hope the minister will make the fees very nominal and perhaps have exemptions for very small stores that do not deal in these items to any great extent, because they can be quite a burden on them. As well, these particular store owners may not be as well acquainted with the law and with the requirement to have a licence; so I hope they will not be harassed. I hope they will be informed of what the requirements are and what they need to do to keep a licence in good standing.

As we mentioned on second reading, many newcomers to our country are unfamiliar with our judicial system and are very nervous about having charges laid against them. When we bring in something new like this, it is very important to inform them of what is being done and what its purposes are and to see that the licences are not a burden on them.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I must thank the member for that comment, because it is a difficult problem and we have discussed it in the past. The paperwork involved in setting some sort of fee on a volume basis is so cumbersome for both the small businessman and our own staff that our goal would be to make the fee very nominal and to make certain that every effort is made to convey full information to the parties involved so they can handle it all with a degree of ease.

We did give some thought to the process the member is thinking about, but we eventually came to the conclusion that the paperwork involved in settling whether someone was or was not in a category justifying a certain fee would be very cumbersome for everybody, including the businesses involved, and it would be better to set a nominal fee and get on with it.

The Deputy Chairman: All those in favour of

section 5 standing as part of the bill will please say "aye"

All those opposed will please say "nay"

In my opinion the ayes have it

Section 5 agreed to.

Sections 6 to 12, inclusive, agreed to.

sOn

section 13:

The Deputy Chairman: Hon. Mr. Elgie moves that subsection 35(6) of the act as set out in

section 13 of the bill be amended by inserting after subsection 5 in the first line, "As to classification."

Hon. Mr. Elgie further moves that

section 35 of the act as set out in

section 13 of the bill be amended by adding thereto the following subsections:

(8) A person who has appealed under subsection 5 may appeal the board's decision as to approval to the Divisional Court in accordance with the rules of court, and where there is an appeal, the minister is entitled to be heard.

(9) An appeal under subsection 8 may be made on question of law or fact or both, and the court may affirm or rescind the decision of the board and may direct the board to take any action that the board may take and as the court considers proper."

Hon. Mr. Elgie: We have given considerable thought to this amendment. After hearing the comments of members in the House and those of some members of my own party as well as representations made in the committee by those who presented briefs, I think it is an important issue and views on it are strongly held.

Out of respect for those who hold those strongly held views, although I was content with the administrative procedure, I have decided this appeal to the court on questions of law or fact or both would be appropriate.

I know some will question the fact that the classification is not subject to an appeal. Frankly, we feel that is a matter that can be dealt with administratively by an appropriate appeal panel within the film review board.

Ms. Bryden: As I mentioned in my remarks on

section 1, we feel all the board's decisions should be subject to appeal. I am glad the minister has listened to the opposition's comments and has moved in this area of a right of appeal to the courts. I believe the late member for Riverdale, Jim Renwick, would feel that was a very important concession by the government. His speeches in this field may have had something to do with convincing the minister that we need due process and a right to appeal all kinds of fiats by government boards.

I am a little concerned about subsection 3(9), which we have passed and which says, "Part I of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act does not apply to decisions made by the board." I do not know whether that clause is in conflict with allowing the Divisional Court to review the decisions of the board; not being a lawyer, I am not sure whether there is a problem there. However, we do not like having the board exempted from the Statutory Powers Procedure Act anyway. If it is going to make it more difficult to administer an appeal, we should revert and rescind the clause I am referring to.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: The fact that the Statutory Powers Procedure Act is not in place with respect to administrative appeals within the board does not in any way impair the right or the nature of an appeal to the courts.

The member should recall that rules of natural justice still prevail and have to be followed in any internal hearing held by the board. Parties have a right to be present and be heard, and the rules of natural justice have to be followed in all respects.

There is no doubt it would have no influence on the right to appeal or the nature of the appeal.

Ms. Bryden: Regarding the failure to include classification approvals in the right to appeal, does the minister not think a decision by the board that something should not be allowed to be shown to people under 18 is a decision of such substance that it should be subject to appeal?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I am reminded of the words of Judge Borins in the judgement in which he spoke of how difficult it was for a justice of the court to review matters that were not ordinarily before him and were not part of his ordinary life.

Therefore, I say to the member that the issue of classification of films is going to be very difficult for a court to deal with.

Judge Borins said, "The judge, by the very institutional nature of his calling, is required to distance himself or herself from society for the purposes of the application of the test of obscenity and is expected to be a person for all seasons, familiar with and aware of the national level of tolerance... ." I will not read the rest of it, because I read it into the record the other day.

The issue of classification is one that truly has to be dealt with at the administrative level. If there is some disagreement, an appeal to a panel that has not dealt with that particular film before is the appropriate route.

I am reminded that in committee the industry said it would not want to appeal classification to the courts. That was asked of them at the committee hearings.

Motion agreed to.

4:50 p.m.

Mr. Reed: I would like to ask the minister how he proposes to deal with the logistics that are obviously brought forward by the new

section 35. Subsection 35(1) says "an application for approval to exhibit or distribute" has to "be made to the board" and the board has to view the film to approve it.

How is he going to process the thousands of videotapes that are in existence? Is he going to allow the seizure of people's stocks of videotapes, without charges being laid, as happened a week or 10 days ago? Is he going to allow the seizure of videotapes, as happened in my own riding to one store that was acquitted months and thousands of dollars' worth of expenditure later?

I am anxious to know how the minister proposes to handle the enormity of what he is laying down in the bill.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: First of all, I want to make it very clear that the incidents the member is talking about did not involve the theatres branch. As I understand it, in the matters he referred to, criminal charges were laid and the material was seized. The theatres branch does not have any control over the retailing of videos at the moment.

I believe, as the Project P squad said downstairs in our committee hearing, that the process we are involved in as legislators will make life a lot easier for video retailers, because they will know what they have and they will not be subject to those sometimes important mistakes that are made, sometimes without their knowledge. I suggest that most of them in the industry will welcome this move.

I do not dispute that there will be some complexities and that it will be some time before all of this can be put into place. Certainly that has been the experience in the United Kingdom, Sweden and the many other countries that are following the same approach. However, let me assure the member it can be done and we will endeavour to do it in a very respectful and productive way.

Mr. Reed: With respect, what is the minister going to do in the meantime? There is a quite substantial inventory of videotapes in Ontario in terms of titles. When this bill becomes law, how does he propose to deal with those?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: As I am sure the member will appreciate, a large number of the films being distributed in video outlets are films that have already been approved by the board in any event; so they can be dealt with in a very straightforward fashion.

In the meantime, we propose within the next two months to start the process at the distributor level. It is going to be a very time-consuming process; I do not dispute that. However, following the discussions the director has already had with the industry, both the retail distributors and the outlet people, I am confident we can achieve this. It will not happen overnight, however.

Mr. Reed: The minister is missing something. There is already an inventory, and a lot of the video renters carry thousands of what are classified as adult tapes. I also understand there are videodiscs, and while they have not captured a large proportion of the market, they are still on the market and new copies are being released. Since there is no way to edit videodiscs, what the minister is proposing is that the video-store owner will have to destroy his inventory if it does not conform.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: The member is correct if he is saying that when the video-store owner receives a daily document outlining the classification of films, the classification labels that should go on them and the films that are considered as beyond community standards, he will have to do something else with such tapes.

Section 13, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 14 and 15 agreed to.

section 16:

Ms. Bryden:

Section 16 is one of the offending sections that I mentioned in my opening remarks. It adds to the act, "where the applicant is a corporation and the past conduct of an officer, director or shareholder affords reasonable grounds for belief that the applicant will not comply with this act and the regulations in carrying on the business of a film exchange."

How does the minister find out that the applicant or the officers are not likely to comply? Is this not judging a person before any charge is laid against him?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: The honourable member will be aware this is a common

section that flows through many pieces of legislation, such as the Liquor Licence Act. I have discussed this in detail with the member for Huron-Bruce (Mr. Elston).

It is true that it is not going to be a straightforward matter where one simply plugs in a computer and indicates who shall and who shall not. One will have to look at the particular circumstances. That is exactly why the process in the bill provides for an appeal to the court in the event an individual is not satisfied with that process.

I hope the member will accept that the fact there is that appeal is a recognition that the individual does have this right in the event he feels the system has not treated him fairly.

Section 16 agreed to.

Sections 17 to 25, inclusive, agreed to.

Bill, as amended, ordered to be reported.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Elgie, the committee of the whole House reported one bill with certain amendments.

5 p.m.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

EMPLOYMENT SECURITY INITIATIVE

Mr. Lupusella moved, seconded by Mr. Stokes, resolution 41:

That, in view of the faltering economic recovery now occurring in Ontario and, in particular, the lack of new, real, long-term opportunities for young workers and older workers, this House supports an employment security initiative which:

Facilitates the replacement of imports with domestically produ

Document details

Collection	Ontario — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	1984-12-13
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	p32 s4 1984-12-13 hansard html
Language	en
Format	html
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	0f24749fb09091381a03414e9f0d780dbe27c819

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (html).