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

June 25, 1974

29th Parliament, 4th Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Hansard Transcripts

Hansard Transcripts

L091 - Tue 25 Jun 1974 / Mar 25 jun 1974

FRUITS AND VEGETABLES PRODUCE FOR PROCESSING ACT (CONCLUDED)

AGRICULTURAL SOCIETIES ACT

THIRD READINGS

CITY OF PORT COLBORNE ACT

THIRD READING

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC ACT

THIRD READING

JURIES ACT

ONTARIO GUARANTEED ANNUAL INCOME ACT

DISABLED PERSONS

BLIND PERSONS

DEPENDENT FATHERS

The House resumed at 8 o’clock, p.m.

FRUITS AND VEGETABLES PRODUCE FOR PROCESSING ACT (CONCLUDED)

Mr. Speaker: When we recessed we were dealing with Bill 92, and all members had spoken. The hon. minister may respond now.

Hon. W. A. Stewart (Minister of Agriculture and Food): Mr. Speaker, in dealing with Bill 92 on second reading, there were a number of statements made with which I concurred, on the matter of communications particularly. The member for Essex South (Mr. Paterson) and the member for York South (Mr. MacDonald) both mentioned this, and I share that concern.

The history of the legislation as it has reached this stage is simply that the executive of the Ontario Fruit and Vegetable Growers Association -- that is, the president and secretary -- met with me and discussed the possibility of finding some other way of financing the organization and some way whereby there would be more equal sharing, inasmuch as the containers legislation it really is only those who are marketing on the fresh market that contribute to it at all. We explored various ways and had further meetings with a larger number of the executive; we told them that we would draft legislation and bring it forward along the lines we have suggested here.

After the bill was introduced, I think the Fruit and Vegetable Growers Association intended to talk to their membership throughout the province. I believe they felt there was some misunderstanding about when the bill should be discussed publicly. I contacted the secretary and the president and asked them what the objections were all about. They said they consciously made the decision not to talk about the bill because they felt it would be betraying a confidence if they knew what we were going to introduce. They felt that they should not say anything.

But after the bill was introduced they would then discuss it with all of their membership; and at that time, and only at that time, would the clauses of the bill be implemented.

Obviously that generated a breakdown in communications, and it may be that I am as much to blame for that as anyone. I thought that it had been done, and they felt that they shouldn’t do that. So the membership in various parts of the province, quite understandably, did raise some objection, I think chiefly because they didn’t understand what was in the bill. They also wondered if this was going to do away with the existing producer commodity marketing boards, which have been in existence for a long time and have done an excellent job. Of course, this has nothing to do with the respective boards.

The asparagus board, the fresh fruit board and all the rest of them that have done such an excellent job through the years will still carry on the same as ever. They have nothing to do with financing this thing.

The OFVGA is the central body of all producers of fruits and vegetables throughout Ontario. It is probably the oldest farm organization in Ontario. I think they celebrated their 114th annual meeting last winter here in Toronto. It’s a very distinguished body, and I am sure they are as much concerned as we are that there was some misunderstanding about that.

I had the opportunity of going on the air on Bill Brady’s open-line show in which the question was raised and explaining exactly what it does. As I understand it, the concern has not been as great since that explanation was given; I hope that’s the case. But the bill does not come in except on proclamation; and when it’s approved here, as I trust it will be, Mr. Speaker, we can then look forward to discussion among the various segments of the OFVGA, and they will bring it forward as they see fit.

The containers Act will still be retained for fresh fruit and vegetables, because that is really the only way that any contribution can be made by that group. There are so many outlets for fresh produce in the province that unless the containers Act is retained for fresh produce, then there will be no contribution made by that group -- and I am sure they don’t want that to happen. They certainly indicated that to us.

I would like to mention as well that the holder of a licence --

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Essex South would like to ask a question for clarification if the minister will permit.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Oh, I’m sorry.

Mr. D. A. Paterson (Essex South): The minister indicated that this would go forward and nothing would happen until it is proclaimed. Is he saying, in fact, that he will not have this proclaimed until after the OFVGA meeting this spring?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, we can do it either way. There is no thought, on behalf of the central executive of the OFVGA, that the bill will be implemented or any levies made whatever until they have had a thorough chance to discuss it at next year’s annual meeting.

Mr. Paterson: Is that the assurance?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Yes, that will be held in January, 1975; and I would give that assurance. Now, because the bill had passed here and received third reading, I wouldn’t want them to think that we weren’t going to give it proclamation. But rather than say proclamation on royal assent, we put it in as proclamation on a day to be named. That day, we thought, could be worked out with the OFVGA to suit their consideration.

Regarding the matter of licensing, which the member for Essex South raised, every person who sells to a processor is deemed to be the holder of a licence. He doesn’t have to acquire a licence. He is deemed to be the holder of the licence. I believe that is indicated on page 2 of the bill in

section 3, subsection 2, which says: “Every person who sells produce to a processor shall be deemed to be the holder of a licence.”

That is really the same type of legislation we have in most of the other marketing Acts. Other than that, Mr. Speaker, I don’t think there is really anything more that I can add.

Mr. Speaker: The motion is for second reading of Bill 92.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

Mr. Speaker: Shall the bill be ordered for third reading?

Agreed.

Clerk of the House: The second order, House in committee of the whole.

AGRICULTURAL SOCIETIES ACT

House in committee on Bill 21,

An Act to amend the Agricultural Societies Act.

Mr. Chairman: Bill 21,

An Act to amend the Agricultural Societies Act. Are there any comments, questions or amendments on this bill?

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Mr. Chairman, was this bill not put into committee so that the minister could consider a certain matter in it? Perhaps we could just hear from the minister so that we know it has been attended to.

Hon. W. A. Stewart (Minister of Agriculture and Food): When the bill was being discussed on second reading, Mr. Chairman, I indicated that because there was some criticism by the Provincial Auditor on the method of paying judges for agricultural societies in northern Ontario -- he criticized the fact that he didn’t see any statutory authority -- I determined we would amend the bill. Since that time, in going over with the staff of our ministry the matter of the Provincial Auditor’s concern, we have decided we will use the agricultural societies in the north in the same way as they are used in the south.

In other words, they will pay the judges their per diems and expenses and those expenses will be included by the society in the expenses for organizing events through their application for grants to the Ministry of Agriculture and Food. Thereby we find the statutory authority and we eliminate the need for an amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Chairman, according to the minister then, he is assuring us that the matter raised by the Provincial Auditor has been attended to and we are back on the track as far as dealing with these societies is concerned.

Mr. Chairman: Shall this bill be reported?

Mr. D. A. Paterson (Essex South): I have one further question, Mr. Chairman. Is it the intention of the House to proceed prior to this summer’s activities with the bill concerning the Lord’s Day amendment that ties in with the Agricultural Societies Act?

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Yes.

Mr. Chairman: Shall this bill be reported?

Bill 21 reported.

Hon. Mr. Winkler moves that the committee rise and report.

Motion agreed to.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the committee of the whole House reports one bill without amendment and asks for leave to sit again.

Report agreed to.

THIRD READINGS

The following bills were given third reading upon motion:

Bill 21,

An Act to amend the Agricultural Societies Act.

Bill 92,

An Act respecting Fruits and Vegetables Produce-for-Processing.

Bill 93,

An Act respecting the Marketing of Wool.

Bill 103,

An Act to amend the Milk Act.

CITY OF PORT COLBORNE ACT

Hon. Mr. Irvine, on behalf of Hon. Mr. White, moves second reading of Bill 83,

An Act respecting the City of Port Colborne.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Welland South.

Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to make a few comments in connection with this bill. I want to commend the Treasurer (Mr. White) for the introduction of Bill 83,

An Act respecting the City of Port Colborne. The bill will allow the city to claim a forgiveness amount of $30,420 under the federal employment loans programme.

I might add, Mr. Speaker, that every avenue was searched to find some way that the city could recapture this loan. I want to express my appreciation to the Clerk of this House for his advice in this matter and for telling me that it could be brought about by a government bill. This is what has taken place since then. I also want to express my gratitude to one of the minister’s assistants, Mr. McLeod of the municipal subsidies branch, for his assistance with this bill. It will mean about half a mill to the city, and I want to commend the minister for bringing the bill forward.

Mr. Speaker: Any further discussion on this bill? The hon. member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): Mr. Speaker, I believe this is the bill concerning the city of Port Colborne which regularizes some debentures that Port Colborne had which did not fit into the special federal-provincial winter works programme. Is that right?

I was unable to find out beforehand, given the volume of municipal bills, but perhaps the minister could indicate in his reply why it is that Port Colborne got into this particular jam. On the other hand, as the member from the area says, the people in the area are happy with it. It seems to be relatively routine to us.

I guess we can thank our stars that we don’t have a series of these things every year as they used to have in British Columbia under the Social Credit government. At the end of every session there, Mr. Speaker, there had to be an omnibus bill that corrected any number of errors in municipal administration which had taken place during the course of that year. We have only had one so far this year, and I hope we keep the record at that low level.

Mr. Speaker: Is there any other discussion? If not, the hon. minister.

Hon. D. R. Irvine (Minister without Portfolio): Mr. Speaker, I don’t wish to quarrel with what the hon. member for Ottawa Centre said --

Mr. Cassidy: I am comparing the minister with “Wacky” Bennett, not David Barrett, remember that.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: What we are trying to do is to assist the city, as the member quite rightly has said, to make sure that they don’t lose more than $30,000 that inadvertently was placed in a debenture and shouldn’t have been. We feel that we are doing a service to the people of this particular area by putting this bill through. Thank you.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

Mr. Speaker: Shall the bill be ordered for third reading?

Agreed.

THIRD READING

The following bill was given third reading upon motion:

Bill 83,

An Act respecting the City of Port Colborne.

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC ACT

Mr. Beckett, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Rhodes, moves second reading of Bill 108,

An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Essex-Kent.

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): Mr. Speaker, I have just a few brief remarks on this. I believe that the first part of the bill more or less legalizes the registration and permits for the new stickers on five-year plates. We have no objection to that, of course. I might just throw in as an extra that we will bring up some similar points in the estimates of the Ministry of Transportation and Communications with regard to the plates and their quality as well as that of the stickers. However, we have no objection to that part.

The second part of the bill relates to the North York project, where a justice of the peace or a judge may reduce a fine for a driving offence if the driver agrees to take an Ontario traffic driving improvement programme. I think this is a good idea, and of course it also leaves it open to designate other areas where this may be done.

I have a great deal of interest in the driving ability of people in Ontario who have licences to drive. Some seem to think it is the right of a person to drive an automobile on our highways. I personally do not think it is a right, I think it is something that can be given, providing you can qualify, and I have felt that way ever since I was 16 years old, when I first got my driver’s licence.

I would certainly agree with this principle and I look forward to perhaps seeing it enlarged in the future. There again, I will be enlarging on this when the estimates of the Ministry of Transportation and Communications come up, because I have a number of remarks I want to make with regard to driver control.

Mr. Speaker: Do any other members wish to enter this debate? The hon. member for Yorkview.

Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): Mr. Speaker, I don’t think I have anything to add to what has already been said. I think the North York experiment is a good one, and as far as legalizing the stickers on the licence plates is concerned, that is a matter of routine which should have been looked after, of course, before the stickers were issued in the first place.

This is catch-up legislation, but I suppose it is typical of this government in some respects. We approve of the bill.

Mr. Speaker: Do any other members wish to enter the debate? If not, the hon. parliamentary assistant.

Mr. R. B. Beckett (Brantford): Mr. Speaker, as the two previous gentlemen have said regarding this matter, the first

part is legislation prescribing the method of vehicle permit issue and display of the number plates and validation devices.

The second

part is actually at the request of the Attorney General (Mr. Welch), in order that the North York traffic tribunal pilot project may continue and will now provide a motivation for the persons concerned. As has been indicated, if this project continues to be the success that we feel it is, undoubtedly there will be future projects suggested to this House.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

Mr. Speaker: Shall the bill be ordered for third reading?

Agreed.

THIRD READING

The following bill was given third reading upon motion:

Bill 108,

An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act.

JURIES ACT

Hon. Mr. Welch moves second reading of Bill 105, the Juries Act, 1974.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Kitchener.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Mr. Speaker, in the recollection I have of the introduction of the bill I was not aware that we were necessarily going to go ahead with these changes to the Juries Act at this time. I had presumed that we would be having this matter stand over until the fall, so that if there were any further discussions or advice which the minister might have received we would have been in the position to have the benefit of it.

However, the minister has gone forward with second reading and I shall try to make some comments on this bill. I believe that we are in agreement with the developments, especially by the Law Reform Commission, which have led to the four particular areas of concern that this bill covers. The Jurors Act, of course, is now really being re-enacted and the major item in this bill, of course, will be the matter of preparing the way to abolish grand juries.

In the House, many members have been concerned for some years with the usefulness of the grand jury system. Its major usefulness seemed to be in dealing with the matters that are going to be dealt with in the companion piece of legislation, Bill 106, that deals with the visitation of various public facilities by some body of citizens who are interested in the administration and operation of these particular locations.

The matter of shortening the list of exempted occupations is certainly satisfactory to us, and we agree that it is necessary to modernize the procedures for the selection and return of jurors. In the statement which the minister made to us when this bill was introduced, there were a number of details gone into with respect to the striking of the jury panels and with the actions that could be tried by the jury and the various approaches which would streamline the choice of juries at trial.

I think these changes have generally followed the comments made not only by the Law Reform Commission but by those members of the bar who are active in court practice. Many lawyers, of course -- I must admit, I am one of them -- are not particularly involved with the day-to-day operations of litigation and the operations of the courts.

Surely if the Law Reform Commission and those lawyers who are involved feel these changes are both useful to the profession and, more importantly, useful to the persons who serve on the juries, I think we can agree with them.

There are a number of other amendments in the latter sections of the bill which I do not think require any particular further comment. It is good to see these items all pulled together now in one bill and we commend the minister for having brought it in.

Mr. Speaker: Is there any other discussion on this bill?

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have to confess that I am not an expert on this at all. The member for Lakeshore is coming in a minute to comment on it. I know he wanted to say a few words.

An hon. member: Now, now.

Mr. Cassidy: We are simply put in this position because of the way in which the legislation is being called. In fact, the member for Lakeshore is here right now.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Cassidy: I think, rather than subjecting the House to my opinions on the Juries Act and the amendments, I would yield more properly to --

An hon. member: He’s just held it up.

Mr. Cassidy: No, I haven’t held it up as a matter of fact, if the member really wants to know.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, it does seem a bit silly to have this particular piece of minor tinkering legislation in advance of a major amendment to the Jurors Act. I understand the Jurors Act has antecedents which go back to the 19th century. It is revised but rarely and it would have made a lot more sense for the minister to have kept the existing system as it was for another year and to have gone forward with a major review in the fall.

I recognize that a certain modernization has taken place but only for one year. How is that for understanding the principle of the bill?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville.

Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): Mr. Speaker, my comments on the bill are going to be very brief and the one portion of my comments concerns the pay to individuals selected for jury duty. As the minister is fully cognizant the pay in the past certainly was not satisfactory at all. It rendered a hardship to many, especially to those who worked in industries which were low paying or in industries in which their pay was discontinued or they were not subsidized once they were selected for jury duty.

My plea to the minister is that he adjust jury pay so that it is in tune with the times; so that the least the individual would receive would be the minimum wage and, better still, the going wage for people in the community.

Mr. D. A. Paterson (Essex South): And their travelling expenses.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Lakeshore.

Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): Thank you, Mr. Minister.

An hon. member: Hear ye, hear ye, hear ye.

Mr. Lawlor: The member is not going to hear all that much. First of all, I want to congratulate my colleague from Ottawa Centre --

Mr. L. Maeck (Parry Sound): For his delaying tactics.

Mr. Lawlor: Yes, for his delaying tactics.

Mr. Breithaupt: Every party needs one.

Mr. Lawlor: And the contribution he makes to debate. He is indeed a polymath in the House. Every party needs such people who can dangle and get up on the tightrope and walk it with ease and aplomb --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Lawlor: -- and adapt themselves chameleon-like to every colour of the rainbow on any occasion. People like that are so precious that the member --

An hon. member: Is this on the principle of the bill?

Mr. Lawlor: If this bill has a principle, I suppose the central thing in it is it’s a revision of the Jurors Act and numerous amendments down through the years to this particular piece of legislation; on the whole I find it palatable. First of all, because it’s more succinct; because it revamps the internal procedures by which juries are empanelled through the sheriffs of this province, both for criminal and civil cases to be heard. It sets forth, in a succinct and a very clear manner on the whole, the very processes of machinery that are set up for that particular objective, and in that particular regard the bill is fine.

I must confess, as a fragment of the great confession of our times, that I regret the non-presence for the moment of the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick), because in the issue of grand juries, which is central to this legislation, I don’t say we are at odds exactly, we are just not at idem altogether.

Hon. R. Welch (Provincial Secretary for Justice and Attorney General): The member for Riverdale?

Mr. Lawlor: Yes, the member for Riverdale. I have a predilection toward the abolition of the grand jury. I think that you’ll hear some words of wisdom from him in due course that might indicate a contrary intent; that he finds misgivings.

If I may, for the purposes of this debate, set out to this particular assembly what McRuer had to say in volume 2 of the great report, the bible, as to his conclusions, at 780, pro and con, with respect to grand juries and their operation in the province. He says:

“The advantages of the grand jury system may be summarized as follows:

“1. It affords an additional safeguard against requiring an accused to stand trial on evidence which is not sufficient to call upon him to present a defence.”

I’ll stand and comment on that. That’s the first advantage to the retention of the grand jury, which the Attorney General, I’m sure, will admit this legislation is a first step, a first mincing step, toward the abolition of.

In this particular regard, if you argue in British justice that it is better for a thousand guilty men to go free rather than one innocent man to be considered guilty and adjudged guilty, then there is a strong argument for the retention of the grand jury on that account, because the grand jury in the past few years -- well, throughout its history, but I think you and I are more cognizant of the period of the past few years -- three times, four times, five times or seven times a year a grand jury in this province, in criminal cases, will exculpate an accused and will send him out of that grand jury room a free man, over against hundreds of trials or hundreds of writs of preferment that come before the grand jury in which a no-bill is forthcoming.

That may not seem much, that may seem a drop in the bucket, but at the same time isn’t it the same principle in application with respect to those people who are not forced to go through a process of trial, with all the formidable obstacles that represents? Because no lawyer goes into a courtroom knowing for certain that he’s going to win a case.

He goes in, if he’s any good at all, forever with trepidation, knowing that by a flick of the wrist, a turn of a phrase, a discountenancing by a witness, any number of incidents or vagaries, the contingencies of this life, the whole fury and the position may swing against him and his client will be adjudged guilty or innocent by as though a feather blowing in the wind.

It’s just that contingency and just that feeling that you are up against.

If the grand jury acts as an obstacle, acts as an extra preventive, to that sort of thing happening and sends a man into the community again because of insufficiency of evidence, then perhaps on those grounds also the grand jury has vindicated its purpose and justified itself in the life of this community, and it has done that for a long time. That is a commentary on the first advantage.

Second, the grand jury “performs a useful function in inspecting institutions wholly or partially maintained by public money.” Mr. Speaker, we won’t dwell on that particular one because we will have another bill before us shortly which does precisely that -- takes that function of inspection rather than adjudication away from the grand jury. It has been proverbially lodged there since about 1423. In our jurisdiction it has performed that function down through the years. I’m inclined to think it’s a little overblown now and that that function may just as well be performed by another institution designated specifically to that task. But we will come to that, as I say, as the next bill arises.

The third advantage: “It perpetuates an infusion of lay participation in the administration of justice.” That’s surely something to conjure with too, and not likely to be foregone, because the jury in this regard is a designation by a varied group of our fellow citizens who have the final say and word and, admittedly under claustrophobic conditions, which we’ll come to, within a very narrow line, may this grand jury operate in this province.

The Law Reform Commission of Ontario which has recently handed down its mandate in the wake of McRuer -- and, of course, with the former Chief Justice sitting on the commission too, as one of its members -- comes down heavily against the grand jury. No one seems to give very much affirmation to the American model of the grand jury, which has very wide investigative powers. I have not yet achieved a position, my friend from Riverdale will be pleased to learn. As things stand with Watergate, we all know what validity and perspicacity a grand jury has in the American system.

The Attorney General of this province may argue contrariwise and say: “Listen, we have other instruments for that purpose. We have task forces, on the one hand, which are nominated by government. We have royal commissions and various other kinds of judicial inquiries that could perform that function.” But those are without lay participation or with just minimal lay participation. Again, great weight must be placed on that particular element.

We don’t want to move away from the area of the man in the street; the man, as they usually put it in law, on the Clapham omnibus; that fellow upon whom we rely for final horse sense and whose rights invest this Legislature. We do become esoteric. We do lose contact. And the judges are more isolated men than we ever hope to be. In this particular regard I would ask that the Attorney General hesitate and draw back a little.

The fourth ground is that it “tends to ensure that the full functions of an assize court as a court of general jail delivery are performed.” That comes out of ancient law and out of the very viscera of the British jurisprudential system.

In this regard, again let us not abandon these things lightly if they perform or can be made to perform a valid function. There has been no effort to extend its range, to give it validity, to heap upon it or even to dispose it towards a greater range of powers.

What has happened over the past 110 years or so since the first bill recognizing this particular entity went through in 1866, the year before Confederation, is that there has been a contraction and a truncating of powers all along the line until today it’s so diminished that there is a very powerful argument that it no longer has any efficacy in this realm. But that need not be so. If there was a will the other way, then it could be vastly expanded and the participational feature of the man in the street could be greatly enforced in the administration of our system of justice.

The government and the commissions even go so far as to wish to jettison the petit jury of the province. There’s a kind of lordliness in all that. There’s a kind of sanctimonious patrician attitude towards the citizenry at large: “Oh, they get everything muddled up. They can’t keep the lines of logic straight. They’re influenced by meaty-tongued orators of various kinds, lawyers who obfuscate issues, those who are adroit at doing any number of weird things.”

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): There is no humour in this bill. The Attorney General might know it now. There is no humour left in this bill.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Oh, go and get lost. The member for Riverdale is the one who needs a sense of humour.

Mr. Renwick: That’s right.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Go get a sense of humour.

Mr. Lawlor: The next area is that the system is open to criticism, and there are four grounds of criticism --

Hon. Mr. Welch: The member for Riverdale takes himself too seriously.

Mr. Renwick: The Attorney General can’t turn this one off with a bland smile.

Hon. Mr. Welch: The member doesn’t know what he is talking about. It’s a note from his colleague that makes me smile. Why doesn’t he go and get lost?

Mr. Lawlor: No. 1: “It enables a private prosecutor to maintain a vexatious prosecution without the consent of the Attorney General.” And it does. Surely there are weapons for that, though, it seems to me. A private prosecutor acting maliciously, if he places a man in prison, is subject to a suit for malicious prosecution and possibly for false imprisonment.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Someday the member for Riverdale will grow up.

Mr. Renwick: One can always tell, when the Attorney General puts his right arm up over his chair, that he is in trouble. He took it down.

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): It’s a sign of aggression.

Mr. Renwick: That’s right. Now it’s more relaxed.

Mr. Lawlor: While this is not so, after the adjudication of the case by a court, the court protects these fellows; nevertheless that’s not the central issue of in this thing and it’s not a very strong argument.

No. 2: “It is an unnecessary and unwarranted trespass on the time and convenience of witnesses, as well as causing them in many cases substantial economic loss.” Well, if we paid our witnesses anything, if there was a real intent to compensate them for the time that they spend in their civic posts and in the public realm, then that particular objection would lose any validity that it may have.

“3. It is an unwarranted trespass on the time and convenience of members of the jury, as well causing them, in many cases, economic loss.” Again, if jurors’ fees were ever adequate to the day and to the need, which they haven’t been throughout practically the history of this Legislature, then that would be overcome. This is a very weak economic argument. Surely, in a Demos, in a community of our kind, that particular function performed is something that is deemed highly desirable and ought to be encouraged -- that is, the work of jurors and witnesses. And in the course of this bill, you seek to make it so.

Why? In

section 2 of the bill you have eliminated whole trains of people who were formerly free of the operation of having to be jurors, could beg off on any number of pretexts and grounds, and who, because of their occupational backgrounds and so forth, were alleviated from that particular thing. It is a very privileged thing to be alleviated from the task of being a juror and must be regarded precisely as that.

I understand that in the first instance, by the way, the minister’s intention was to exclude very few -- that the professions, apart from judges and the legal profession itself, which, of course, would have an ingrained self-interest and would be incapacitated by the very kinds of knowledge it brings to a jury box, were the only ones. But now, through some kinds of pressures being levied upon the minister -- I don’t know whereof these winds blow -- but the doctors got to him and said, “No, as medical practitioners we wish not to serve on juries.”

Mr. Cassidy: They can’t afford to.

Mr. Lawlor: And the wives of medical practitioners, apparently being equally skilled in the arts, are alleviated from that responsibility too. The minister gets even so far as going to veterinary surgeons -- well, we’ll come back to that before I’m finished, in a moment.

I think that that is very ill-considered on many counts. The particular count I want to mention before I close is the chiropractors. I don’t know if they’ve been able to speak to the minister, but they spoke to me today and I would like to put in a word on their behalf before the second reading ends.

The last grounds, which are a criticism of the system, are that it causes delay in getting criminal cases tried. Well, it would need not cause all that delay. I would have thought there were more powerful arguments than that. Namely, that the preliminary inquiry before the provincial judges was in some way downgraded, or in some way can be trespassed upon by the invocation of the grand jury system, by the preferment of an indictment by the Crown attorney who may be acting, having produced only a prima facie case, and having brought it before the grand jury somehow seems to derogate from the functions of the provincial judge.

Consider that task itself and the nature in which it is conducted; it is conducted in camera. Neither the accused nor the accused’s lawyer or counsel may be present in order to present another side of the case. The Crown attorney alone presents the evidence to this claustrophobically enclosed grand jury sitting in a room. They hear what he tells them to hear. They see witnesses that he introduces to them, and in that way, and looking at it from that point of view, so enclosed and so truncated, it cannot but be that the grand jury system seems to lack vitality, it seems to lack a real purpose. It’s already traduced, it’s already biased necessarily because it only hears one portion.

The wonder of it all is that even in face of that one-sided presentation, on occasion and on frequent occasions, this grand jury nevertheless goes against, if I may put it that way, the Crown attorney and says, “No, you can’t proceed with this case and put this man through the toils and agony of a trial, eating up his substance in the process and, far more, racking his mind in that particular procedure. We will prevent you from doing so. That is our primary function in this regard.”

To come back to

section 2, the argument, as I see it and that has been put to me basically, is that overtures were made to the minister’s office last fall that chiropractors not be involved, if the other medical disciplines were not similarly involved. The understanding that I thought was reached, to put it the other way around, was that none of them would be able to escape their civic responsibilities in this particular regard.

A medical practitioner has a special kind of skill which may so influence the jury, because a great many cases, particularly the civil cases, involve medical testimony of one kind or another, which a doctor would be privy to and which he would be able to overcome or dictate even to his fellow jurors in the enclosure of the jury room.

If that is the case for a medical practitioner and if that is the case for a veterinary surgeon of all people -- I suppose you are trying cases in which cows run into automobiles or horses leap over stiles or something of that nature -- how they manage to work themselves in there puzzles me somewhat -- then chiropractors too have special physiological and biological training which very well may overreach and orient a jury in a way that hasn’t got that objective layman stance.

I would ask the minister to give some consideration either to excluding the one or including the other -- one or the other -- because they have pretty well equal validity. His predecessor in office, Allan Lawrence, some years ago when he was the Attorney General of this province, by a deliberate fiat wrote in an exclusion for the chiropractors of the province. He thought that was a valid and affirmable thing to do at that particular time. Having taken it out apparently and having now put it back in again, this minister put it back in, in a narrow and truncated form.

I would also on second reading ask the Attorney General, since it is not in the legislation, does he want to encompass most of the other provisions which are now being dropped from the Jurors Act? One which comes to mind immediately, and which I think is of some importance and very well might be included in this matter, is the view the jurors might take.

Does he consider at the present time that the powers of a judge with respect to a jury is sufficient to include them in going out and inspecting the scene of an accident or visiting a factory and finding the condition of the machinery which caused the harm or if there is an underground stream as in Rylands and Fletcher detecting its dangerous possibilities of overflow or any number of things that affect cases? It has been dropped, and I was a little puzzled again as to why this should be so in this particular legislation.

It seems to me that the Law Reform Committee has come out flatfooted. McRuer didn’t go all the way. He wanted to give certain review powers to the Supreme Court of Ontario which, by the way, I haven’t seen. If these review powers were given on the amplitude and scope that he has set forth in his report of four or five years ago, then he says the grand jury might very well go by the wall. The subsequent report, the very recent one the minister and I mulled over some hours pleasantly together earlier this year trying to eviscerate its guts, comes out flatly against the retention of the grand jury at all.

It does give some notice to certiorari proceedings and things of that kind in the process, but by and large it thinks the institution is otiose and no longer has efficacy in this province.

As I say, I have outlined the arguments pro and con as laid out by McRuer. The first part of the arguments that talk of its advantages seem to me to be more socially pertinent, reaching deeper into the life of the communities than the second phase of arguments which toss it out and which are more directed to economic matters, to bees, and to time being consumed by witnesses. These are very pragmatic and not so deep in social content as in the first case. If one has to weigh those two sets of arguments, I have a little doubt which side of the teeter-totter we would come down on in this particular matter.

For further delectation and gratification, I shall turn over the matter to my colleague from Riverdale.

Mr. Speaker: Are there any other members who wish to enter the debate? The hon. member for Riverdale.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): The second half of the routine.

Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): Have you met Alphonse, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Renwick: I think of myself more as Jeff.

An hon. member: Well, that’s his problem.

Mr. Renwick: The delectation may be not so significant. I happen to feel very strongly about this bill. I happen to be very disappointed in the Attorney General. This afternoon his display was despicable in my view.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Speak to the principle of this bill.

Mr. Renwick: That’s right. I will stick to the principle of the bill because the principle of this bill mirrors the attitude of the Attorney General of the Province of Ontario towards citizens’ rights in the province.

Mr. Cassidy: That’s right.

Mr. Renwick: What he said this afternoon in his statement, disguised as a government statement, with respect to a responsible --

Hon. Mr. Welch: That is not part of the debate right now.

Mr. Lewis: Sure it is.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Talk about Bill 105.

Mr. Renwick: It has to do constantly with the Attorney General destroying the rights of people in the Province of Ontario, and he knows it.

Mr. Cassidy: That’s right.

Mr. Renwick: And with his failure to face up to his responsibilities.

Hon. Mr. Welch: I am sure people will believe that coming from the member.

Mr. Renwick: When will we debate it?

Hon. Mr. Welch: This coming fall the bill will be debated.

Mr. Renwick: When we debate that bill, we will never be debating the substance of the problems that have been raised with respect to the relationships in the family property law relationships.

Hon. Mr. Welch: That is nonsense. The member’s leader knows very well my views.

Mr. Speaker: Let us now debate this bill.

Mr. Renwick: The minister knows very well that that’s so.

Mr. Speaker: Bill 105.

Mr. Renwick: He knows exactly why. Laura Sabia didn’t explain to us or anybody else what it was all about. He excused himself by that disguise.

Mr. Speaker: Bill 105.

Mr. Cassidy: That’s right.

Mr. Renwick: I understand. I accept the reprimand, Mr. Speaker. I just happen to feel strongly about it because the question period never allows me to express my views.

Mr. Lawlor: Mr. Speaker, the Attorney General doesn’t know the principle of the bill.

Mr. Renwick: But does he know what he is doing in this bill?

Hon. Mr. Welch: I happen to know that, yes.

Mr. Renwick: What does he know? Did he make a statement about this bill?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Yes, I did.

Mr. Renwick: Yes, I understand it. I read the explanatory notes and he read them in the House too.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Welch: No, I made a statement when this bill was introduced on first reading.

Mr. Renwick: That’s right. The legislative counsel dictated the remarks he made in this assembly, not as a responsible minister, and he knows it.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Renwick: Oh, yes, I can understand that. Yes, I learned that too. If the Attorney General puts an arm around the back of the chair, it indicates his hostility.

Mr. Speaker: This sort of debate is out of order.

Mr. Lawlor: Why doesn’t he slump down by the side?

Mr. Deans: Sit up straight.

Mr. Lewis: Let him handle his aggression a little more comfortably.

Mr. Renwick: Why doesn’t he do what his colleagues do and start to sign a few letters when we are talking about the government of the Province of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Welch: I feel very sorry for what I am seeing in here.

Mr. Renwick: I used to do this too. I used to put my thumbs in my fists too.

Mr. Speaker: Can we get back to the bill?

Hon. Mr. Welch: The member is a very capable man and a very capable member of the profession. I hope he displays it now.

Mr. Renwick: Are the Attorney General’s thumbs in his fists today?

Hon. Mr. Welch: I wish the member would display just a little bit of it now.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please, will the hon. member please get back to Bill 105?

Mr. Renwick: Now I understand he is in a position of prayer or classroom attention.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Shame.

Mr. Renwick: Yes, shame. I understand that. We had this in his estimates too, the whole shame business. Let’s talk about what we are about in this assembly in relation to the grand jury.

Mr. Lawlor: The Attorney General will have to admit they were very shameful estimates this year.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, now that I have the attention of the Attorney General, may I say to him that I am oppose to the abolition of the grand jury in the Province of Ontario. The members of this party, as my colleague has said, will vote against this bill.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Oh, did he say that?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Lewis: He certainly did.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: If not, he is prepared to say it later.

Mr. Cassidy: He said it very clearly.

Mr. Lawlor: The member heard what I said. He dismissed it.

Mr. Ruston: Yes we did. That is the problem.

An hon. member: It is a stupid mistake.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: He said a lot but he didn’t say the member was opposing the bill.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, anyone who has sat in this chamber from 1967 on has known exactly what the member for Lakeshore was saying.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: One of the new boys.

Mr. Renwick: And he was saying that we are opposed to this particular bill.

Mr. Lawlor: In my own very awkward way.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: He is used to defending the leader of the NDP. He is used to covering up. The old cover up.

Mr. Renwick: I want to say to the Attorney General and his advisers under the gallery that if they do not understand the consequences of the Stephen Ward commission of suicide in England and a case called the Lucky Williams case, then they don’t understand what the result of the abolition of the grand jury could be in the Province of Ontario.

A jury is a sworn group of the citizens of the province who are designed to present people basically for criminal purposes. The presentation is made to the grand jury for the purpose of determining whether or not they will go to trial.

Do you know what the grand jury is all about? The grand jury basically is engaged in protecting the citizenry of Ontario, the citizenry of Canada -- and, God bless them, the citizenry of the United Kingdom, but they abolished the grand jury -- and the citizenry of the United States, against the abuse of executive power, insofar as it relates to the adumbration of the criminal process as a result of the abuse of the executive power.

Mr. Speaker, I am not one who wants to press upon the government of the Province of Ontario the -- and I can never pronounce his name --

Mr. Lawlor: Montesquieu.

Mr. Renwick: The Montesquieu separation of power theory, but I want to use it as at least illustrative of what I want to say tonight about this bill.

In 1776, 200 years ago, give or take a month or two, the government of the United States was established after the revolution which took place. And they adopted the separation theory of the roles of government.

In the Province of Ontario in 1792, which wasn’t so long after 1776, we adopted the laws of England and the customs of England, with relation to the administration of justice, which existed as of that time. And ever since that time there has been a constant effort and determination to erode the role of the petit jury and the role of the grand jury in the province.

Every time when the Family Compact and their successors, the Conservative government of the Province of Ontario, have moved to erode that particular prerogative of the petit jury and of the grand jury, the people in the Province of Ontario one way or another have got through to their government that they will not stand for it; that they will not allow that erosion to take place.

Mr. Speaker, the point is very simple. The grand jury, in the ultimate operation of the system as we understand it, means for practical purposes there is always available a legitimate body of the citizenry of the province or of the various areas within the province who can deal with something called the abuse of executive power when it is beyond the competence of this assembly to do it or when it is beyond the competence of the elective system to do it.

Mr. Speaker, I happen to believe in the supremacy, if we want to talk about it in those terms, of the legislative assembly of the Province of Ontario within its own competence. We also know there has been an immense daily, obvious encroachment by the executive council of the Province of Ontario on the rights of this body. This body has for practical purposes become something truncated -- like the grand jury has been truncated in its operation of the system.

We have very few rights. We never alter anything. We have certain minor crumbs tossed to us by the member for -- I am talking to the member for Grenville-Dundas (Mr. Irvine). We are representing a riding like Riverdale and we feel we have completed our role in the legislative assembly because the member for Grenville-Dundas has allowed us a certain minor amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I achieve most of my satisfaction by playing a little toy game of achieving an amendment to each bill as it comes through. That is a very minor operation of this assembly.

I am not talking about something that does not mean anything. I am talking about the fact that the role of the elected members of the legislative assembly, in the face of the Tory government, is negligible. I am talking about the fact that the role of the municipal governments, of the elected municipal members, of the Province of Ontario is negligible in the face of the ever-increasing pressure, basically related to the development of corporate pressure in the Province of Ontario, to the development of the all-powerful executive.

I say this very advisedly, and those who want to read it can easily read it because the whole transcript of the trial of Lucky Williams, the whole transcript of the trial of Stephen Ward are available for anybody who wants to read them. Within hours -- and I say hours; I don’t mean it wasn’t days -- the Court of Criminal Appeals in England in the most hasty exercise of their judicial opinion, and the Court of Criminal Appeals in England is something the Attorney General and I respect with their regard to the protection of the rights of individuals -- where was Lucky Williams?

He was out of prison; he was a free man again. Why? Because it touched upon the abuse of executive power. The authoritarian establishment moved in and they couldn’t for one single moment allow that man to remain in jail because there had been a miscarriage of justice.

I am not suggesting for one single moment that had there existed in England, which we all look to as an example of the system of justice we are talking about -- I am not suggesting for one moment that necessarily Lucky Williams, from the Caribbean Islands, would not have been released and the preferment would not have taken place. I am suggesting, Mr.

Speaker, that at least there was the opportunity for a group of citizens in England, and knowing England as we know England, we believe those persons would not have preferred that indictment against Lucky Williams and he would never have served the time in jail which he did serve. If there was ever a discreditable operation, it was the haste with which the Court of Criminal Appeals moved to quash that whole indictment and to release that man for the stabbing of, or the alleged stabbing, or attempted stabbing, of Christine Keeler.

Let’s not kid ourselves. That is what we are talking about in this bill. We are not talking about all the nice people in this assembly. We are not talking about people like this. We are talking about a basic element of the origins of the democratic process which is the grand jury. Do members think for one single moment that we in this party are going to stand here and allow the minister to substitute something called the visitation, which has something almost Anglo-Catholic about the way in which it is going to operate?

I am as good a Catholic, as good an Anglican, I may say, or as good an Anglo-Catholic as my friend the senior layman from the Niagara Peninsula may be, who is the Attorney General. Does he think for one moment that we are going to allow this to go through this assembly without dividing the assembly on the question of the abolition of the grand jury?

I like that nice little flick because the one thing the Attorney General doesn’t like is over-exposure in the course of his progress toward the leadership of the Conservative Party. We all know the Premier (Mr. Davis) is fighting his last hurrah. We know after 1975 we will still be here; he won’t be here, but somebody else will be and the low profile of the Attorney General is something which really bothers us.

We thought when he was going to be the Provincial Secretary for Justice and the Attorney General we would find there was some life and vitality left in that ministry. After all, he no longer sits down here; he is back up on the left hand. He is back up on the left hand but one of the Premier of the province. When is he going to show that he has any real concern about we are about in the province?

Mr. Speaker, I want to go back now to 1792, which isn’t so far from 1776.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Renwick: Oh, he is? He is very uncomfortable? I can understand that, yes. If the member for Timiskaming (Mr. Havrot) were here we could send him a Tum to quieten his stomach down, but --

Mr. Lewis: He is probably uncomfortable because it is hard for him to adapt to so late a period of the 18th century. He is more comfortable before 1066 with all that.

Mr. Renwick: My friend from Wentworth has a Tum; would the minister like one?

I want to say to the Attorney General, that this road --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Renwick: Oh, that’s fine. I understand the clown who sits two seats to the minister’s left at the present -- you know, Mr. Speaker, the Treasurer of Ontario -- who has created the financial disasters for the province, I want to protect this minister against that kind of disaster.

When we talk about the grand jury, I would suggest to the Attorney General that we cannot isolate ourselves from the United States of America with respect to the use and function of the grand jury.

I was talking about this matter to my friend, my colleague from Lakeshore, and we discussed many of these very esoteric -- yes, the other clown has come in to sit down three seats from his right.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I would suggest the hon. member concentrate on the principle of this bill.

Mr. Renwick: Yes, I am concentrating on it; all I want is the Attorney General to concentrate on it.

I had discussed this question with my colleague, the member for Lakeshore, because it raised serious problems with respect to the attitude of our party about the abolition of the grand jury.

Mr. Speaker, in the United States of America, despite the divergence of the traditions with respect to the administration of justice, the fact of the matter is that the political process in the United States is incapable of dealing with the abuse of executive power. I think that’s fair to say. There are too many conflicting political pressures acting upon the judicial process so far as the congress of the United States is concerned dealing with the abuse of political process.

The reason these matters are before judges such as Gesell and Sirica, and that in the ultimate analysis the justice of what will be done in the United States depends on those men; the only reason they are seized, in the terminology of the law, with the items which are before them is as a result of grand jury action.

Now does the Attorney General understand that; and does the House understand it? And will the public in the Province of Ontario ever understand it? It is not possible at this late date to resurrect the legislative assembly of the Province of Ontario as a court. We believe in the mythology that the court is the last resort, and that it is a court.

Mr. Speaker, if I may pick up where I ended off, it is ridiculous, as we as members of the select committee on the Ontario Hydro building found out last summer, to suggest for one moment that we would be other than ridiculous in reviving and resuscitating some theory that this particular chamber is capable of exercising a judicial function as a court.

This is no longer the high court of parliament. We have very little capacity to deal even with the most overt discourtesies to this assembly, and let’s forget about it. When I say to the Attorney General that this government is engaged in the concentration and the over-concentration of executive power, its members are no different from any other group of persons who have power to exercise.

I am one who believes in the supremacy of the legislative system and in the democratic process but if there is an abuse by the executive council of the Province of Ontario of its powers, the response will not be through this assembly. The response will be through the actions of citizens who are responding to a derogation of their rights. The way in which that will be dealt with will ultimately be through something called the grand jury.

The minister shakes his head because the minister doesn’t understand what’s happening in the world. Mr. Speaker, if I could engage his attention, apart from his partisan concern of what he’s about --

Hon. Mr. Welch: This is not a partisan issue.

Mr. Renwick: Yes, this is a partisan issue.

Hon. Mr. Welch: The member may debate it on that basis but when I stand up I’ll debate it as a matter of principle. It is not partisan.

Mr. Renwick: All right. I’ll accept the Attorney General’s word that we will debate this as a matter of principle.

I come back to the proposition of what is happening in the United States. The United States adopted the grand jury system from the way in which it was in the United Kingdom -- or in Great Britain or England -- in 1776. We adopted it as it was in 1792; he and I will agree there wasn’t all that much change. Okay? All right.

The only -- I shouldn’t say the only because one never knows where the answer to the abuse of executive power will come from -- one of the places it may very well come from is the grand jury. The minister says we will phase out the grand jury. The minister says, for the inspection of public institutions in which people are held against their will in our society, we will substitute for it this Public Institutions Visitation Act.

I simply say to the Attorney General, why destroy an institution with the background, the tradition and the viability of the grand jury? Truncated, disused; but there. Why prevent us from having that kind of an institution available to us? I don’t know what the course in England was but I suggest to the Attorney General that the case I referred to of Lucky Williams is a very good example. I would suggest there are many more in the United Kingdom which would give him pause before he gave way to the pressures from the professionalized community to abolish the grand jury.

We always like to think that somehow or other we are refining our institutions so they are more able to deal. But do the members know something? We don’t ever refine institutions. Institutions are basic; they are related to the community as such. Whenever anyone wants to refine an institution one can be sure there is someone who wants to take away power from somebody else and to achieve that kind of power themselves. There has not been a single occasion when it was otherwise.

This government, and it is persistent in moving against the jury system, draws off and then comes back with a different version of it; and it’s hidden in sections of the statute. What this government is engaged in is playing the games of the judiciary.

The judiciary don’t want the grand jury. The judiciary don’t want the petit jury. The judiciary don’t want the preliminary hearing. All of the protections which protect the individual citizen against the encroachment of the criminal law and of the statutory offence operations are involved in this immense professionalization which is involved in our system of justice.

Our system of justice is not based on that. The minister, if he will relax and think about it, knows very well the great merit of our system of justice has to do with the existence of the jury system, both in civil trials and in criminal trials and in the grand jury system of presentment.

If anybody reads the truncation which has taken place of the grand jury he will understand what I’m talking about. In our world, we happen to think of the grand jury as only related to the presentment of citizens with respect to criminal offences on indictment. I think that’s fair; that’s by and large what takes place. Then there is this sort of roving commission which they have to go on, sporadically, erratically and without very much professional competence, to look at the institutions in which the citizens are incarcerated in the Province of Ontario; and of course to the extent that the grand jury exists in other provinces in those provinces.

Does the minister understand that the origin of the grand jury was involved in the presentment of people, in a much more effective way, dealing with matters related to local government; dealing with matters related to pollution abatement; dealing with matters related to nuisance; dealing with all sorts of matters? I’m not suggesting for one moment that we resuscitate the grand jury in all its full force and splendour. I think there’s a very real balance to be achieved, but let us not suggest for one moment that he can abolish in the Province of Ontario one of the basic institutions of our democratic system without affecting the viability of that democratic system.

I’m saying to the minister, Mr. Speaker -- I’m delighted I’ve now got his attention on what we’re talking about -- without Judge Sirica and without Judge Gesell in the United States at the present time -- and I’m not prejudging the issue; I’m talking about the judicial process in the United States -- without them there would be no satisfactory resolution of the problem of the abuse of the executive authority as against the citizen. The reason they have a handle on the system is because of the vitality of the grand jury system.

The minister and I may criticize the United States in many ways but if he analyses that process which is taking place -- whether we agree or disagree with what took place in the break-in at the psychiatrist’s office for -- what was his name?

An hon. member: Ellsberg.

Mr. Renwick: -- in the Ellsberg case -- whether he and I agree or disagree about the merits of that, it is going to be resolved and the decisions are going to be made with respect to the viability of that judicial process, and that originated in the grand jury.

It is no longer possible for us in Canada, let alone us in the Province of Ontario, to suggest for one single moment that we dare abolish the grand jury. The grand jury in the Province of Ontario, regardless of the statutory limitations upon it, has a certain vitality of its own; has a certain relationship to the cultural, legal tradition of the Province of Ontario which is of immense importance.

It’s not a question of tidying up a legal system. A legal system is never tidied up. The vitality of a legal system depends upon it never being tidied up. It depends entirely upon something called a body of sworn citizens who are required to discharge certain defined obligations.

And some of those defined obligations are the presentment of citizens with respect to indictments. Some of them are related to the question of whether or not the Law Reform Commission and the Criminal Code is going to abolish the preliminary inquiry, with respect to whether or not persons stand trial. And some of the matters are related to the visitation of institutions.

I’m not suggesting for one single moment that the grand juries have not performed their functions in the Province of Ontario up to now, but there may very well be such a great vitality left in that institution that I will not allow it, and my colleagues in this party will not allow this government to pass that kind of legislation which will abolish it. And that’s what this government is about.

You cannot subject the visitation of public institutions in which citizens of this province are held to something called the executive authority, or the authority given to the judiciary.

I know, and I share with the Provincial Secretary for Justice and the Attorney General, a very real regard for the judicial system of the province. The provincial court system -- sure, there are immense improvements which can be made with respect to its efficiency. I share an immense regard with respect to the way in which the county court judges deal in the matter of the county court judges criminal court and the session of voyez and terminae or jail delivery, which we’re all involved in.

I share with the Attorney General the immense regard which I have for the Supreme Court of Ontario, with respect to its dealing with criminal cases which come before it. I share with the Attorney General the knowledge of the scrupulous care with which the Ontario Court of Appeal deals with the criminal appeals which come before it. I share with the Attorney General my respect for the Supreme Court of Canada, with respect to the questions relating to criminal matters which come before it; also other matters related to the deprivation of the civil liberties of the people in the Province of Ontario.

That does not alter for one single moment my recommendation to the minister that he cannot do away with the origin of the system upon which all of those judges exercise their decisions. And when you come right back down to it, it is the grand jury. Sure there are certain cases in the Criminal Code which are the exclusive jurisdiction of the provincial judges, and there are exclusive jurisdictions about which indictable and non-indictable offenses will go forward for presentment and so on. I don’t pretend to be an expert on it.

But does the Attorney General understand that you cannot take away the fundamental base of our judicial system, with respect to the criminal law of the province, the criminal law of Canada -- which it is, of course, because that’s the jurisdiction in which it’s effected -- without altering the process by which justice is done in the province, by which justice is done in Canada.

How can we possibly take away the cornerstone of that system without affecting the ultimate working out of the system? Mr. Speaker, I used earlier in the evening -- and I wish I had it with me so I could read it to you; but I can’t find it. I wish I could read to you the case of Lucky Williams. You can’t pretend for one single moment that if there had been a grand jury in the United Kingdom at the time that that preferment of that indictment was made, in all likelihood that man would have gone free.

And why did he go free? He went free because of an abuse of the executive power in the United Kingdom. We all know because as everybody else knows -- I forget the cabinet minister who lost his seat --

Mr. F. Drea (Scarborough Centre): What, in the United Kingdom?

Mr. Renwick: In the United Kingdom; and the fact of the matter is that the Macmillan government came down to defeat because of that particular scandal.

Some hon. members: Profumo.

Mr. Renwick: The Profumo case, yes. That’s right.

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): It has nothing to do with the grand jury at all.

Mr. Renwick: Oh, I can well understand that my friend from Downsview, who is a devout follower of Bentham and John Stuart Mill and Austin, would never understand the vitality of the grand jury.

Mr. Singer: Not under this system of law anyway.

Mr. Renwick: All right. This is one of the few evenings when I am not going to allow myself the luxury of distraction by the member for Downsview.

Mr. Singer: Oh dear; I am hurt.

Mr. Renwick: I am saying to the minister, and I am saying very clearly to him, that part of the fallout of the abuse of the executive power in the government of Great Britain which brought about the downfall of the Macmillan government was the abuse by Profumo of his responsibilities as a minister of state, which brought into court various persons, including Stephen Ward who committed suicide. And antedating back by far, but part of that fallout, was a man named Lucky Williams who was sentenced to jail and was released immediately afterwards by the court of criminal appeal.

In my judgement -- and these are always matters of judgement -- he would not have gone to jail had there been a grand jury system in effect in the United Kingdom.

Now, I have said that three or four times, but I think it must be said three or four times, because the Juries Act, 1974, sounds very innocuous. The Tory government is introducing the updating of a bill related to the jury system in the Province of Ontario and saying this immense gradualism couldn’t possibly affect anybody. Then somewhere toward the end of it we find that for practical purposes they are redoing institutions in the Province of Ontario which they, as Tories, should never touch.

I am simply saying again -- and I guess I would like to think that repetition would have some effect -- I am saying that what happens in the United States should be a lesson to us that the abuse of executive power in the United States is going to be curtailed and curbed only because of the judicial process, and the judicial process can only operate in the United States because of the existence of the kind of grand jury which they brought into their constitution in 1776 and that we brought into our constitution in 1792.

I simply say that we in this party will continue to fight against any so-called erosion of the jury system -- petit jury, as was attempted by his predecessor, the former Attorney General, the former member for Sault Ste. Marie; or of the grand jury as attempted now -- because it is an illegitimate intrusion on the democratic process by the democratic process by the executive branch of the government, aided and abetted by the judicial branch of the government, aided and abetted by those sycophants who play in that particular system -- members of my profession who support that.

I have not heard one single voice from the Law Society of Upper Canada; I have not heard one single voice from the Canadian Bar Association; I have not heard one single voice from the Advocates’ Society -- although they can spend a great deal of time on Sir William Campbell’s house just outside the Canada Life Assurance building in downtown Toronto -- I haven’t heard a single voice raised by a law professor in any one of the law schools of the Province of Ontario; I haven’t heard a single voice raised in any one of the courses in political science in the Province of Ontario --

Mr. Singer: The member doesn’t listen very well.

Mr. Renwick: -- about the abolition of the grand jury. I listen.

Mr. Singer: Not very well.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Not as well as he talks.

Mr. Renwick: All right. It’s very nice of the member for Downsview to come back into the House. If he has other views to express, that’s very fine.

Mr. Singer: I missed the member earlier in the evening.

Mr. Renwick: I am simply saying to the Attorney General of the Province of Ontario that if he persists in this bill, he is creating an immense void in the democratic process as we understand it.

The member for Downsview may have better evidence than I. I would like to see tabled in this Legislature all of the correspondence or other articles which have been levied against the abolition of the grand jury.

There is an immense conspiracy to eliminate the jury system in the Province of Ontario. There is a continuing conspiracy always very paternalistically clothed, always very attractively disguised -- to reinstate the Family Compact as opposed to the democratic system in which we, in this party, believe.

I am saying to the minister, if he has any sense about what we are about, about what the people in the Province of Ontario are about, he will not proceed with this bill at this time.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Downsview.

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with some very fascinated interest to the latter remarks of the hon. member for Riverdale and as usual he waxes eloquent. He draws his parallels and as his witness, non-comparables.

He talks about Judge Sirica and the wonders of what goes on in the United States, and he knows as well as we all know, Mr. Speaker, that he’s comparing apples to oranges. Any similarity between the grand jury system and its inquisitorial functions and its ability to gather evidence to our system is not even coincidental. It just doesn’t exist.

The member for Riverdale waxes eloquent, as he usually does, and I have great respect for his intellect, but he was waxing eloquent just in the last few moments saying he has never heard any objection. I ask him, Mr. Speaker, where he has been for the last 10 or 12 or 15 years because this proposition -- the abandonment of the grand jury system here in the Province of Ontario -- has been put forward vociferously in this House for at least that period time, and he and his colleagues have joined in it.

Mr. Lewis: No, they haven’t.

Mr. Singer: Oh, yes. Well, I am glad that the leader of the NDP joined in here, because I have in my hand --

Mr. Lewis: No, they haven’t.

Mr. Singer: -- Hansard for June 18 when the bill was introduced, actually when the minister gave his statement, and on page 3300 -- no, I am sorry, 3360 -- the minister was saying:

“The bill also abolishes the grand jury -- thus implementing a recommendation made by the Ontario Law Reform Commission in its report on the administration of the courts.

“Mr. Singer: Some of us have been advocating that for over 10 years.

“Mr. Lewis: About time.”

Now, it’s very interesting, it’s very interesting -- and I only read it as it is written.

Mr. Lewis: Just a second now. On a point of privilege --

Mr. J. P. Spence (Kent): Caught in his own trap.

Mr. Lewis: No, as a matter of fact, I am not caught in my trap because I noticed that in Hansard at the time and wondered about it.

Mr. Singer: Yes.

Mr. Lewis: My reference to “about time” referred to the paragraph preceding, about the excusal of people from jury duty.

Mr. Singer: Oh, come on.

Mr. Lewis: Well, I realize that it appeared in lousy juxtaposition to what the member had said, but I recall listening to what the Attorney General had said about jury duty at the time and muttering that afterwards.

Mr. Breithaupt: What trouble his biographer is going to have.

Mr. Singer: It’s a strange coincidence, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. leader of the NDP was so careless --

Mr. Lewis: Very aggravating.

Mr. Singer: -- because he is one who guards so carefully the printed word as it reflects his thoughts.

Mr. Lewis: As a rule I do, yes.

Mr. Singer: It’s strange that when he gets caught out, he has another explanation. Well, let’s read a little further.

The Attorney General went on and the other interjection that’s there during the Attorney General’s remarks comes from the hon. member for Lakeshore.

Mr. Lewis: He just spoke against the bill.

Mr. Singer: No, I listened carefully and I got a very good report about what the hon. member for Lakeshore said. I was assured by my colleagues, whose word I trust and accept --

Mr. Lawlor: The member is a darn sight more clever than I am.

Mr. Singer: -- that the hon. member for Lakeshore made a very interesting speech and straddled the fence completely. When he sat down he said, “I left it open to you, member for Riverdale, as to which way you want to go.”

Mr. R. F. Nixon: “We could go either way.”

Mr. Singer: Yes. “We could go either way.” It is interesting to read the interjections --

Mr. Lewis: I didn’t hear him say that.

Mr. Lawlor: Mr. Speaker, I knew my colleague had some misgivings.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: He spoke about the bill. He didn’t speak for or against it.

Mr. Singer: It is very interesting to read the interjection made by the hon. member for Lakeshore which does something less than criticize the principle the Attorney General had just introduced.

Mr. Lawlor: I think I came down on the whole against it.

Mr. Singer: The hon. member for Lakeshore is quoted on the same page of Hansard as saying, “Stanfield is a grand jury man, you know.”

Mr. Lawlor: The trouble in this House, Mr. Speaker, is one can’t even try to be intelligent.

Mr. Singer: That hardly indicated violent animosity to the principle of the bill.

Mr. Lawlor: One has to be a partisan, damn fool all the time. Take a look at the member.

Mr. Singer: In case the hon. member for Lakeshore lost the context I will repeat it. At the bottom of page 3360 these words are attributed to the hon. member for Lakeshore.

Mr. Lawlor: One can even find worse words than that. Look at the estimates.

Mr. Singer: No, I don’t want to quote him out of context. I want to quote him completely, fairly and these are the words attributed to the hon. member.

Mr. Lawlor: The member has no --

Mr. Lewis: For 11 years, God help me, I have never spoken against the grand jury.

Mr. Singer: I don’t know why they are so concerned about my quoting their own words back to them, Mr. Speaker. These are their comments and if Hansard is wrong -- and occasionally it is wrong -- they should have stood in their place on a point of privilege and corrected it. However, this is what Hansard attributes to the hon. member for Lakeshore.

Mr. Lawlor: This is part of the dialectic of history. It appears to be a contradiction; it is not really so.

Mr. Lewis: As a matter of fact, that is exactly right, Mr. Speaker. In fact it is an Hegelian dialectic there.

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, when the House is quiet again I will read the words attributed to the hon. member for Lakeshore.

Mr. Breithaupt: The consommé has become vegetable.

Mr. Singer: This is what Hansard says at that page: “Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): ‘Stanfield is a grand jury man, you know.’”

Mr. Lewis: He was just ridiculing Stanfield, for heaven’s sake.

Mr. Singer: That is right, Mr. Speaker, I am only a simple man and I don’t attach great hidden meanings to these things but one would have thought, having known the hon, member for Lakeshore for many years, that if he had violent exception to the new principle being introduced by the Attorney General he would have done something other than to quote Stanfield as the person whose view might have been favoured. Obviously one must conclude, knowing the hon. member for Lakeshore as I do and most of us do, that he was in agreement with what the Attorney General said.

Mr. Lawlor: The Liberals spend most of their time attacking men of straw, including Stanfield.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Singer: Now, suffice that for the day. The leader of the NDP and the member for Lakeshore at the time the minister made his statement seemed to accept the principle he introduced.

Mr. Lawlor: Why doesn’t the member stay on something like the principle of the bill?

Mr. Singer: I accept that, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Singer: I think it is an advance in our legal system, I don’t think the continuation of the grand jury system adds anything to our system of justice. The member for Riverdale can wax as eloquent as he wants about what Judge Sirica might or might not have done. If we want to have a debate about Judge Sirica at some time, I think that would be a very enjoyable thing. There are a lot of people, including some of the very fine writers who write for the New York Times, who question what Judge Sirica has done from time to time --

Mr. Lewis: Shame.

Mr. Singer: -- about his use of various vehicles of the system of administration of justice in the United States to produce what some people suggest is a preconceived result; and to use people and to use plea bargaining and a whole variety of things, including the weapons of the grand jury, to get confessions, to get people who are charged to give evidence one against the other.

Mr. Lewis: Sirica is the only good thing about the administration of justice, for heaven’s sake.

Mr. Singer: This situation does not prevail in Canada, does not prevail in Ontario and that brings us back to the point that the Attorney General is now introducing.

Mr. Lewis: It does prevail in a perverse sort of way.

Mr. Singer: As I say, I have advocated this idea for at least 10 years, probably 12 years, in this House. I have advocated this with the concurrence of my colleagues; with the concurrence of many members of the bar; with the concurrence of many members of the teaching and legal profession, and now obviously with the concurrence of the Law Reform Commission.

I think what we are doing is an advance. I don’t think the grand jury performs a useful function. It is a vehicle whereby the Crown attorney can come before a selected group of people and present his evidence out of the presence of the accused and out of the presence of the accused’s solicitor. What goes on in the closed room where the grand jury sits is a mystery. The number of times the grand jury chooses to ignore the recommendation of the Crown is minimal. The fact that it takes place behind closed doors makes it suspect to me. I think it is well gone and it should have been long gone. My colleagues and I will support this principle in this bill.

Mr. Speaker: Do any other members wish to address themselves to this bill? If not, the hon. Attorney General.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I think it is fairly significant to draw the attention of the House to the fact that this debate is a very important debate. I have appreciated it very much that members from both parties have seen fit to enter the debate and to talk in terms of the principle of this bill in the detail they have.

I would like quietly to point out, simply as a matter of personal interest, that the member for Riverdale, who seemed to be somewhat concerned about the facial expressions of the Attorney General and his gestures and who was concerned with respect to the lack of attention or the degree of attention his remarks were given, is not even in the House right now to hear the response of the minister.

Mr. Deans: He was called out to make a phone call.

Hon. Mr. Welch: I can only say that one can only question his sincerity in raising all these questions with respect to the bill.

Mr. Lawlor: Come off it!

Hon. Mr. Welch: Notwithstanding the fact that he is not here, may I --

Mr. Deans: Considering the minister drops around one day a week, he has a hell of a nerve.

Hon. Mr. Welch: -- reply to the comments that have been made with respect to this legislation?

In the first place, the member for Windsor-Walkerville raises a fairly important question with respect to the adequacy of compensation to jurors, which is not the subject matter of the bill but is a concern to the Attorney General, as it is to the Solicitor General (Mr. Kerr) with respect to coroners. I can assure him that the Justice policy field is giving some consideration to this matter as we prepare certain considerations for our cabinet colleagues in this regard.

The member for Lakeshore quite properly raises some question with respect to the activities of juries, insofar as viewing certain scenes and seeing certain physical locations with respect to the discharge of their responsibilities. I would point out that this is covered in the Judicature Act and would not be the subject matter for this particular type of legislation. I am particularly anxious to address myself very shortly to the principles quite properly brought before the House by the member for Riverdale and the comments made by the member for Kitchener and the member for Downsview, on this whole question as to the role and the place of the grand jury.

I do not take lightly the comments that have been made because I think they are very important. I would think that we should be very careful there is no misunderstanding with respect to this whole question of civil rights and the role of the grand jury. I think there is, as the member for Downsview points out, some misunderstanding about the role and the function of the grand jury in this jurisdiction.

I say to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the members of this House, all of whom I’m sure have listened to this debate with a considerable amount of interest, the grand jury in our system never was constituted to deal with the abuse of executive power. This Legislature, of which all members are a part, the member for Riverdale included, will recall that in 1971 we brought in the Judicial Review Procedure Act and the Statutory Powers Procedure Act to protect the rights of our people from such abuse.

The authority to deal with such abuse on the basis of this rests with our courts of law and not with a tribunal, as the member for Downsview so correctly points out -- not with a tribunal which conducts its proceedings in camera.

I think we would address our first comments to this question of the abuse of executive power. I would also point out in our system the grand jury has never been used as an investigative tool, as the member for Downsview has so rightly pointed out to the House. It has always been used to assess the weight of evidence and to ascertain whether a citizen should be placed on his trial. I repeat that we have never used a grand jury in this jurisdiction as an investigative body as it is used in the United States. And so, as the member for Downsview points out, to compare the systems is really not to do justice to the argument of the principle that is involved in this bill.

We leave this whole question of investigation to duly constituted police authorities. Indeed, if we wanted to go to some particular source to satisfy ourselves with respect to the question of civil rights in this province, we go to the Royal commission inquiry into civil rights, report No. 1, volume 2, which deals with the grand jury and which ultimately recommends its abolition.

I would think that any commission charged with the responsibility of protecting civil rights would have to be listened to with some particular care in this area of responsibility. Indeed, if you look at page 772 of the royal commission report, dealing as it does with a history of the grand jury, the commissioner points out that by the year 1351 the trial function of the grand jury had been transferred to a second jury, as we already know, known as the petit jury. And its investigative function, which it earlier may have had, gradually lapsed into disuse with the development of a system of public prosecution and the establishment of police forces.

Mr. Singer: Did a fellow named McRuer write that?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Yes. That’s the McRuer report on civil rights.

Mr. Singer: Yes. The member for Lakeshore is quite an advocate of that report.

Hon. Mr. Welch: We go into this and we find -- of course, I don’t wish to prolong this particular argument.

Mr. Lawlor: Oh come on, the member for Downsview has heard me say something else on occasion.

Hon. Mr. Welch: In 1933 the bill was introduced by the then Attorney General in England to abolish the grand juries in England, at which time he said:

“We all recognize that in this particular age we can’t afford to pay too high a price for sentiment; the conclusion is that grand juries are not serving any really useful purpose, and are at the same time very expensive.”

In Canada -- and I draw attention to

section 507 of the Criminal Code of Canada which supports this proposition -- grand juries were abolished in Manitoba in 1923, in British Columbia and Quebec in 1932, and in New Brunswick in 1959 --

Mr. Singer: We are a little slow in Ontario but eventually we catch up.

Hon. Mr. Welch: And so the report goes on -- and this is embodied in the Criminal Code. I certainly don’t feel there has been any great problems with respect to the abuse of powers; there being other methods and other ways to cope with that particular situation.

But particularly in the McRuer report on civil rights, he points out at page 781 that the system is open to criticism on the following grounds:

“1. It enables the private prosecutor to maintain a vexatious prosecution without the consent of the Attorney General.

“2. It is an unnecessary and unwarranted trespass on the time and convenience of witnesses, as well as causing them in many cases substantial economic loss.

“3. It is an unwarranted trespass on the time and convenience of members of the jury, as well as causing them in many cases economic loss; and it causes delay in getting criminal cases tried.”

So this particular statement from a very distinguished jurist, studying as he did the whole question of civil rights; supported later by the distinguished members of the Ontario Law Reform Commission, who set out in their reports --

Mr. Singer: The member for Riverdale never heard of any of that.

Hon. Mr. Welch: -- and who, in fact, recommended the abolition as well.

I want to underline, however, that I think a debate of this particular nature is very important, particularly in that we would understand the principle of this bill. I would want to say as the Attorney General, that I welcome the opportunity to listen to the views expressed by the members opposite and to perhaps have this further opportunity to underline the reasons based in principle as to why we would proceed in the way we are.

We are preserving -- as I pointed out at the time of the introduction of this bill and Bill 106 -- that function of the grand jury with respect to public inspection. This will be provided for, as I say, in Bill 106, being

an Act to provide for the inspection of public institutions by public visitation; which I am sure will look after the public interest. I would urge the members of the House to support Bill 105.

Mr. Speaker: The motion is for second reading of Bill 105.

The House divided on the motion for second reading of Bill 105, which was approved on the following vote:

Ayes

Nays

Beckett

Belanger

Bernier

Birch

Breithaupt

Brunelle

Bullbrook

Campbell

Deacon

Downer

Drea

Eaton

Evans

Ewen

Gilbertson

Good

Haggerty

Havrot

Henderson

Hodgson

(York North)

Irvine

Kennedy

Kerr

Lane

Lawrence

Leluk

MacBeth

Maeck

McIlveen

McNeil

Meen

Morningstar

Newman

(Windsor-Walkerville)

Nixon

(Dovercourt)

Nixon

(Brant)

Nuttall

Paterson

Riddell

Root

Rowe

Ruston

Scrivener

Singer

Smith

(Simcoe East)

Smith

(Hamilton Mountain)

Smith

(Nipissing)

Snow

Spence

Stewart

Taylor

Timbrell

Turner

Villeneuve

Walker

Wardle

Welch

White

Winkler -- 58.

Bounsall

Burr

Cassidy

Deans

Dukszta

Laughren

Lawlor

Lewis

Martel

Renwick

Young -- 11.

Clerk of the House: Mr. Speaker, the “ayes” are 58 and the “nays” 11.

Mr. Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

Mr. Speaker: Shall the bill be ordered for third reading? Committee of the whole House?

Agreed.

Clerk of the House: The second order, House in committee of the whole.

ONTARIO GUARANTEED ANNUAL INCOME ACT

House in committee on Bill 96,

An Act to ensure a Guaranteed Annual Income to Ontario Residents 65 Years of Age and Over.

Mr. Chairman: Bill 96. Any comments, questions or amendments: in any section; and if so, which section?

section 1:

Mrs. M. Campbell (St. George): Mr. Chairman, in

section 1, subsection (d), we have the basic monthly income formula spelled out. Could we now have the equivalent basic monthly income figures for those on FBA? I think this is the first matter which should concern us in this bill, since we’ve not had the opportunity to equate these figures with the figures of those who are disabled and blind, and it would be impossible for us to proceed to discuss these particular figures in the absence of that information. That is my first point, Mr. Chairman. I would like to have those figures.

Hon. R. Brunelle (Minister of Community and Social Services): Mr. Chairman, I’m really not sure if I understood the member’s question. The rates for GAINS and for those who are blind or permanently disabled will be the same.

Mrs. Campbell: They will be the same?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Yes.

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Chairman, I know of very few on disability pension who, as single persons, would receive $167.18 per month. Do I take it that under this GAINS programme those who are disabled and who have been receiving $137 per month would now be increased to $216.67 under this formula?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Chairman, I haven’t got the figures before me, but about 30,000 persons who are now under the Family Benefits Act will be transferred to the GAINS programme and will be receiving the amount of $217.67 per month.

Mrs. Campbell: Thank you.

Mr. Chairman: On this particular point?

Mrs. Campbell: I am addressing myself at the moment, Mr. Chairman, to

section 1(d)(i). I was hoping to follow the formula through in each case, Mr. Chairman. However, if someone else wishes to speak on that particular point --

Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): Go ahead.

Mr. Chairman: I think it is in order for the hon. member for St. George to proceed.

Mrs. Campbell: We arrive at the position of the beneficiary, and that would be the FBA beneficiary, who is married to a person entitled, I presume. Would that mean that the eligibility in that case for each of them would be the same as in this bill? To start with, do we have a degree of disability?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Chairman, the definition for disability is that you are disabled if you have a major physical or mental handicap that severely limits you in carrying out your normal living activities. Your handicap must be permanent; if you have a temporary disability that prevents you from earning your living, you may be able to get general welfare assistance.

Your question of disability, of course, has to be approved by the medical advisory board. This is a committee appointed by the Minister of Community and Social Services, and has as its chairman a qualified medical practitioner.

It’s quite true, Mr. Chairman, that there are a certain number of those who are classified as permanently unemployable. Last year, I believe, you will recall that we transferred about 8,000 to 9,000 persons from the General Welfare Assistance Act to the Family Benefits Act. A certain number of those permanently unemployable persons in time will be transferred to the GAINS programme; but this should take several weeks before some of them will be transferred.

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Chairman, the reason for this interrogation is that in committee, when the minister did not know the effect of GAINS, he said that each case would have to be examined individually. In view of the fact that this programme has been announced to take effect as of July 1, it is incumbent upon us at least to know exactly what the procedure will be and how it will be affected by the formula spelled out in the bill before us.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Chairman, I now have fairly exact figures on the number who are presently under the Family Benefits Act and who will be transferred to the GAINS programme on July 1:

DISABLED PERSONS

Single persons ........................................ 24,880

Married persons ...................................... 2,670

------------

Total ...................................................... 27,550

BLIND PERSONS

Single blind persons ................................. 810

Married blind persons ............................... 90

------------

Total ...................................................... 900

DEPENDENT FATHERS

Disabled dependent fathers ........................ 3,200

Blind dependent fathers ............................. 100

------------

Total ........................................................ 3,300

Then there is an estimate of mothers of 1,500.

Added up, Mr. Chairman, these make an estimated total of 33,250 who are presently under the Family Benefits Act and who will come under the GAINS programme.

Under the permanently unemployable, there are probably somewhere around 10,000 persons who are presently receiving family benefits. Out of that 10,000 there will be a certain number whose cases in time will have to be examined individually. For instance, there may be some persons who have some sort of disability and are permanently unemployable due to social or slightly mental disorders. They will have to be examined individually in order to qualify for our qualifications. Our qualifications of eligibility as announced are:

“Disabled or blind persons who are not currently eligible for family benefits, but whose income falls below the new levels, may be eligible if they meet the following requirements: Degree of disability [Under degree of disability there will be certain numbers who will have to be examined individually]; liquid assets test.”

I would like to speak briefly on that. As the hon. members know, at the present, liquid assets allowed under our family benefits are, for a single person $1,000; for a married couple $1,500; and for the children, for the first dependant, I believe, $300 each. We are raising that for a single person to $2,000; a married couple $2,500; and then the dependants $500 for the first child and then $300 for the others. We think that the raising of the assets will be of substantial benefit.

As you know, we get the GIS list from Ottawa of the groups who are 65 years of age or over; we get the list from Ottawa and they are on an income test basis. It is our hope that in time that for those who are under 65, the blind and the permanently disabled, we will also go to an income test.

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): The wealthiest province in Canada and you are always saying “in time.”

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Well, in order to have this effective as of July 1, we had to do it this way.

Mr. Renwick: Stop setting the objections and set the pace.

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Chairman --

Mr. Lewis: Sorry, I will only take a moment.

Mr. Chairman: All right, the hon. member for Scarborough West.

Mr. Lewis: I want to understand something, since this has been opened up, which has been confusing me mightily. You said you had 24,880 people, if I caught your figures correctly, who are receiving single disabled pensions.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: That’s right.

Mr. Lewis: And of those, I presume, 10,000 of them are permanently unemployable?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Chairman, I’d like to clarify that. This list that I read out a little while ago, of single persons permanently disabled -- 24,880 who are presently receiving family benefits -- automatically they will be under the GAINS programme as of July 1.

Mr. Lewis: They reach the $217 level?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: That’s right, exactly.

Mr. Lewis: Okay.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: It’s that category -- and I’m just estimating, Mr. Chairman -- of about 10,000 who are permanently unemployable --

Mr. Lewis: I see.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: -- but who are not physically disabled.

Mr. Lewis: I understand. So that 24,880 are permanently physically disabled and require raising immediately to $217?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: That’s right.

Mr. Lewis: I want you to explain something to me, and perhaps to the House. I hold no brief for what was announced in the Legislature as a minimum monthly income for those who are on pension from the Workmen’s Compensation Board. I want you to explain to me how a single person, permanently disabled, unable to find employment, under this programme gets $217 a month; and a single person, permanently disabled, unable to find employment, gets $260 under the Workmen’s Compensation programme as a minimum income.

I want you to explain to me how we create categories of people in Ontario whose disabilities are similar, whose removal from the work force is identical, whose inability to function is permanent, and because some happen to have been injured in one way we will pay them only $217 a month, and because others have been injured in another way we will pay them $260 a month --

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): Both of which are inadequate.

Mr. Lewis: Both of which are preposterous sums, inadequate sums; but leave that aside. So that the people who happen by accident, and in this case, unhappily, to fall within your GAINS programme will be receiving $516 less per year than the people who are permanently disabled under the workmen’s compensation plan.

Explain to me the justice, the sanity, the rationale for penalizing 24,880 people even to that extent. For these people $516 a year is a hell of a lot of money. I want to know why you have this perverse double standard for people who are in identical positions.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Chairman, I’d like to make a couple of comments on what the hon, member has raised. First, I’d like to say to him that the amount of GAINS, which is $217.67, plus the tax credit, comes to an average of about $260 a month.

Mr. Lewis: No, that’s a red herring.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Let me finish --

Mr. Lewis: All right. I’ll come right back to that.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: With the tax credit it comes to about $260.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: I agree with the hon. member that the programme has to be rationalized.

Mr. Lewis: Of course.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: That’s why we have an income security review. I agree with the hon. member that a person who breaks a leg at work, and has workmen’s compensation coverage, gets a certain amount of benefits. But as soon as he leaves work and comes to his home and falls down the steps, he is not covered by workmen’s compensation.

Mr. Lewis: That’s right.

Mr. Deans: It is right and it’s wrong.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: He still has the same number of dependants, the same number of children, and his expenses are the same.

Mr. Lewis: That’s right.

Mr. Deans: He qualifies for unemployment insurance --

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: That’s why the member for Scarborough Centre (Mr. Drea) and all the rest of us are working towards having a more rational system.

Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbury East): We’d better bring in the New Zealand plan then.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: We agree there are many areas that have to be rationalized.

Mr. Lewis: Okay. I am glad you agree.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Lewis: Let me respond to you by pointing out that because these permanently disabled people are not over 65, they are under family benefits; therefore, the Workmen’s Compensation Board recipients are also eligible for the tax credit. So the tax credit is a red herring. They are both eligible for it. It therefore rules itself out, and you have to agree with that.

What we are really talking about is the incredible situation that you have now established of setting a minimum monthly income for people who are in identical circumstances, at one point $217 a month and at another level $260 a month. And you have just said that they have the same dependants, that they have the same needs and that their families require the same supports. How in heaven’s name can it be justified or defended that you give one group $516 a year less?

What I am saying to you is, that if you are serious about a minimum monthly income, then you should raise everyone to the $260 minimum that you are in the process of legislating for permanently disabled people under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. The points you make are right: Whether you are disabled on the job or off the job, you are a human being; your needs are identical. Don’t think for one moment that we credit the $260 as a legitimate figure. But if that is not a legitimate figure, how illegitimate is $217?

Why should these 24,880 people be discriminated against in this way? It’s not a small matter; it’s a serious matter. It’s kind of a class system within dependency. You are rating dependency. If you are injured off the job, you have had it; you get $217. If you are injured on the job, you may get $260. It’s an accident of fate whether or not you are entitled to a minimum income that is less than low.

I tell you, it’s mean, it’s perverse and it’s essentially nasty against those whom it’s directed. For goodness’ sake, the contradiction of it is really quite dramatic. You are bringing both bills in simultaneously. The Minister of Labour (Mr. MacBeth) will be bringing in his bill tomorrow or Thursday. This bill is being debated tonight. In one you establish a standard $43 a month below the other for people in an identical situation. I say to you it’s indefensible.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Chairman, briefly --

Mr. J. E. Bullbrook (Sarnia): The situations aren’t identical.

Mr. Lewis: Yes, they are.

Mr. Bullbrook: No, they aren’t.

Mr. Lewis: Yes, they are.

Mr. Bullbrook: No, no.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: The hon. member knows that the benefits under the Workmen’s Compensation Act --

Mr. Bullbrook: You say we should pay for the first situation.

Mr. Lewis: Yes, but the amounts should be the same.

Mr. Bullbrook: No, no.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. The hon. minister has the floor.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: The benefits under WCBO are based on the employer-employee relationship. That’s entirely different.

Mr. Renwick: Oh, nonsense.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Now the hon. Treasurer (Mr. White), who is much more knowledgeable and who speaks much more eloquently, has stated before --

Mr. Bullbrook: What do you mean, we should pay for it? Because industry should pay for it.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: -- that this is a really positive step, and we agree.

Mr. Renwick: It is not a positive step.

An hon. member: Sure it is.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: At the same time, there is an income security review; the whole question of income security is under review. But this again, Mr. Chairman, is a really positive step.

Mr. Bullbrook: That is trying to equate the responsibility on society.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: This GAINS programme is a good programme, and I am sure that the members wil favour it.

Mr. Lewis: No, as a matter of fact --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Renwick: You can always count on applause when you are under attack. It’s only when you are wrong --

Mr. Lewis: I’ll try to keep on the subject that was raised by the member for St. George in opening up this area. If one argues that the money which we tithe industry for in order to pay for workmen’s compensation --

Mr. Bullbrook: Now you are talking sense.

Mr. Lewis: Yes, I understand that --

Mr. Bullbrook: There is a difference.

Mr. Lewis: Yes, there is.

Mr. Bullbrook: Sure, there is a difference.

Mr. Lewis: It is a difference in the method of payment.

Mr. Bullbrook: There is a difference to the --

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Lewis: And it may be. And it may be.

Mr. Bullbrook: Industry doesn’t pay it now.

Mr. Lewis: No, no. Please don’t attribute that to me. I am not saying that. No, no, no. No, I am not. Now let me say what I said.

Mr. Bullbrook: You do when you equate them.

Mr. Lewis: If industry, by virtue of the way in which you take money from companies dealing with the Workmen’s Compensation Board --

Mr. Bullbrook: Yes, right.

Mr. Lewis: -- pays ultimately higher levels based upon the earnings of the individual involved at a given time, those are some of the things we have to cope with in Ontario.

Mr. Bullbrook: If you want --

Mr. Lewis: But don’t tell me that the minimum should be different.

Mr. Bullbrook: If you want to --

Mr. Lewis: No, I am not equating that responsibility with society.

Mr. Bullbrook: Well, try to bring them together.

Mr. Lewis: Because the minimum should be the same. The minimum should be the same.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Bullbrook: They are two different things.

An hon. member: Boy, we sure have two classes of people.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Lewis: I mean it is recognizable that if we had an appropriate workmen’s compensation scheme, some of the levels of income which were paid would clearly be higher, because industry wouldn’t get away with murder. All right?

Mr. Bullbrook: Exactly.

Mr. Lewis: But that doesn’t justify the difference in the minimums. I am talking about the minimum monthly income. And you don’t introduce a minimum monthly income for the permanently disabled on Thursday, which is one level, and then introduce a minimum monthly income for the permanently disabled on Friday, which is another level. You set your minimum at a base level which is adequate for everyone to function on. If you pay more ultimately to workmen’s compensation recipients, obviously that’s legitimate.

As a matter of fact, the whole blessed system should be scrapped and you should have a public insurance plan for sickness and disability, whether on or off the job, which pays people an appropriate wage or pension at the point of injury or sickness -- and we will get rid of this whole nonsense of the Workmen’s Compensation Board and this kind of legislation.

But there’s something invidious in the difference in minima. I understand the point that’s being made in terms of how much more companies can pay than the state can pay. I appreciate that. But the minima should be the same, and the minima here are $516 a year less for those who are on the GAINS programme.

Mr. Bullbrook: Are you saying industry should be obliged to pay the same as the state --

Mr. Lewis: I am saying that the state should be obliged to pay the minima. I am saying the state should be obliged to pay the minima.

Interjections by an hon. member.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. Treasurer. Order, please. Order, please.

Hon. J. White (Treasurer and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): There is a great deal of merit in the hon. member’s remarks. We have taken a very great step toward a more suitable minimum and a minimum which is more broadly applicable to large numbers of our citizens. I think the figure was mentioned of $137 being the allowance for a single disabled person. That is now going to about $217.

Now, for the first time, a person under the age of 65 who is blind or disabled gets the same minimum benefits as those over 65. We have therefore, at one and the same time, provided additional moneys to the blind and disabled and at the same time put them on the same footing as the older people who previously were getting a very great deal more in the way of support from the state.

This is only an important step toward rationalizing the entire system. It seems simple until one gets into the complexities and then one learns that it isn’t simple at all. The reason, in fact, that this bill was put into standing committee was so that experts of one kind or another could deal with the technicalities. I know that’s not the point at issue now, except to say that those who had the opportunity of attending the standing committee meetings will have some appreciation of the enormous complexity, mathematical and otherwise.

Why didn’t we move to oppose $260? We didn’t have the money, because to move to a full $260 would have cost us, I should think, another $100 million.

Mr. Lewis: Oh, come now.

Hon. Mr. White: Because we’re talking about 311,000 recipients. You see, we want to get these people under 65 on the same basis as those 65 and over. As my hon. friend has pointed out, there was a great discrepancy previously. Now that discrepancy has been removed and we can reach for a rationalization of certain other programmes, including, I have no doubt, workmen’s compensation.

From an ethical standpoint, there’s no doubt but what this minimum should go right across the board.

Mr. Lewis: That’s right. Well, an ethical standpoint --

Hon. Mr. White: And this bill takes the largest step toward that objective, I dare say, of any legislation here in a generation or more.

Mr. Lewis: Okay. But I want to point out to you, don’t throw $100 million figures about quite so loosely. I accept what you say -- from an ethical standpoint it should be the same right across the board. It’s easy for you to say to us, “We don’t have the money.” It’s pretty hard to explain to somebody on GAINS why they’re receiving $43 a month less than the ethical view which you believe should obtain. We’re paying $65 million for this programme, and that includes all of those over the age of 65. If you subtract all of those over the age of 65 from this programme, which occupies the biggest percentage of the $65 million, then you’re probably down to --

Mr. L. C. Henderson (Lambton): Like the federal leader of the New Democrats?

Mr. Lewis: -- $15 million or $20 million for the disabled portion that we are talking about, and I want to remind you that that is under the Canada Assistance Plan, where it is a cost-sharing programme where we would receive 50 per cent back from the federal government, so we are not talking about $100 million; we are probably talking about something in the vicinity of $10 million to $20 million maximum, and I tell you, considering the way you throw around money for projects like Krauss-Maffei, it’s time you understood that the ethical standards you pretend to observe should obtain for these 24,000 people.

Mr. E. M. Havrot (Timiskaming): You have got to look after Saskatchewan.

Hon. Mr. White: Well, I would be glad to try to get this figure computed, but --

Mr. Lewis: I would appreciate your doing so.

Hon. Mr. White: -- if one is trying to increase from $217 to $260, which is an increase --

Mr. Deans: It would cost $14 to $16 million.

Mr. Lewis: It would cost $14 million to $16 million, my colleague from Wentworth says. That’s $14 million to $16 million in total.

Hon. Mr. White: -- of $43, and having in mind that there would be some sliding off, I suppose the average might be approximately $25. I guess the amount of money involved is $25 times 12, times 11,000. We can try to work that out now and I’ll --

Mr. Lewis: That is not the figure --

Mr. Deans: You are talking about 27,000 people --

Hon. Mr. White: No, I am talking about having the disabled on the same basis as the elderly for the first time in this province.

Mr. Deans: No, I am talking about disabled on the same basis as all other --

Hon. Mr. White: I know you are.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Nipissing has the floor.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Lewis: Sixty-five million dollars for all of those on FBA.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Nipissing has the floor.

Mr. Lewis: -- yet $100 million for this category of the disabled. What nonsense is that?

Mr. R. S. Smith (Nipissing): Mr. Chairman, the point I would like to make is the fact that the people who are really being discriminated against in this whole thing are the permanently unemployed. The minister says that some of them are going to be reclassified as disabled, but the fact of the matter is that the permanently unemployed are going to remain at $157 or $167 per month for a single person. These people are usually under that category, because of their mental disabilities or their mental deficiencies.

It’s real discrimination, because people who are mentally disabled are going to receive an allowance far below those who are physically disabled. That’s why I call it discrimination, but I don’t know what the minister calls it. I would like him to explain to the House how they arrived at the fact that these 10,000 people would not receive the same benefits as those who are physically disabled.

Mr. Deans: I want to -- I am sorry, are you going to answer? Oh, I am sorry. I didn’t think he was getting up.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Chairman, the announcement of the provincial Treasurer in the budget was that the blind and the permanently handicapped persons who are permanently unemployable would be under the GAINS programme.

Mr. R. S. Smith: Well, they are not. The blind people are not included in the GAINS programme.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: That’s the definition of eligibility; physically handicapped and permanently unemployable. As I indicated earlier --

Mr. Renwick: Or permanently disabled.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Or permanently disabled. As I indicated earlier, the second category are permanently unemployable. These could be --

Mr. R. S. Smith: There are 10,000; many of them because of mental disabilities.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: -- for various reasons, for social problems and so forth. Some of these persons, as I said, will have to be looked at individually and some will come under the GAINS programme.

Mr. R. S. Smith: The whole 10,000 should come under the GAINS programme because obviously they are in a position where most of them cannot be employed because of their mental capabilities, and you know that as well as I. What you are doing is you are discriminating against those people, not in favour of, but as compared to those who are physically disabled. I thought we were past that in this province, that mental disability was a reason for discriminating against people. In effect this is what you are doing to most of those 10,000 people. You are asking them to live on $176 a month

whereas all the physically disabled are going to get $216.67.

I do not know what you call that except discrimination against the mentally disabled. Most of those people are in that category because they don’t have the mental capability to hold down permanent jobs and you know that as well as I. We had that discussion in the estimates for the past five years before you finally even recognized most of these people. Why those 10,000 people are not included in the GAINS programme is certainly beyond any comprehension I have.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Sudbury East.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Chairman, what also bothers me in dealing with the group my friend from Nipissing deals with is that many of them are in room and board situations. It is even more devastating than has been indicated here. I would suspect the overwhelming majority of that group get about $120 a month.

I tried, if you recall, during the estimates which have just finished to find out how many of the unemployables and so on were getting maximum benefits. I tried, for example, to find out during your estimates how many of the handicapped were on full benefits. I tried last year and I am still awaiting the reply.

The irony of it is that when those of us in the Legislature contact the ministry to find out how it is determined who is unemployable and who is disabled, the fine line that distinguishes being unemployable from being physically disabled has never been explained to me adequately enough. I can recall two or three years ago, when the change ultimately came, even your colleagues in the Tory backbenches questioned it because no one can get a handle on the determination of what is unemployable and what is disabled.

What’s the difference? If a man can’t go out and earn or if a man can’t support himself, what’s the difference? What’s the difference between unemployable and disabled? I wish somebody would explain it to me in language I can understand that there is a difference between when a man can’t get out and get a job and when he is disabled. What is that fine line which separates them? The second point I want from the minister is how many people --

Mr. Henderson: You will know after the next election.

Mr. Martel: You will never know what it is.

Mr. Lewis: Go down and drain some tiles.

Mr. Martel: Go downstairs and drain the think tank.

Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): Will the member for Lambton stop making moronic statements?

Mr. Martel: The press up there knows all about him. You are an expert at getting more than the disabled get, I can assure you.

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): You rip off more in a day on your sele