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

January 16, 1989

34th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L130 - Mon 16 Jan 1989 / Lun 16 Jan 1989

VISITORS

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

VISITOR

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

SALE OF CIGARETTES TO MINORS

MICROBREWERY PRODUCTS

GILBERT, ALBERT AND MARCEL VANKERREBROECK

POLICE SHOOTING

HOSPITAL SERVICES

FRED TROUGHTON

REACTIONS TO VACCINES

MARTIN LUTHER KING

VISITOR

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

PAY EQUITY

DRIVER EXAMINATIONS

RESPONSES

PAY EQUITY

DRIVER EXAMINATIONS

PAY EQUITY

ORAL QUESTIONS

INVESTIGATIONS OF POLICE ACTIVITIES

PAY EQUITY

POLICE SHOOTING

HOSPITAL SERVICES

RENT REGULATION

METROPOLITAN TORONTO HOUSING AUTHORITY

MUNICIPAL FUNDING

POLICE PURSUITS

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

SALE OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES

NORTHERN HEALTH SERVICES

CROP USES

EMPLOYMENT ADJUSTMENT

ABANDONED RAIL LINES

INTER-CITY GAS CORP.

PETITIONS

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION

POLICE SHOOTING

FOSTER PARENTS

CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY

1987 CONSTITUTIONAL ACCORD

MOTION TO SET ASIDE ORDINARY BUSINESS

INVESTIGATIONS OF POLICE ACTIVITIES

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF HOUSING / CREDITS, MINISTERE DU LOGEMENT

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

Prayers.

VISITORS

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

Please join me in welcoming our guests today.

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

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

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

Please join me in welcoming this group of pages.

VISITOR

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

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

SALE OF CIGARETTES TO MINORS

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

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

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

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

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

MICROBREWERY PRODUCTS

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

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

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

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

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

GILBERT, ALBERT AND MARCEL VANKERREBROECK

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

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

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

POLICE SHOOTING

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

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

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

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

HOSPITAL SERVICES

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

On January 13, a week later, the minister responded. I must tell members how disappointed and concerned I am about her response. First, the minister indicated that this gentleman’s heart surgery was elective and at the present time only urgent and emergency patients are being treated. It is very interesting to note that the Health minister is saying that there are now three waiting lists for heart patients Second, the minister advised me that should my constituent’s condition change, he should notify his doctor.

If we knew when we were going to have a heart attack, we would all check ourselves into the hospital prior to that often fatal event. Third, the minister assured me that the independent investigators reviewing the hospital scheduling would solve future problems.

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

FRED TROUGHTON

Mr. Offer: It is an honour to rise in the House today in order to recognize the accomplishments of Fred Troughton. Mr. Troughton has been named the 1988 Systems Professional of the Year by the Toronto

chapter of the Association for Systems Management. He is the immediate past-president of the Mississauga Board of Trade.

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

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

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

REACTIONS TO VACCINES

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

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

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

Mr. Velshi: I have a statement.

Mr. Speaker: On what?

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

Mr. Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?

Agreed to.

MARTIN LUTHER KING

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“I have a dream today!

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

“This is our hope.

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

VISITOR

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

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PAY EQUITY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DRIVER EXAMINATIONS

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

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

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

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

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

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

RESPONSES

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

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

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

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

PAY EQUITY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DRIVER EXAMINATIONS

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

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

Interjections.

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

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

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

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

PAY EQUITY

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

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

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

ORAL QUESTIONS

INVESTIGATIONS OF POLICE ACTIVITIES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PAY EQUITY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker: Order.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker: Order.

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

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

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

Interjections.

POLICE SHOOTING

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

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

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

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

This is a tragic situation for those two men who faced each other on this terrible occasion, and it is the kind of exercise that has led to a charge in a criminal court. It is in the interests of everybody on all sides to let that process. which is an historic process in which 12 of our citizens weigh the evidence, take place. While we wait for it to take place, there is much to be said about the importance of all of us in trying to do what we can to make relationships for our police and for our racial communities in this city better than they have been, but the trial must be allowed to take place.

It would be a major abuse of the criminal justice system if it did not. It would be a major abuse if it was picked over in this Legislature in advance, before it occurs.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

HOSPITAL SERVICES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RENT REGULATION

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

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

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

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

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

section of her ministry working so fervently against everybody else in her ministry?

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

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

METROPOLITAN TORONTO HOUSING AUTHORITY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MUNICIPAL FUNDING

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

POLICE PURSUITS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker: The minister.

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

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

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

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

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

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

SALE OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

NORTHERN HEALTH SERVICES

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker: That is two questions.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker: Question.

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

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

That is an independent responsibility of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario.

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

CROP USES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

EMPLOYMENT ADJUSTMENT

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

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

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

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

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

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

ABANDONED RAIL LINES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The other thing that concerns me, frankly, is that the present owners of these lines are responsible for maintaining the fences, cutting the weeds and keeping the drainage in proper working order, and the idea that somebody, public or otherwise, is going to pay a large amount of money for acquisition of the lands does not make a lot of sense to me. I think we ought to see that certain public agencies take on the ownership of these properties, if that can be arranged.

In some instances they may very well revert to private ownership, from which they were removed, in some instances by expropriation, back in the 1800s. This is not a simple problem, as the honourable member knows, and will require a good deal of careful thought.

INTER-CITY GAS CORP.

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

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

PETITIONS

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION

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

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

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

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

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

POLICE SHOOTING

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

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

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

“And

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

“And

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

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

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

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

FOSTER PARENTS

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

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

“Mr. David Peterson:

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

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

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

CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As required, I have signed this petition.

1987 CONSTITUTIONAL ACCORD

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

“Petition against Meech Lake accord.

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

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

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

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

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

MOTION TO SET ASIDE ORDINARY BUSINESS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What we all seek is a system in which the police can carry out those responsibilities with which they have been charged by society in a way that is seen to be fair and impartial by all of our citizens, and in such cases where there is a question about police conduct, that those questions can also be resolved in a manner that is seen to be fair and impartial by all of our citizens.

In that way, in cases where it is seen by crown law officers that charges should be laid, all of our citizens can view the laying of those charges and the consequent court proceedings with the sense that that activity has been undertaken in a way that is absolutely free of political interference, either in the laying of the charges or in the not laying of the charges.

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

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

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

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

The Attorney General (Mr. Scott), in his answers to my questions today, I think would like to put this question in the political forum. He wants to address the situation in a manner where we are taking political stances against each other.

Quite frankly, as I tried to state in my question, our party believes that this crisis with our justice system, and the questioning of the authority of the police and the implementation of that authority which is given on trust to the police, is a question which is not only of interest to the government, the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party, but is also a question of great importance to every member of this Legislature and every citizen of Ontario.

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

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

We then have come to a situation, through lack of action by the government of Ontario, where both sides of this debate, the black community and the police, are asking questions and are getting no answers.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Breaugh: One more time: Get lost.

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

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

Mr. Speaker: We have now dealt with this motion under standing order 37(a), (

b) and (c). We now come to 37(d). I have listened very carefully to the three members, as I am sure all other members have, but now under 37(

d) I must put the question, shall the debate proceed?

Motion agreed to.

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

INVESTIGATIONS OF POLICE ACTIVITIES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I would caution members, as one final little reminder: If they think they can deal with this as isolated incidents, let me be the one to tell them they are wrong. If they think this has only happened once or twice in the history of Ontario and it will not happen for another couple of years, they are wrong. It will happen again tonight. Somewhere tonight there will be a police officer making that judgement call.

If he does not feel that the system -- the judicial system and the political system -- is a fair and reasonable one, there is an immense danger that he will step across the line of judgement which takes him from a good officer to one who makes a serious error. On the other side of the coin, there will be young people in particular who will say, “The system is all broken down anyway; I don’t have to pay any respect to anyone.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In any event, the Solicitor General has a recommendation before her urging her to legalize the use