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

November 28, 1977

31st Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Hansard Transcripts

L062 - Mon 28 Nov 1977 / Lun 28 nov 1977

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

USE OF INFLUENCE

ORAL QUESTIONS

ACTIVITIES OF RCMP

USE OF INFLUENCE

RECOVERY OF HYDRO MONEY

AVIATION SAFETY

MINERAL EXPLORATION

DISABILITY ALLOWANCES

ATLAS STEEL

PIPE PRODUCTION

TEA AND COFFEE PRICING

REFORESTATION

PRICES AT HIGHWAY SERVICE CENTRES

ORDERS OF THE DAY

VILLAGE OF PORT MCNICOLL ACT

CITY OF OTTAWA ACT

CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLY

OFFICE OF THE PREMIER

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (CONCLUDED)

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AND COMMERCIAL RELATIONS

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

USE OF INFLUENCE

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, I have a statement to make in regard to my ministry and the administration of justice in this province. As you will recall, I tabled last Thursday a five-page memorandum from a senior official of my ministry in relation to Mr. Arthur Armstrong. I took this action in response to questions from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. S. Smith) and because I wanted members of the Legislature and the public to better appreciate the process by which certain decisions were made in this regard in the spring and early fall of 1975.

In response of this memorandum, the Leader of the Opposition has launched a most unfair and irresponsible attack on the administration of justice and the individuals involved in this matter. The Leader of the Opposition is reported in the Toronto Star of November 25, 1977 as stating that the Ministry of the Attorney General, and I quote, “obviously bent over backwards to find every conceivable reason not to lay a charge.”

That statement in my view represents an assault on the integrity of three senior law officers of the Crown and on the Ontario Provincial Police. I, therefore, cannot let it go unanswered. It further reveals a lamentable lack of understanding of the basic principles of a proper administration of justice.

Mr. Nixon: Do you think we have to agree with you?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: While it is perfectly legitimate for any member to question the competence of a minister or to debate the policies of the ministry for which he or she is responsible, it surely goes beyond the realm of political partisanship to question the integrity of public servants who are not in a position to respond.

Mr. Nixon: That’s nonsense. He was questioning your decision and none other.

Mr. S. Smith: I was questioning your judgement and I am entitled to do that.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: On page three of the memorandum which I tabled in this Legislature on Thursday last it clearly states that the investigating officer concluded he could not swear an oath that he had reasonable and probable grounds on which to lay a charge. In this province there is a long-established practice of leaving the question of whether a charge should or should not be laid to the discretion of the investigating officer who has interviewed the potential witnesses and assessed the available documentary evidence.

In exercising that discretion, the police officer is entitled to advice from Crown counsel on the law and the application of the law to the facts disclosed by the investigation, and that includes advice on the questions of whether the evidence is sufficient to lay a charge.

However, what must be made clear, and what the Leader of the Opposition seems to completely misunderstand, is that the ultimate decision to lay a charge or not lay a charge rests with the officer who conducted the investigation. Neither his superior officer nor Crown counsel advising him nor their superiors can order that officer to lay a charge or to not lay a charge.

In the Toronto Sun of the same date, the Leader of the Opposition also said of Mr. Armstrong, and I quote: “. . . without calling him guilty, he should be charged . . . I would have gone ahead and at least provided Mr. Armstrong with his day in court.” It would appear in the eyes of the Leader of the Opposition people should be brought before the criminal courts, even where there are no reasonable and probable grounds to believe that they have committed an offence, simply, and I quote, “to give him his day in court.”

Mr. S. Smith: Read the Criminal Code.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: This in my view indicates a very cavalier approach to the criminal process.

Mr. S. Smith: Utter nonsense.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, I want to assure you and responsible members opposite that the matter was investigated thoroughly by the police in the summer of 1975. The evidence was reviewed by senior officials of my ministry in September, 1975.

It was the determination of all those who examined this matter that a charge should not be laid.

In recent weeks, as I have already stated, the matter has been reviewed again. It is the unanimous opinion of those who have examined the files that it would not have been proper to lay charges in the circumstances.

As I indicated before, the Leader of the Opposition is welcome to debate the facts, but I say he has no right to impugn the integrity of senior Crown law officers and the Ontario Provincial Police without so much as a shred of evidence to support his insinuations. It is my view that he owes all of those people an apology.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ACTIVITIES OF RCMP

Mr. S. Smith: A question of the Attorney General: Was the Attorney General correctly quoted in the Saturday Globe as saying there is a legitimate public interest in allowing the RCMP access to OHIP data and that he is looking at the possibility of amending legislation which would permit this? Does the Attorney General not agree that

section 44 of the Ontario Health Insurance Act has been violated and that he has some responsibility to enforce the Act rather than speculate publicly about how to legalize illegalities that have already gone on?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: As I said on Friday, at the very most, any responsible law enforcement officer should not have anything more than the bare, so-called “tombstone” data, namely, names and addresses. I made it quite clear at all times that any information that should be made available to police forces should not go beyond those bare bones -- names, addresses and names of employers. I made it quite clear that this should not involve any of the confidential medical information.

I would say Mr. Speaker, that some press reports have very badly distorted what was said at that time. I also said if that were to be the case, it should be done within the law, not outside the law and it should not breach any of the hospital insurance legislation.

If an argument could be put forward that the names and addresses of individual subscribers should be made available then I’ve indicated that the legislation should be clarified to make it clear that that would be available. I made it clear that the police in this province, in my view, must operate at all times within the law, the Criminal Cede of Canada and the provincial statutes.

With respect to whether or not there was a breach of the hospital insurance legislation, as I indicated on Friday my officials and I will be meeting early this week with senior officials of the Ministry of Health. I’m waiting for further clarification from the RCMP to determine whether there was a breach of that legislation.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary, why has it taken this long for the Attorney General to decide whether or not the provision of the so-called tombstone type data has been a violation of the Act or not? Why has he taken this long to try to find what would be pretty obvious information, and has he located the source of this data? Can he assure us that none of that has come from the Statistics Canada data provided by this province to Statistics Canada?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I don’t think I have anything to add to what I’ve said. I’m sorry, I didn’t hear the last part of the question with respect to Statistics Canada.

Mr. S. Smith: We provide data to Stats Canada; is the minister sure that wasn’t the source of the leak?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I don’t know. All I can do is reiterate that I don’t know at this moment the source of the leaks. I haven’t had a chance yet to meet with the Minister of Health (Mr. Timbrell) to know whether they have determined any source of leaks.

I indicated I had sought further clarification from the RCMP to determine what information was in fact made available and they’ve already indicated it did not go beyond this so-called biographical material. But notwithstanding that assurance, I indicated that I wanted further clarification. As I indicated on Friday, I would be meeting with the RCMP and the Minister of Health this week to determine just what went on, and how and when the evidence or this information may have been made available.

Mr. S. Smith: And I indicated that I sought earlier clarification from the RCMP.

Mr. Lewis: I’d like to pursue it if I may, Mr. Speaker. Since in his vigorous attack on the Leader of the Opposition the Attorney General says at the bottom of page three, “this in my view indicates a very cavalier approach to the criminal process.” Does he not think that his own approach is, to say the least, a trifle cavalier when the Act requires a subpoena from a judge to get any information, biographical or otherwise, from such data from OHIP and obviously no such subpoena was sought? And why then is the minister prepared, even publicly, to contemplate legalizing that kind of behaviour on the part of the RCMP and the OHIP officials who tendered the information?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I will repeat what I said several times in this past week, both in and outside the House, as far as I was concerned law enforcement officers in this province must operate within the law.

Mr. Deans: But they are not.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: If a legitimate case could be made for securing even the barest information such as names and addresses and employers, then that must be done within the law. I’ve repeated that and repeated it, and I repeat it once again.

Mr. Lewis: Supplementary, if I may, does the Attorney General agree that since providing even the bare-bones biographical information, which is the way the RCMP describes it -- and the minister knows how much we can trust them -- is a breach because no subpoena was requested -- is he not prepared to prosecute on that basis?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I am preparing. As I indicated I do not have all the information. I’ve indicated quite clearly that any breach should not be tolerated even if it is restricted to this bare-bones material. I don’t know how many times I have to indicate that in my view law officers must operate within the law of this province.

[2:15]

Mr. Lewis: Then the minister will lay charges.

Mr. Deans: Has the Attorney General been able to ascertain yet who in OHIP is authorized to give out the information even if a subpoena is produced?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I have not ascertained that yet. I assumed it was being ascertained by the Minister of Health, but as I indicated already --

Mr. Deans: I asked him two weeks ago for that.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: -- I have not yet met with the Minister of Health this week.

Mrs. Campbell: This week? This is Monday.

USE OF INFLUENCE

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I would like to rise at this point on a point of privilege. In view of the statement which the Attorney General started off today’s proceedings with, I would like to respond, if I might, by pointing out that he bases his comment on the fact that the investigating officer, and I quote from his statement, “concluded that he could not swear an oath that he had reasonable and probable grounds to believe that

interpretation (

i) in paragraph 6 was the true

interpretation.”

I note here that there were two possible

interpretations in paragraph 6, and since the officer couldn’t choose between them he felt he could not lay a charge.

I’ll read the first one. It says, “In one sense, it” -- the account for $25,000 -- “is consistent, at least in part, with a demand for payment for obtaining the earlier hearing date.” The second possibility says, “In another sense, especially in light of other evidence with respect to what Mr. Armstrong did for the proposed partnership in late April and early May, it is more consistent with a demand for payment for the work done at that time.”

These are the two possible

interpretations. The Attorney General claims that the investigating officer could not make a choice between those two. I would like to read into the record a letter from Mr. Arthur Armstrong to Mr. Jan Davies, which is the letter in question concerning the $25,000.

“Dear Jan,

“You may be assured that I have had some very deep heart searching to do and indeed some real agonizing with respect to the enclosed statement of account. During our various discussions, we touched upon the participation and/or consultant aspects of a possible relationship between us and never did come to a satisfactory conclusion. You will note that I am highly critical of the amounts charged by consultants in our industry but feel that the assistance I was able to give you was way beyond the realm of ‘consulting.’

“I think you will agree that if the amount shown on the attached statement is related to the potential profitability of your endeavour and to the savings made because you are able to proceed so much earlier than you had originally anticipated, it is a small amount indeed.

“Of course, I am thoroughly delighted that you have the opportunity to go ahead on a project which has been a very painful one to you. However, at the same time, I feel that honest effort and production is worthy of its just reward. Knowing only too well the problems of cash flow that are the nature of our business, particularly in the early stages of a project, I will not of course expect payment until mortgage draws are forthcoming.

“Kindest regards to Lil and the kids,

“Your very truly,

“Arthur.”

How is it possible, I ask, to entertain the second

interpretation in the light of this letter? Since I don’t believe that it is reasonable to entertain that, I am here questioning, as I have the right to do, the judgement and decision of the Attorney General of the province in this particular matter and I feel I owe no one an apology. Thank you.

RECOVERY OF HYDRO MONEY

Mr. S. Smith: A question to the Minister of Government Services: Can the minister advise the House as to whether there are any agreements between Ontario Hydro and the Ministry of Government Services whereby Ontario Hydro would in some way provide funds to the government, to the Ministry of Government Services, for the purchase of lands within the parkway belt, not only lands needed for Hydro but other lands? What authority would Ontario Hydro have to make such advances of funds to the Ministry of Government Services?

Hon. Mr. McCague: Mr. Speaker, I’m not sure whether there’s any written agreement about this, but there is an understanding that where Hydro requires land for its right of way and where it’s demonstrated by the owner that the whole property should be purchased rather than just the right of way, Hydro does in fact purchase the whole property and, upon completion of the hearing officer’s report and the decision by the Treasurer, the province will then refund the money to Ontario Hydro for the portions it does not need for the rights of way.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of a supplementary, is the minister then saying that Ontario Hydro is seeking to have a portion of those funds flow returned to Hydro from the Ministry of Government Services? Can the minister explain why, if this is the normal procedure, Hydro seems to be seeking to have considerable interest payments as well on the money which it has advanced the Ministry of Government Services?

Hon. Mr. McCague: I think the agreement was that after the report the moneys would be refunded. It wouldn’t be unreasonable to expect that the government would pay some interest as it would expect to recover some interest, if it was selling these properties to other ministries at a later date.

Mr. MacDonald: Supplementary: Is it the ministry’s practice, when it buys a whole farm and then hands over to Hydro that portion needed for the right of way to retain the remainder of the land and dispose of it in whatever is found to be the most effective way?

Hon. Mr. McCague: I think that question was put backwards. Ontario Hydro is buying the whole farm and we are taking back from Hydro what it doesn’t require.

Mr. MacDonald: Is the minister saying Ontario Hydro buys the whole thing, retains what it needs for the right of way and then hands the land back to the government which disposes of it?

Hon. Mr. McCague: No, we don’t. We would retain the parkway belt unless it would be required for MTC or some other ministry.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of a final supplementary, may I ask the minister whether he will table the agreements that his ministry has had with Hydro with regard to parkway belt purchases, and would he give us a list of exactly what was purchased and what use the land is being put to?

Hon. Mr. McCague: Maybe it might clarify as to what use; as I understand it, we’re buying the property for Ontario Hydro. If it’s necessary to buy the full property, as I said, we will do that. Otherwise, it will be kept by the government as part of the parkway belt.

Mr. S. Smith: Will the minister undertake to table the agreement and a list of what property was purchased and what portion of it was used by Hydro?

Hon. Mr. McCague: Yes, if there is an agreement.

Mr. Lewis: By way of a supplementary, if there isn’t an agreement to the minister, surely there will be some piece of correspondence or memorandum fixing this transaction or exchange, since it is public money. Can he table that document?

Mr. Conway: Ask the Treasurer.

Hon. Mr. McCague: If it’s an agreement, I will give it to the Leader of the Opposition. If it’s an exchange of correspondence, I will give it to the leader of the third party.

Mr. Lewis: Thank you very much.

Mr. S. Smith: Will the minister share either with both of us, please?

Mr. Lewis: The hon. member can have mine.

Mr. MacDonald: Table it, and we’ll all have access to it.

AVIATION SAFETY

Mr. Lewis: May I ask the Minister of Transportation and Communications a question? Is he at all familiar with the study of air traffic, particularly in northwestern Ontario, that has been carried out, apparently, for the federal government, with the designation of a remarkable range of serious hazards for the air traveller in northwestern Ontario? Is it his intention to act upon the information that is now emerging?

Hon. Mr. Snow: I’m sure the hon. member realizes I have no authority to act officially in any way relating to air regulations. This is one area that is the total responsibility of the Minister of Transport of Canada. I did request in a letter to Mr. Lang on two occasions that the minister carry out a review of aviation safety matters in the north, and really in general, but especially in northwestern Ontario.

I believe my colleague, the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Bernier) also asked that an inquiry be carried out the first time. Then at a following date, I wrote another letter to Mr. Lang and at that time got a reply from him stating that he would be having a review of aviation safety matters in northwestern Ontario which, I trust, was this report that I have not seen. Whether I will have an opportunity to see it or not, I probably would not have expected to see it unless Mr. Lang decides to send me one. I have not seen the report, only what I have read in the Globe and Mail this morning.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary: Since the provincial Minister for Northern Affairs seriously contemplated at one point holding our own inquiry into problems of air travel in the north because of what was emerging, can the minister on behalf of this Legislature undertake to request the report when it is available, obviously imminently, and will he be prepared to name names? Will the minister be prepared to tell the Legislature, and therefore the public, the offending airline companies and charters and the risks and hazards that they apparently demonstrate?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I will be most interested in reviewing that report if I am able to obtain one.

Mr. Reid: Try the Globe and Mail

Hon. Mr. Snow: If the report is made public, of course I presume the information within that report will be there.

Mr. Lewis: It won’t be made public, but the minister can get it.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Now, as I say, I haven’t had an opportunity this morning, since hearing of this report, to review the matter at all with my officials or to review what our legal position in Ontario is regarding a matter that is totally federal jurisdiction.

Mr. Reid: Supplementary: Would the minister not agree that since he requested the inspection in the first place, he should be privy to the results of that inspection? Would he also not agree that it’s in the public interest that the people who have offended against air traffic safety should be named -- as well as those who haven’t, who are being tarred with the same brush as those few who have been violating the regulations?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Yes, I would agree with that position, Mr. Speaker. As I say, I have not received a copy of the report. I will ask for one. Whether I will get it or not will remain to be seen.

Mr. Lewis: You will get it.

Hon. Mr. Snow: But I do agree that the excellent safety-minded operators are put in the same mix with the few -- or maybe more than a few, I don’t know -- who may not be operating under the present air regulations. If unsafe practices are being carried out, then I think those should be made public.

Mr. Foulds: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: I would like to ask the minister why he seems to indicate that the chances of his getting the report are so slim, when in northwestern Ontario in particular he has made a particular point of stressing that his request would be for a ministerial investigation?

If there seems to be any obstruction on the federal part, does he not think it now time for his ministry and him and his cabinet to put every pressure possible on the federal government to call for a full public inquiry into air safety in northwestern Ontario, in that so much of the traffic in the northern part of the province requires air carriers where norOntair service does not run and where there are no highways?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I am the first to agree that I, along with others, requested Mr. Lang to initiate a review of air safety matters following certain accusations -- certain information that’s come out at one or more inquests, and after several serious and fatal accidents in northern Ontario. Unfortunately, we have had aviation accidents in southern Ontario and other parts of Canada as well.

[2:30]

I believe Mr. Lang was quoted in the press as saying there was no evidence to indicate a higher degree of accidents in northwestern Ontario than anywhere else. Today we read an

article which quotes figures that would seem to contradict that statement made by Mr. Lang. I certainly feel it is necessary, one way or another, to get to the root of this problem.

Mr. Foulds: Supplementary: Does the ministry still have agreements with private air carriers in northern Ontario to operate at least part of the norOntair service, and does the minister not think it is essential for his ministry to get the names of those carriers named in the report to ensure that the carriers it has contracted with are not among those included in those having unsafe flying practices in northwestern Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Snow: The contracts with the private carriers are between the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission and those carriers. That commission now reports to my colleague, the Minister of Northern Affairs. To my knowledge, prior to that responsibility being transferred there were contracts with four private carriers. Certainly nothing that has come to my knowledge indicates those carriers are involved, but I certainly will try to ascertain that information.

MINERAL EXPLORATION

Mr. Lewis: I have a question of the Minister of Natural Resources, since he has been waiting for one and wants it badly. Would the minister like to clarify for the Legislature, since the reports were a little confusing, what exactly the licence is that has been given to Prospection Limited or something like that for, I gather, the exploration of the mineral resources, perhaps uranium, in a very large acreage of northern Ontario? In the answer, could the minister indicate, given the public concern obviously about northern Ontario development, by this was never made public as a kind of natural announcement just to let us know what was happening?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I am not sure the latter is true, to begin with.

Mr. Lewis: Oh? Maybe I don’t remember it.

Hon. F. S. Miller: All Crown lands in the province may be prospected without permission by any licensed prospector, unless the ministry has removed those lands from prospecting by a deputy minister’s order.

About a year ago, Prospection Limited, which is a Canadian-owned company according to my information -- or at least has had three Canadian directors since 1961 -- evidenced an interest in a relatively large area up there. Because of the need to do a fair amount of heavy investment in the overall area, they asked if they could use a clause of the Mining Act which allowed them to have exclusive rights to prospect for a period of time.

After many months of negotiations, that licence was granted for a charge. As the member knows, there is no charge for non-exclusive prospecting. In the meantime, a number of talks were carried out. We did the unprecedented thing of sending our staff north to talk to the Winisk and Attawapiskat bands prior to any agreement with the company.

Mr. Lewis: Why should that be unprecedented?

Hon. F. S. Miller: It has never been done before in the sense that the action of the government has been to grant such licences, if --

Mr. Lewis: Just do it and the hell with it.

Hon. F. S. Miller: -- as by the way government should do, the government decides pro or con to issue a licence. In this case, we did send staff along with members of the company to both Winisk and Attawapiskat to obtain their opinions. One band did not favour it after a long discussion; the other band did not object. We then went through a long discussion with the company as to the terms of the prospecting licence.

We ensured that pages of information -- they’re available, the member may have them -- of requirements to protect the environment during the prospecting phase be followed and that the conditions for any potential future mining lease be spelled out. We advised Justice Patrick Hartt of these and sent him a copy of them.

I believe that we touched all bases in so far as we could. I’m happy to say one thing: I have a memo from the company which, if it’s true, indicates something I’m pleased to see. It relates, “The headquarters for the operation has been in two locations -- Attawapiskat and on Sutton Lake. We have been able to hire a number of local Indian people. We have had excellent co-operation between the company and the community during this summer’s prospecting, which has mainly been by helicopter, taking sedimentary tests around the area and, I believe, doing the testing in Attawapiskat in a laboratory set up there, rented from the band.”

So I think we’ve tried very hard to meet the requirements of discussion. Certainly we received some objections -- I’m sure you know about these -- from Chief Andrew Rickard.

Mr. Lewis: Supplementary: Since this obviously has some very important significance about it, beyond the cultural and ecological matters -- the minister said it was several months in the making and involved a lot of discussion -- is it possible for him to table the agreements which he reached with the company and to let us take a look at the data? When exclusive licences of this size are granted, would it be possible to make some kind of public declaration of the government’s intent so that it doesn’t emerge by happenstance later on?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I can say yes to both. First of all, quite honestly, I’m pleased to table the agreement with the company. Secondly, it’s interesting that in early April, well before it was to be signed, we contemplated a press release. I was the new minister of the day. I must admit I don’t believe I was involved in it. Generally, my style is to go public on these kinds of things. I have no problem in saying that where major exploration licences are being contracted, I’m glad to have them public.

I think it should be pointed out that although the company has the right to look at a good deal of land -- 1.235 million acres the James Bay lowlands -- it can only operate on 10,000 of those acres, even if it found material over them, under the terms of the agreement. In other words, each year it must give up one third of the land based upon their exercise and concentrate on the remaining two thirds and then, finally, on the remaining third.

They must also spend a half a million dollars per year on the exploration during that period of time for their licence to be valid.

Mr. Reid: Supplementary: Could the minister indicate who the people are behind Prospection Limited; who the major stockholders are and where they are located? Also, is it common practice, when someone approaches the minister in regard to a situation like this, for his ministry to do a survey or investigate the background of the company or companies, especially in a situation of this size?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, on the one

article I read over the weekend -- I’d be hard pressed to say it was inaccurate. But I thought it was misleading, to say the least.

Mr. Lewis: That may be inaccurate.

Mr. Reid: This is your chance.

Hon. F. S. Miller: It sounded as if everything was under the table, hidden et cetera, and that some major foreign company had made a deal with my ministry. First of all --

Mr. Foulds: It’s happened before.

Hon. F. S. Millet: -- according to the in- formation I have, Prospection Limited is registered in Ontario, has three directors, all of one family, who have owned it, according to my records, since 1961.

Don’t forget that prospecting per se, as the members well know, is a business all by itself. Prospectors very often are working in the hope of finding something saleable.

Mr. Reid: In the hope?

Hon. F. S. Miller: In the hope -- not of developing a mine, but of finding something that they can sell to an organization that can develop a mine. Those companies are really one of Ontario’s basic industries. We export prospecting capabilities around the world.

This company has done that. It has operated in many spheres. But it is an Ontario-based and, as far as I know, an Ontario-owned company. Whom they are intending to sell any rights they may find, or whom they may have had some advance dollars from we would have to find out from the company itself. But currently, like most prospectors, it is an Ontario company.

Mr. Foulds: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: I wonder if the minister would mind clarifying the formula he outlined a moment ago when he said the company was granted rights to 1.235 million acres, had to give up a third each year, but could retain 10,000 acres. Could he clarify that?

Secondly, does not the granting of such an exclusive prospecting right under the Mining Act amount to giving the company staking and filing rights? Can the minister indicate to us if any actual claim staking and filing of those claims has taken place?

Hon. F. S. Miller: As I understand it, and I would have to double check the rules of staking in the province, they wouldn’t stake during that period of time because in effect no one else can lay claim to the land while they pay for that exclusive privilege.

We have a couple of advantages in this kind of agreement. First, we are paid for the privilege of prospecting; otherwise we are not. Secondly, we were able to set a whole series of environmental rules on the actual exploration; again something we normally can’t do. So we had certain advantages in having an agreement with the company. Thirdly, we defined the maximum area out of that 1.235 million as 10,000 acres that would be eligible for development purposes.

When I table this particular information the member can look at it. It says the lessee shall return one-third of the area at the end of the first year. In other words, area they have assumed not to have found anything worthwhile in. So they do a broad sweep and then start concentrating on those sections which appear to be most likely. The only thing I can say at this point in time is that they are cautiously optimistic at the end of the first summer’s operations.

Rather than give the member the details of the one-third/one-third/one-third, let me pass him the copy when it is filed.

[Later]

Hon. F. S. Miller: May I correct an error of fact before I table my report? I said one-third was surrendered each year. It’s 50 per cent at the end of the first year and 50 per cent of the balance at the end of the second year, that has to be surrendered.

DISABILITY ALLOWANCES

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Community and Social Services. In view of the minister’s comments on the television program Ombudsman, will he tell the House exactly what he plans to do about the disability allowance for the mentally retarded as bureaucratic delays now ensure that they must wait up to one year after their 18th birthday when they become eligible before actually receiving the allowance?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that I followed entirely the question of the hon. member. If she is suggesting that the current regulations require a waiting period of that length of time, that is not correct.

Mrs. Campbell: No. The bureaucratic delays.

Hon. Mr. Norton: There may be very exceptional cases where there are delays extending up to several months. But I personally am not aware at this point of any that have extended for a period of a full year.

As I indicated in the remarks to which the hon. member referred, I am proposing the regulation be amended so as to change the date of eligibility. At the present time the regulation provides that the recipient may be paid from the date on which the ministry staff have all of the information which would enable them to make a decision as to eligibility.

It has come to my attention that in many instances the delay is not the result of any default on the part of the applicant or the family of the applicant, and often not on the part of the ministry either, but there are other players and in some cases there have been several months’ delay in the receipt of the necessary medical or psychometric assessments. What I am proposing to do is to have that regulation changed so as to provide for the payment from the date of the application, as opposed to the date on which we have the information to make the decision -- in other words, to provide for a period of retroactivity to that date.

[2:45]

Mrs. Campbell: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Would the minister at the same time give consideration to permitting these applications to be entertained prior to the applicant’s 18th birthday, since one of the major problems has been that they have not been accepted prior to the 18th birthday, and then delays occur after the applicant has become eligible.

Hon. Mr. Norton: If the hon. member knows of any specific cases where the applications have been rejected prior to the 18th birthday, I would like her to bring that information to my attention because, quite to the contrary, I know of a number of applications that have in fact been received within a matter of perhaps a month or two prior to the 18th birthday and the procedure has been begun before the 18th birthday. If there have been failures there, I would like to know about them.

Mr. Lewis: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I see enough of the minister in here so I don’t watch him on television, but I hear about him. Therefore as a direct supplementary I would like to ask: Why does the minister permit the continuing distinction between the physically disabled allowance and the permanently unemployable allowance -- that is GAINS and the permanently unemployable -- particularly in an area like this where it is so invidious, discriminating and offensive? The minister must understand that and appreciate it.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I understand that it is very difficult to explain to a recipient the distinction.

Mr. Deans: Because there is no distinction.

Mrs. Campbell: What’s the distinction?

Mr. Breithaupt: Try it with us.

Hon. Mr. Norton: As I have indicated to the hon. members opposite at every opportunity in the estimates and elsewhere, that is a change that I would like to see made. But I hope the hon. members also will bear in mind that that is a complicated matter to change, in so far as the payments to the recipients under those programs are subject to the federal-provincial agreements under CAP.

Mr. Martel: We have been sharing that for years.

Mr. Lewis: Why don’t you start with the retarded?

Hon. Mr. Norton: The reason for the distinction at the present time -- a distinction that doesn’t exist in all jurisdictions, I admit, but in most of those jurisdictions lower amounts are paid on universal basis -- was that a few years ago in this province we tried to seek increased assistance for those who were more severely disabled. Therefore, in fact for some period of time a portion of that was paid 100 per cent out of provincial funds because the federal government refused to cost-share it. We finally have reached the point where the federal government is prepared to cost-share up to that amount.

They will not unless we can establish that there is a higher degree of disability, and for that reason, we must rely upon medical evidence --

Mr. Lewis: You should not be a party to that.

Hon. Mr. Norton: -- and there are great discrepancies, perhaps, in the medical evidence. I would dearly love to be able to wipe out that distinction tomorrow. If the member can explain to me how we can and still receive assistance from the federal government, I would be delighted to.

Mr. Lewis: Go it alone. Go it alone.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I would just like to remind hon. members that we have now 19 minutes remaining in question period. That was the first original question, other than the two leadoff questions from the two leaders. If this is the way members want to handle question period, that’s fine, but I thought I had a responsibility to draw your attention we have had one question from a member other than a leader and we have consumed 41 minutes of the question period.

Mr. Lewis: Did you include the point of personal privilege?

ATLAS STEEL

Mr. Mackenzie: In the absence of the Premier (Mr. Davis) I would like to ask the Minister of Industry and Tourism if he is aware of the widespread concern by employees of Atlas Steel in Welland over the possibilities of yet another federal government loan -- this time to Cuba -- to develop another stainless steel mill that could produce 50,000 tons of nickel-bearing stainless steel in a country that consumes only 4,000 tons, and of the concern expressed also by Atlas Steel’s management over the expenditures of Canadian taxpayers’ dollars in a project that can endanger more jobs in this country?

Can the minister inform this House as to whether or not his government has made representations to the federal government over this particular matter and state the nature of the representations?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I’m not aware of the application of Canadian funds towards the development of a stainless steel plant in another country. May I inform the House and the member, frankly, that would likely be a deal that would be undertaken by a private concern in Canada with the technology and the engineering capabilities to develop a plant in another country. The loan is likely being arranged through one of the development corporations of the federal government.

There would not be, at this point in time, a discussion taking place with the government of this province. I shall take note of the member’s remarks and have reviewed by the people of my ministry exactly who is doing it and what information is presently available to us.

Mr. Mackenzie: Supplementary: Could the minister at the same time inform the House as to who was involved in the Canadian consortium that carried out the technical and economic viability studies that recommended this project? Wouldn’t the minister agree now would be the time for the government of the province of Ontario to intervene before we have another potential Inco situation on our hands?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I shall take the remarks of the hon. member under advisement and try to get the information for him. Whether it’s public information as to who is putting the consortium together is something I’ll have to seek from the federal government.

PIPE PRODUCTION

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, I’d like to direct a question to the Minister of Industry and Tourism. Is he aware of the fact that he has left some question in the minds of many people across Ontario as to the capability of fabricating pipe at Stelco’s Welland Tube Works to build that pipeline on the Alaska Highway? Is he aware of comments made by Mr. Paul Hookings, manager of the Welland mill, as follows: “The heavy-walled pipe required for the high-pressure Alaska Highway natural gas transmission line has been produced and tested at the Welland Tubes Stelform mill of The Steel Company of Canada, Limited on Friday”?

Is he aware that, “we know we can make it, we may not find anybody who wants to buy it,” is the concern of one of the top officials at that plant?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I do not believe I’ve left any misunderstanding in the minds of the people of the province of Ontario in what I’ve said about the technology being available in Canada, but maybe not in place at the moment. Last week I had the chance to speak with the president of Stelco in relationship to the potential of purchasing Canadian-made pipe for the pipeline being developed by the Foothills pipe line or transmission line people.

While it might be well to get into a full answer at this point, it’s my intention later on this week, after having further discussions with a number of people in the steel works, with Mr. Horner and people at the federal level, to have a statement that will try to outline as specifically as possible details in relationship to the capabilities in Canada in the manufacturing of low- and high-pressure pipes, in the manufacturing in Canada of 48-inch versus 54-inch pipe and a great deal of further information we hope will be made available to us this week.

May I suggest to this House very strongly that we’re not looking at a possibility of pipe purchasing in the next 12 months. The purchasing of pipe will likely come somewhere down the road after that period of time.

Mr. Foulds: Down the pipe.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Yes, that’s a good expression, down the pipe.

Mr. Nixon: The minister is going down the pipe.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to the House we will try to come back with as complete a statement as possible. If I can interject only one remark made to me by people in the steel industry, at this moment there appears to be a great deal of talk taking place both in the provincial Houses of Canada and in the federal House relating to the pipe and the manufacturing of pipe.

A great deal of it is in areas we are not likely -- and I fully admit this and I think I said it last week -- to be capable of discussing in their completeness because of technology that still has to be developed and because of certain things that must he designed in the specifications and detailed reporting as to what kind of pipe is going to be used on the transmission line.

That determination has not been made at this point, and there are a great number of reasons why it has not been made. Some of them are political and others arise from the very fact of the lack of capability to produce them, not in Canada but in the United States. I will not try to go any further on this question. I will bring into the House later this week, I hope, a full statement on it.

Mr. Kerrio: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Ms. Speaker: The minister has already indicated he will he bringing in a full report. It isn’t as though this is the first time we’ve discussed it. We’ve done it at least four times in the last week.

Mr. Kerrio: My supplementary has to do with what he’s going to bring to this House.

Mr. Swart: New question, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Kerrio: May I pose the question?

Mr. Speaker: Final supplementary.

Mr. Kerrio: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister please clarify what the pipe company has said, that they are not lacking in technology to manufacture the pipe; the lack of technology is in the transmission of the gas within the pipe? That point should be made clear to this Legislature.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I will include that in my statement. I think I said earlier that I will try to cover the entire situation as completely in the technical and manufacturing end of it as possible. I don’t think I have left any misunderstanding in the minds of the people of this province.

Mr. S. Smith: You were wrong the other day. That’s all.

Mr. Conway: It’s on the record.

TEA AND COFFEE PRICING

Mr. Swart: To the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

Mr. Martel: The coffee man.

Mr. Swart: As it’s now five weeks since I demonstrated to the minister that Ontario- produced coffee was selling at a substantially lower price in the US than it is in Canada --

Mr. Riddell: I thought he said a new question.

Mr. Ruston: Go down to Windsor. It’s cheaper than in Detroit.

Mr. Swart: -- and having read rather carefully the minister’s subsequent statement on October 31 on coffee pricing, knowing it doesn’t explain that issue or anything about coffee pricing, will he now tell the House why coffee produced in Ontario sells for 25 per cent less in the United States or didn’t he even bother checking it out?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Produced in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Just to clarify some inaccuracies in the hon. member’s statement, firstly I would question whether it’s five weeks since he established some of those facts to my satisfaction.

Mr. Swart: It’s five weeks since I sent you those two boxes.

Mr. Warner: Moving right along.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Secondly, what the hon. member means to say is why is it cheaper in Buffalo, not why is it cheaper in the United States. The member will agree with me on that.

Mr. Swart: No, in the United States. Canadian coffee in the States.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: In point of fact, if the member has been paying attention and reading some of the material that’s available other than what he gets at the discount joint in Buffalo --

Mr. Foulds: Discount what?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- he will find out that in some other cities --

Mr. Swart: It’s Canadian coffee in the United States.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- he will find out that the prices in the United States vary substantially.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Where do we grow coffee?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The one thing that even the hon. member’s analysis has shown --

Mr. Foulds: What do you mean, “even”?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- is that the lowest prices in the United States, for coffee and a lot of supermarket items, are probably those in Buffalo. And just so the member’s question will be accurate let’s talk about Canada and Toronto versus Buffalo. Let’s be accurate.

Mr. Martel: Now the answer.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Secondly, if the member will recall, and I know he really wanted me to come down with a definitive statement so he could be satisfied that I had conducted an investigation and rubber-stamped the prices as either acceptable or not acceptable --

Mr. Swart: That’s what you’ve done.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- if he looked back he would see that we were very careful to point out that --

Mr. Swart: Sure, not to offend the companies.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- I saw my role not as one to do something I didn’t have power to do, that is, roll back prices, nor to send a select committee of the Legislature, the Swart committee --

Mr. Warner: Nor to protect consumers.

Mr. Mackenzie: Nor to do anything.

Mr. Warner: The minister of corporate protection.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- to Brazil to find out whether there was a ripoff in Brazil, but rather, I specifically

Mr. Warner: A great job.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Relax boys. Rather, specifically I said our --

Mr. Martel: You are a continuation of Sidney Handleman.

Mr. Ruston: Drink milk. We’ve got a surplus of milk.

Mr. Makarchuk: He talks big and carries a wet noodle.

Mr. Speaker: Could we have some order?

Mr. Warner: We want to hear him resign.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I said that what I would do is assemble some information for consumers upon which they could make some buying decisions as they saw fit. I did not undertake to stamp those prices as acceptable or unacceptable. If the hon. members think the role for the ministry is to investigate prices and report back that this is satisfactory to us and this isn’t --

Mr. Warner: How about protecting consumers?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- that’s a position they can take. I never took that position. What I said was, ”I will see if there is --

Mr. Samis: Good luck to the activists.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- some information that consumers don’t have that we can get.” Specifically, I want also to remind the hon. member that I said I was asking the retailers and wholesalers to do one of two things; either explain the differential as best they could or change the prices accordingly if they couldn’t explain it. They gave us an explanation which may satisfy the hon. member --

Mr. Swart: No, it doesn’t.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- it may satisfy me, it may satisfy the Minister of Correctional Services (Mr. Drea).

Mr. Warner: It doesn’t.

[3:00]

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Or it may not. It’s up to the consumer, on the basis of the information that we were able to glean for the consumer, to adjust his or her buying habits accordingly. I might add, partly as a result of the entire exercise, consumers did adjust their buying habits and, accordingly, the prices showed some downward turn and they are staying that way.

Mr. Swart: May I ask, would the minister not consider that it is his responsibility to give protection to the consumers? In view of the fact that he did not investigate the relative price of Canadian coffee being sold outside of the country and what it had been sold at here, could I now make him aware that Sandra Coffee Company in Ajax produces Valuplus coffee for Mother Parker’s in Toronto, which in turn sells it wholesale in the United States through Peter Schmitt Ltd., a branch of Weston’s, Bell’s and Twin-Fair supermarkets, which retail it at $2.49 compared to the same coffee sold here in Loblaws, also a subsidiary of Weston’s, for $3.49?

Mr. Warner: That’s consumer protection.

Mr. Swart: Doesn’t the minister think he should have another look at this matter if he has any conscience at all for the Ontario consumer?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I’ll tell the hon. member what I deem as having a conscience in terms of the Canadian and Ontario consumer, and that is not to stand up every time there is a price differential, as indeed there is on all goods throughout the economy, and suggest that all the government has to do is roll down the price or go to Buffalo and conduct an investigation --

Mr. Makarchuk: We don’t expect you to stand up every time. We expect you to stand up at least once.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- so that the Ontario consumer can be assured that, in every instance, he’s not paying more than they’re paying in the United States. The member knows as well as I that there are an infinite number of products, most products, whether they be in the food industry or other industries, that cost more in Canada --

Mr. MacDonald: We’re talking about coffee.

Mr. Swart: Canadian coffee, yes.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- arid there’s a lot of reasons why they do.

Mr. MacDonald: Why? Name one.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Where the member has a specific item and be doesn’t want to take some steps to say to the suppliers of those items, “Can you tell me, the member for Welland-Thorold, what your side of the story is so that I can tell consumers?” he doesn’t want to do that because he doesn’t want to talk to the guy, I would be pleased to help Ontario consumers, but by doing what the member doesn’t want to do, and that is write the suppliers and say: “Look, here’s a gap, what do you say about it?”

Again, I’m not going to roll back prices. That is not my job.

Mr. Swart: You are the minister.

Mr. Warner: What is your job?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: If the member thinks it should be, argue that case. I will get the information from the suppliers. I will not pass judgement on it. It’s up to the suppliers to do what they can.

Mr. Foulds: You won’t pass judgement on anything.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Listen, that’s the easy role the member has. He can play hero to every consumer --

Mr. Speaker: The hon. minister has already answered the question.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: We’ll be responsible.

REFORESTATION

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Natural Resources. I wonder whether he can share with us this afternoon whether or not his ministry is undergoing a reorganization to give the forest regeneration policy the priority it deserves? Are there reorganization plans under way? If so, what are they?

Mr. S. Smith: Two trees for one.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, in fact there is a reorganization under way, yes.

Mr. Reid: When was the last one?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Five or six years ago. This is a step taken to do two things. First, the field organization does not change in any meaningful way. There will be slightly different duties assigned to our deputy regional directors, but apart from that the field organization remains in place.

We have had of late a number of retirements from the ministry and, following general provincial guidelines, we have limited or cut our numbers of directors by 10 per cent. Therefore, we have reorganized to accomplish that reduction of 10 per cent in key overhead staff.

Mr. Reid: There are too many overhead staff.

Mr. Conway: What then can the minister tell us in policy terms that he intends to do specifically to implement the renowned commitment from the charter that, in fact, two trees will be planted for every one cut? What’s under way at this point?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Effective about May 15 we transferred a senior person to that duty and to that duty exclusively for the balance of his working time within the Ministry of Natural Resources, which is estimated to be 18 months.

Mr. Nixon: He is out there with a shovel, is he?

Hon. F. S. Miller: That person has no other duties but to implement the decisions of the Armson report as amended by the ministry. Just last week, I spent two days with the British Columbia forest service studying their methods of tenure. I learned a great deal from them, in the past as have my staff. I can assure the member that is my number one priority and it is making good progress.

PRICES AT HIGHWAY SERVICE CENTRES

Mr. Samis: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transportation and Communications, it’s the updating of an old question brought up by our former colleague, the member for Kent-Elgin (Mr. Spence). Can the minister tell us what price monitoring his department is doing on gas prices on Highway 401, and can he tell us if he’s satisfied that the prices are reasonable and do they accurately reflect the cost involved?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I haven’t had any report on monitoring of the prices recently. I did announce in this House last spring a new policy and an adjustment in the leases of the operators, and the prices did decrease substantially at that time. I will ask my staff if they have any up-to-date figures since then.

Mr. Samis: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: in view of the fact that the leases were renegotiated and in view of the fact that in Belleville -- when comparing neighbouring service centres -- the difference in price is 17 cents a gallon, in Kingston 14 cents a gallon, and in Cornwall 17 cents a gallon, would the minister not consider those price differences excessive, if not verging on a ripoff? Would he investigate those differences?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, they do seem somewhat excessive but I would have to say that in my own community I have two service stations within a mile and there’s about a 10 cent differential there, and neither one of them is on Highway 401.

Mr. Nixon: Supplementary: Is the minister aware that the Highway 401 service stations blame the terms of the government’s lease for this extraordinary differential, and that in fact it’s the amount of money that comes into the provincial Treasury that is, in their words, responsible for this large additional cost that the travellers on 401 must pay?

Hon. Mr. Snow: With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, I don’t care whether they blame the government or not. When those service station contracts were awarded on land owned by the ministry, tenders were called amongst the major oil companies to bid on the terms of the contract for them to construct their own building and to operate a facility meeting certain standards, which meant that they had to operate 24 hours a day; and they had to supply certain other services. Then the contract was awarded to the company offering the highest bid.

As the rate they pay is a percentage of sales, the very large increases in the cost of fuel automatically increased our revenue, because we were getting that percentage on the extra 10 cent federal gasoline tax plus the cost of the oil from the wells. So when we renegotiated those contracts, we removed that percentage from those extraordinary costs so they are basically going back to the prices they tendered. If they are paying too much it’s because they tendered too high.

Mr. Speaker: The time for oral questions has expired.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

VILLAGE OF PORT MCNICOLL ACT

Mr. Maeck, on behalf of Mr. G. E. Smith, moved second reading of Bill Pr5,

An Act respecting the Village of Port McNicoll.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

CITY OF OTTAWA ACT

Mr. Breithaupt, on behalf of Mr. Roy, moved second reading of Bill Pr14,

An Act respecting the City of Ottawa.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLY

Resolutions for supply for the following were concurred in by the House:

Office of the Lieutenant Governor.

Cabinet Office.

OFFICE OF THE PREMIER

Mr. Gaunt: Mr. Speaker, if I may just say a word about concurrence for supply for the office of the Premier: My colleague from Ottawa East (Mr. Roy) wondered if there could be some time set aside for this concurrence, in view of the fact that he wasn’t able to raise some matters with the Premier during committee consideration.

We have in our committee an additional 17.5 hours; so I raise the point with you, Mr. Speaker, and ask if the House leaders could concurrently agree to set aside some time to accommodate my colleague in this regard.

Mr. Speaker: We will leave that order on the order paper then.

House in committee of supply.

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (CONCLUDED)

On vote 1306, courts administration program; item 1, program administration:

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Chairman, if I may be permitted at this point, it is my understanding that there has been some agreement to conclude these estimates by 5 o’clock, and that we would then take into consideration the estimates of the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations. I thought it might be wise at this point to have that on the record.

Mr. Breithaupt: Yes, Mr. Chairman, that is our understanding, that even though the Attorney General’s estimates might be concluded in perhaps an hour or so less than the time allotted, we are quite prepared to attend to that so the Attorney General may be convenienced for a meeting with the Prime Minister of Canada.

Mr. Lawlor: Yes, just a word on it. As a matter of fact, I think we may release him from dunning and drudgery long before then.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Chairman, in that case the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations awaits.

Mr. Foulds: Without.

Hon. Mr. Welch: With.

Item 1 agreed to.

On item 2, Supreme Court of Ontario:

Mr. Foulds: I wonder if the Attorney General could indicate to me how many judges there are currently in the Supreme Court of Ontario, and how many of them are inoperative because of illness, royal commission appointments, other duties that take them away from the bench, or any other reason?

Finally can he tell me why the Supreme Court assizes scheduled for October in Fort Frances were peremptorily cancelled when there was evidently a judge prepared to go there? There were five cases prepared to be heard, one of which I gather has been outstanding since 1971.

Whether or not the information in Fort Frances that the judge was ordered to stay in Toronto to hear cases is true, doesn’t that speak to something? Surely it is just as important for the Supreme Court cases to be heard throughout the province, and particularly in what I believe are called county towns or district towns, such as Fort Frances. Surely that is a thing that must not be condoned.

[3:15]

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: In reverse order, I can’t speak specifically as to why those specific sittings were cancelled. If the member would like, I will attempt to obtain that information and so advise.

I must confess that I think there is a problem here with respect to the Supreme Court assizes. I really think we’re going to have to get into some form of regionalization in order to alleviate that situation. As a matter of fact, I am requesting Mr. Williston, whom I commissioned just under two years ago to review the rules of practice in order to simplify them, to add to his plate the concept of regionalization of the Supreme Court of Ontario. This would be to try to remove certain problems that have developed when these sittings are cancelled or when they’re just not completed or when there are cases left. I can say that I am not happy with the present situation at all.

With respect to the number of Supreme Court judges, it’s a timely question because there was an editorial in the Star today that contained a number of factual errors but was similar to the question. It raises the issue of delay of a certain case because of the alleged unavailability of a trial judge.

In the two years since I have been the Attorney General we have increased the size of the trial division of the Supreme Court of Ontario by close to one third. It will now be up to 41 judges with the legislation that we passed in this Legislature a few weeks ago -- when those additional four judges are appointed and the Minister of Justice has been so advised and is considering these four additions.

With respect to the number of judges who are involved in other activity, there is, of course, Mr. Justice Hartt and the Hartt commission. Coincident with his appointment, we increased the size of the Supreme Court trial bench by a judge, knowing that he would be detached from it for some time. We have Mr. Justice Hughes on the waste disposal inquiry.

I’m not sure -- I think those are the only judges that are not active in their duties. We had a judge, Mr. Justice Wright, who took very seriously ill and has resigned. So the Supreme Court bench, as I say, has been increased quite substantially during that period of time. But I think the points that are raised by the member for Rainy River is --

Mr. Foulds: No, the member for Port Arthur.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I’m sorry, for Port Arthur. I was thinking of our friend Pat Reid, who has talked to me about similar problems in his area --

Mr. Foulds: It is his area I am talking about -- Fort Frances.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Yes -- that are very relevant to our problems. I have just indicated the initiatives that we are taking to try to meet them.

Mr. Foulds: Just to follow up on that, and getting the assurance from the Attorney General that he’ll get me the specific information that I asked about, it did seem to me to be ironic that in previous days’ debate we were talking about trials folding because of lawyers not being prepared to proceed with cases. Exactly the reverse occurred in October in Fort Frances where, from my information at any rate, the lawyers on both sides of the cases in each of the five cases were prepared and anxious to go ahead and it was cancelled somewhat suddenly -- with, I think, only a week’s notice, if that.

That does seem to me to be a great injustice, because the quickness of justice, I think, is important too in the outlying areas of the province.

Mr. Bounsall: Under the policy vote in this section, I would like to draw the attention of the Attorney General to a matter which we discussed in his office at one point with respect to another case, that is the speed with which his staff follows up and that there should be a good follow-up and a continuous follow-up on the reciprocal arrangements we have with various states on child support. I believe last February I mentioned to the Attorney General a case in the Michigan court. My point was then and is now that if these reciprocal agreements are to be worth anything, then there must be regular follow-up from the staff in his ministry to ensure they are carried out.

Quite briefly, I want to indicate in another case -- this one with the state of California -- my concern about the follow-up which took place and to give an illustration of the lack thereof for some months with the hope that the Attorney General will see that the particular office charged with following it up does a better job than it has done in the past.

Into my constituency office last August 12, 1976, came a complaint from a Joy Boorn that her separated spouse had fallen some $533 behind in child support payments. They were various payments in the months of March, May and June. On May 18, 1976, her lawyer had written the Los Angeles court and got no reply. Towards the end of the month, this information about it having come in around the middle of the month, I contacted Mrs. Boorn and got all the details of the arrearage and of the work that had taken place.

On September 1, having sorted out all the details, I wrote a letter to Mr. Ken Booth, who is the senior staff person in the ministry who looks after the reciprocal agreements, giving him all the details of the arrearage and the amounts, urging him that the reciprocal agreements Ontario has with California be followed up as quickly as possible and that the husband, Charles Leslie Boorn, be brought before the Los Angeles court as soon as possible with a view to regularizing his payments as well as collecting the arrearage. On September 7, Mr. Booth wrote to the district attorney for Los Angeles county requesting that action and enclosing a copy of my letter of September 1.

In my contacts with Mr. Booth I have had no problems whatsoever in having him do something. My concern, having sent that letter out, is that if that reciprocal agreement is to operate effectively, follow-up should take place immediately.

Two and a half months go by and the only thing that occurs in these two and a half months is that one half-monthly payment is made by Mr. Boorn from California. There is no reply to Mr. Booth from Los Angeles and no other indication that Mr. Booth has jogged the memory of the people in Los Angeles.

Finally, on November 30, I wrote Mr. Booth, urging him to ensure that the matters in hand get into court down there. I had heard nothing since my letter to Mr. Booth of September 1 and receiving a copy of his letter of September 7. Quite dutifully, on December 3, Mr. Booth again writes the court in Los Angeles.

My concern is that surely there must be some mechanism to hurry these things along. If one doesn’t get a reply within a month to this office in your ministry a follow-un should take place. September 7 was the first time Mr. Booth wrote. The next time was December 3 and that letter went out in response to my urgings in my letter to him of November 30.

As a result of the December 3 letter going out from Mr. Booth, Los Angeles court does reply on December 31. A Mr. Herbert Jacobowitz, the acting director of the Bureau of Child Support of the office of the District Attorney, county of Los Angeles, acknowledged the arrearage and said that his office was going to process a contempt citation. That copy of that letter to Mr. Booth was sent to me and I duly passed it on to my constituent and it looked as if some action was being taken.

Another two and a half months went by and absolutely nothing happened. And this is my point: Nothing happens. Having gotten that letter of December 31, something should happen, I feel. When I took the next step, I wrote a somewhat angry letter to Mr. Booth on April 25, 1977. I just want to quote, if I could, Mr. Chairman, one paragraph:

“It appears to me that our whole system of reciprocal agreements is either falling apart or has been set up such that they were never intended to operate properly in the first place. It takes months it seems to achieve anything or even hear anything, let alone achieve restoration of regular support payments. Would you light a bomb under somebody with respect to this case or advise me as to where I may best throw my bomb so that results are achieved?”

In reply to that on May 18 another letter went out from Mr. Booth and another one went out unprompted on June 10. As far as I can see in my files, there was no reply from Los Angeles to either the May 18 or the June 10 letter. Your office can’t be held accountable for no replies to Mr. Booth’s letters of May 18 and June 10 sent in response to my letter of April 25.

I wrote the letter on April 25 and on April 27 a letter from Mr. Booth’s office went to Mr. Jacobowitz and again, unprompted as I say, Mr. Booth sent letters out on May 18 and June 10.

That’s the kind of follow-up I would hope would continue to take place on a regular basis. There were no replies to those letters.

And finally, on June 21 I phoned the appropriate person in Los Angeles, and followed it up with a letter, a copy of which I sent to Mr. Booth, indicating the results of the phone conversation which was a commitment by the Los Angeles court to put her on the docket. I actually phoned on June 20 and could not make connection but indicated the file under which I was interested. When I finally connected on June 21, they had put her on the docket. They said they may not get the person into court within perhaps 75 days, that being their length of time to get an open date on the docket but also a commitment that if an open space came up in that period, they would put them on.

I confirmed what they had told me in a letter to them the next day, June 22, of which Mr. Booth got a copy. On June 24 from Los Angeles I got a letter -- they wrote to the ministry hero indicating that same thing.

Here again, at this point, having made the personal contact and having got her name placed upon the docket, I would have thought things were charging along.

[3:30]

Finally, getting into court: I decided that I would do nothing until I heard that the case got before court, because really the office in your ministry should be doing the follow-up. They had dutifully supplied me with their copies of the letter and any letters that I had sent down to them independently and certainly the contents of the phone call which I had made.

I confidently expected to hear shortly exactly when the person was getting into court. I had asked Mrs. Boorn if, at the first instance she heard, she would phone me. Dutifully on November 21 she phoned to say that she’d received the letter indicating the court hearing would take place on December 14. But in that period from June 24, in which the Los Angeles county district attorney had written to indicate that in 75 days, hopefully, they would have Mr. Boorn into court down there, nothing again went forward from the office in your ministry charged with seeing that this should happen.

So finally we have a court date of December 14. The arrearage is now slightly in excess of $4,000. Mrs. Boorn, who has custody of the children, is a working person and this $4,000 is rather critical to her existence. I know one can’t control how quickly the courts in another jurisdiction respond in getting a court date set and so forth. But my concern is that there was a two and a half month delay in which your

section of the ministry charged with dealing with reciprocal agreements did nothing last fall to ensure that the case got speeded up. It was the same about two and a half to three months the past winter between January and April, when I again wrote. There was some follow-up quickly on that, but you would hope something would have occurred between June 24 and mid-November when the court down there finally sent a letter. The letter was received on November 21 and indicated a court date in December.

I would urge the Attorney General that a practice be instituted in that division so that there is monthly follow-up with the courts in these other jurisdictions over these reciprocal arrangements. You could ensure that they are continually jogged, or from time to time that a phone call be placed, even if it’s to California. You could tell them a case has been down there three months, four months, six months, whatever it is and do they have a court date yet.

Does the minister not agree that that would he a reasonable way to proceed? Would it not ensure that you don’t have, as in this case, 15 months-plus between the time it was initially brought to Mr. Booth’s attention before this person gets into the courts in Los Angeles, with three periods of two and a half to three months in which nothing is heard and no follow-up is done by that particular division?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I think, as the member appreciates, these reciprocal enforcement and maintenance matters to a very large extent were in the hands of a foreign jurisdiction. I suppose the only sanction we have ultimately is to cancel the agreement. I was under the impression that there was a regular follow-up mechanism through our own ministry with respect to the reciprocal orders and that there would be some communication back and forth. I think all I can do in this case and in relation to the others, is to check with Mr. Booth to ascertain just what the details of the mechanism are, and to advise the member accordingly.

Mr. Bounsall: If I could just comment on that, whenever I’ve talked to Mr. Booth he’s been quite agreeable and done something immediately. My point is, what would have happened, since the last correspondence between Mr. Booth and myself was in early December of last year with finally a reply from the Los Angeles court on December 31, if I had not written again on April 25 and Mr. Booth then sent off three letters over the next six weeks? What would have happened?

I feel that I shouldn’t always have to be the person who initiates letters going from this division to the court in whatever state is responsible for the case. There should be within your ministry a mechanism which checks up on this on a regular basis and it shouldn’t have to come about, each time some two and a half months apart upon urging by myself. One urging, a very angry letter on my part, did result in three letters going out over a course of six weeks, but they then stopped.

As yet another -- what is it? -- from the end of June through to November 21 took place; yet another bit of correspondence in that time. I think a simple letter on a regular basis, asking: “What are you doing now?” to those appropriate jurisdictions, may well wake them up to the fact that we’re serious about reciprocal agreements and their enforcement.

Mr. McKessock: Mr. Minister, I’d like to bring before you this case, the Verdon Rae case, again -- I can’t bring it to you in lawyers’ terms but I can in farmer’s terms -- where the victim got ripped off by the courts as well as the thief. As you know, we went over this some time ago and the farmer’s lawyer, Peter Fallis, has contacted you a few times. He is a bit disturbed that he hasn’t received a reply from you. I’ll send you a copy of his letter, and maybe you could see if there has been an oversight or there’s a reason for not having responded.

The farmer had $3,300 worth of cattle stolen out of his barn and the thief was caught and taken to court. In the court he was convicted and an order of restitution was made by the courts for him to pay back the farmer $3,327.28. When the farmer contacted his lawyer to find out where his money was, they found the victim had appealed the decision and the appeal court had upheld the conviction but wiped out the order of restitution. This leaves the farmer in a position where he now has to again go through the process of convicting the criminal in civil court.

Apparently, the evidence produced in the first court cannot be used in the civil court. This will cost the farmer another $3,000. It gets to the point where if you don’t have more than $3,000 stolen you might as well forget about it.

I think this is a sad situation because I can’t figure out why, when he was convicted and restitution was ordered by the court, an appeal court would be allowed to overturn the order of restitution.

At one time I asked you the question in the House.

There seem to be a couple of things here which are a problem. The evidence of the first trial can’t be used in the second trial. At one time I asked you if you intended to amend the Ontario Evidence Act, whereby previous convictions for criminal or provincial offences would be admissible in subsequent civil proceedings as proof of the fact giving rise to the conviction.

At that time, you said that you were of the view that there are amendments that should be brought forward to avoid the situation that was faced in the case of the farmer who lost the cattle -- that is to avoid unnecessary duplication of proceedings, namely, findings in a criminal court that have to be retried in a civil court.

You also said: “Until a complete review has been done of the Law Reform Commission’s recommendations, which are very extensive....” you didn’t think you could say anything further at that time. I was wondering if you could say something further at this time.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I recall the case well. I will find out for the member what has happened in relation to the response that should have gone out to Mr. Fallis’ letter of March 3. I’ll inquire into that and advise you accordingly.

We did touch on this issue of restitution earlier in the estimates. I indicated that restitution provisions under the Criminal Code had been challenged. As a matter of fact, the Manitoba Court of Appeal had ruled them unconstitutional in dealing with property and civil rights, which are within the provincial jurisdiction, as opposed to the criminal law, which is, as you know, in the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal government.

Now the Supreme Court of Canada has a case on that aspect which, I gather, is going to be argued within the next couple of weeks. So there’s an issue, first of all, as to whether the present restitution sections under the Criminal Code are constitutional.

What happened in the Rae case was that the Court of Appeal, as the member stated, reversed the trial judge. Of course, the Court of Appeal can always reverse the trial judge; that’s the way our law has always been and, I expect, always will be. If there’s a right of appeal, which there usually is, then the appellate court does have the right to disturb any findings or any orders made by the trial judge.

But the unfairness to Mr. Rae in that case was not so much that the court reversed the order. He may, of course, have thought it unfair, but the court has that jurisdiction. The unfairness, in my view, accrued to Mr. Rae -- and I did mention this on the CBC Ombudsman’s program -- in that Mr. Rae did not know that that issue was being dealt with by the Court of Appeal. He had no opportunity to have anybody make representations on his behalf because the Court of Appeal was dealing basically with a criminal matter.

I certainly indicated at that time that I thought -- and I still think -- there should be some mechanism of letting a victim know when the restitution order may be an issue in a Court of Appeal. I made it quite clear that I am prepared to approach the Minister of Justice on that. But, of course, until there is some determination by the Supreme Court of Canada as to whether the sections in the Criminal Code are valid in the first place, the Minister of Justice isn’t going to amend the Criminal Code to provide that right to the appellate.

So, Mr. Chairman, that deals as best I can with the Rae case in so far as it came under the Criminal Code and in so far as the order of restitution was interfered with by the appellate court.

[3:45]

Now in relation to any amendments to the Ontario Evidence Act, as I recall, the report of our Ontario Law Reform Commission on the rules of evidence in this province recommended against allowing the introduction of a criminal conviction to prove that fact in a civil case. As I have indicated to the former chairman of the Law Reform Commission, now the Deputy Attorney General, who is a foot away from me, I don’t entirely share their views in that matter, but that’s what the Law Reform Commission has recommended.

What’s happening right now is the uniform law commissioners throughout the country are trying to arrive at a uniform Evidence Act for each province so you won’t have these differences and it’s presently being worked on. There’s a task force made up of federal and provincial people across Canada trying to arrive at a uniform provincial Evidence Act for every province because obviously, as the members opposite can appreciate, there’s some interest in trying to arrive at some uniformity of legislation in these matters. We will have their report hopefully in the near future.

In the meantime, all I can say is -- and it’s perhaps not much help to Mr. Rae -- we are naturally awaiting with great interest the determination by the Supreme Court of Canada as to whether the provisions in the Criminal Code which allow an order of restitution are constitutionally valid. I think everything will flow from there.

As I indicated earlier in the estimates and it had been pointed out to me if the Supreme Court of Canada rules -- and I think this is the important thing as far as Mr. Rae is concerned, not the issue under the Evidence Act so much -- where the damages are fairly clear-cut, the court dealing with the criminal case can make the restitution order, that’s preferable in my view at least, to forcing the individual to go into the civil courts, even if he can prove the conviction or just file the conviction to prove the fact of the theft.

What we would like to do is to be able to permit the criminal court to deal with it where the damages are not in dispute. As I indicated earlier in the estimates, Mr. Chairman, if the Supreme Court of Canada rules these restitution sections under the Criminal Code invalid, it’s our intention to introduce provincial legislation forthwith, to give our judges in Ontario with criminal court jurisdiction powers under provincial legislation, if the Supreme Court of Canada says you can’t get them under federal legislation.

Mr. McKessock: Thank you, Mr. Minister, for that explanation. I find since I came in here, lawyers have quite a time agreeing too, just like farmers. They usually say if you ask three farmers, you will get three different opinions and I found this to be quite a bit the same with lawyers.

Mr. Makarchuk: They only charge more for theirs.

Mr. McKessock: I agree restitution should stay in the federal court -- this is what should have happened. I find it awfully hard to understand how an appeal court could overturn a clear-cut decision. The cattle were known to go through the sales barn and the receipts were there -- there was no doubt he was convicted and no doubt of the price of the cattle. For any court to allow an appeal on a clear-cut decision like that is unbelievable.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: The court did it because there were two accused, two people had been convicted, and the order for restitution was against only one of the two accused. The court, on its own motion -- because nobody asked the court to do this, which made it more complicated -- looked at it and said, “For some reason the judge made the order of restitution against only one accused and not against the other. It is unfair to make one of the two accused bear the burden,” so they struck it out. I am not suggesting I agree with their decision, but I think this is the background as to why they interfered with the case.

Mr. McKessock: This case is kind of hanging on, to see what is going to happen, because as I suggested earlier it is going to cost Mr. Rae as much money to finish this case as he is going to get out of it. Could you tell me when you think there might be a change in the proceedings? Can they wait for this change to come into effect before they finish this case?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I wouldn’t recommend it in this particular case. The machinery of justice and the law moves slowly admittedly, and generally speaking that is for a good purpose. I think any time you change the law or change the procedures you must move with a great deal of caution, and this sometimes results in a great deal of delay. I can appreciate this can create enormous frustrations for people in the position of Mr. Rae.

I would think in this particular case Mr. Rae would not have much trouble in recovering. It’s not for me to give him civil advice and it is really not the role of the Attorney General, but in a case such as this where the accuseds have been convicted I don’t think it would be a very costly business to get a judgement in, say the county court, for the value of the cattle. I doubt very much if the issue would be defended.

I am speculating and perhaps I shouldn’t embark on a speculative venture without knowing all the facts but I would think Mr. Rae’s problem is not so much in getting a judgement against the two accuseds who have been convicted, but in collecting it. No law is going to assist in getting blood from a stone. That often happens in cases such as this where you are dealing with criminal acts.

Mr. McKessock: Has there ever been any thought given to setting up some kind of compensation fund for cases like this where the victim could be paid? It could be collected later by the courts in some way. I think other Acts and laws have come into existence in the last few years to protect the victim. This is another case where I think the victim should be paid fairly quickly and somehow the funds be collected at a later date.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: As you know, we have legislation for compensating victims of crime, but this is only in relation to personal injuries. As a matter of fact, I think I tabled the annual report of the tribunal in relation to compensating victims of criminal acts for personal injuries. This is exactly what happens.

Now with respect to damage, there is a problem of insurance. At this point in time, I don’t think any jurisdiction, quite frankly, has felt it could afford a scheme to compensate victims for damage to property. I think it is a desirable goal, but I don’t think any jurisdiction anywhere has felt the public purse could afford it.

Mr. Lawlor: A couple of points in the limited time we have left: On Mr. Justice Kelly’s report with respect to the Court of Appeal of Ontario. No doubt you or your department have perused the report carefully and its numerous recommendations. What is your reception and feeling about the report, particularly about the division of the court into two segments, one being called the “general”

section and the other the “juristic”?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: We think there are a number of useful recommendations. I am waiting for recommendations to my own ministry as to what we might be able to implement. The most significant recommendation of all is the one to which the member for Lakeshore has just referred, namely, the two-tiered system of a Court of Appeal.

I have to say at the moment that recommendation is being reviewed very carefully. I have received a number of letters from members of the profession opposing the recommendation and I must admit I have had relatively little support from the profession in favour of the recommendation. At this point in time, all I can say is we’re reviewing the recommendation very cautiously.

Mr. Lawlor: The Supreme Court is divided into two sections, the Court of Appeal and the High Court, in Ontario. It covers quite a bit of ground. In the Court of Appeal criminal appeals, the case load situation at the end of the fiscal year 1975 was 607. It rose in the next year to 694 and is now at 699. That’s on the criminal side. The civil side is at page three of your report. It has gone from 638 in the year before last to 699 and is now 815. There is an increase there.

My understanding, to make this kind of short, is that there is no real problem in the Court of Appeal with respect to case load. They’re able to handle it and dispose of the cases with the present number of judges and courtroom time. Is that correct?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Yes. We think there are ways in which we can cut down their load but, generally speaking, they regard it as quite manageable.

Mr. Lawlor: In the Supreme Court, in the trial division, the figures are a little more horrendous. Taking the Ontario total, divorce, motor vehicles and what not, there were 37,400 the year before last, then 39,000 -- up a little over 2,300 -- and now in the last figures here, 43,300. That is escalating and we’re dealing with thousands of cases at this particular stage. With the new judges, is that situation manageable too?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: They’re short about four judges at the moment. We’re listing divorce figures under the Supreme Court for divorce under the Matrimonial Causes Act, It was explained to me why we listed them under the Supreme Court as opposed to county court and at the moment I forget the explanation. MCA is the Matrimonial Causes Act. They’re county court judges and local judges of the Supreme Court. That’s why it’s listed under this heading.

I think the Supreme Court feels the list is getting a little heavy. They are embarking on a number of pretrial procedures, criminal and civil, to try to cut down the load. As I indicated a few minutes ago, we have increased the size of the Supreme Court trial division by over 30 per cent -- close to one third -- in the last two years. We’re optimistic that with the appointment of the additional judges this will bring it within manageable proportions.

I think the key test is that delays in civil actions, both jury and non-jury, are not unreasonable. Those delays, in my own personal experience, have not increased over the years between the time that an action is set down for trial and a certificate of readiness served and a trial date is obtained. That is one area in which I can say there hasn’t been any significant increase in that time. In my own experience, it has fluctuated back and forth in the last 10 years.

[4:00]

It is pointed out to me that the backlog throughout Ontario this year -- up until the end of June of this year -- has actually decreased slightly.

Mr. Lawlor: Slightly, yes.

Item 2 agreed to.

On item 3, county, district and small claims courts:

Mr. Lawlor: Just a word on item 3 on case load and that vexing perennial problem that we have on trials de novo. The figures given to us are that in York on the county court set-up it went from 2,900 to 3,600 last year to 4,200 this year in the

summary convictions appeals area. All kinds of nostrums have been presented to you on that.

By way of an aside, you are placing an enormous emphasis upon Williston. You think Williston, like some kind of lodestone, is going to solve all your magnetic compasses. That may not be so. After all this is merely procedural; no matter what he can come up with on pretrial matters with a little streamlining here and there, you have still the whole vast inertia of the courts and the way in which they have forever operated. I wouldn’t place a great deal of faith in it. Some, but not unduly in that particular area.

Back to trial de novo: Can you make a statement about that? Are you going to set a limit as to the sum that may be appealed in terms of the fine? Is there some scheme that you may have to relieve that load?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: As you know the

summary conviction appeal rules have been changed in order to permit an appeal on the record, not trial de novo. I think those sections were just proclaimed this fall. That will undoubtedly have a significant impact, I suspect, on the number of cases.

Furthermore, we will be introducing a new Provincial Offences Act, a very important piece of legislation, in relation to the trial of minor highway traffic matters. There won’t be the same number of minor highway traffic cases going to a county court judge. In some of these cases the right of appeal in a minor traffic case will end with a provincial court judge. They will be heard in the first instance by a JP and under the present state of the law they go from a JP to a county court judge. A lot of these appeals were initiated simply to delay in order to protect points in relation to an operator’s licence.

Under this proposed new Provincial Offences Act, for minor highway traffic cases there will be a right of appeal but that will be from a JP in many cases -- and I emphasize in the minor cases -- to a provincial court judge and from there to a Court of Appeal on a question of law. But we are optimistic that this will significantly cut down as well the volume of

summary conviction appeals, particularly in places like the judicial district of York where it is very heavy.

Although we think the Williston committee is important with respect to civil cases, I certainly hope, Mr. Chairman, that I haven’t created the impression that we are putting too much reliance on Mr. Williston because that is not the case. While we regard his work as very important, we just regard it as one important element in the overall picture which requires a number of initiatives.

Mr. Lawlor: Just very quickly: In the general sessions for the peace -- that is, the criminal cases with jury at the county level -- the cases remaining in York have escalated quite a bit over the previous period. At least, on page eight of the notes you gave us from 592 to 706. What is the situation there? Are you getting complaints from the judges and from the Crown counsel and others handling these cases that there is a log jam in this area?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Chairman, I don’t recall any specific complaints. I do discuss this problem from time to time with the senior judge in the judicial district of York, a gentleman who is well known to the member for Lakeshore because of his previous responsibilities. I am very open to suggestions he has in expediting these cases through the courts.

I think with respect to the judicial district of York where the problem is particularly critical in the county court, the decentralization of the Crown system will help. What we are trying to do is arrange for individual Crown attorneys to be seized with these cases at an early stage. We think this will be one effect, hopefully, of cutting down the volume.

Under the present system where you have a very large Crown’s office centralized for most purposes on University Avenue, many of these cases in the county court are assigned to a Crown attorney only a matter of perhaps several days or less prior to the trial. And the police are responsible for ensuring that the witnesses are present.

We think it will be improved with the smaller semi-autonomous offices. Then even if the case originates in North York, the Crown attorney will follow it downtown with the responsibility from an earlier stage, being “seized” as I have expressed it. It will encourage defence counsel to approach Crown counsel and vice versa with respect to cutting down the length of the trial, avoiding the calling of unnecessary witnesses. We are honing this is one way in which this backlog will be reduced.

Item 3 agreed to.

On item 4, provincial courts:

Mr. Worton: I would like briefly to bring to the attention of the minister a letter that I had written to him last week. I realize this may be repeating the situation but I believe the minister is a man who tempers justice with mercy. It involves whether or not the courts themselves are abusing the method in regard to collecting of what I would term NSF cheques.

I gave him an example of a young man who issued three cheques -- one for $10, one for $4 and another one for $4. Eventually he was picked up by our local police and jailed in the Kitchener jail. He then had to appear in the Cambridge court. He wanted to plead innocent but he was advised, I suspect by the legal counsel on duty that he should seek legal advice. Then it was postponed to be heard in Kitchener on January 10 of next year.

The father, who has a position with a utility in Guelph in which he deals with credit, came to me. The parents failed to understand the situation. The father said if half the people who send in NSF cheques to this utility were charged, the jails would be full every night. When he came to see me this Saturday he thought it was rather extreme that this firm should use the police as what I would term as a collection agency for such a small account.

It will no doubt mean charges against a young man of 21 when, with perhaps a little bit of discussion between the family and the firm they might have been avoided. I’m not enough of a legal mind to understand the procedures, but when this money could have been paid to the firm to whom he gave the cheques -- and oddly enough he had the money in a non-chequing account but not in his regular chequing account when he issued them.

So I’m just wondering, Mr. Minister, in view of people on the street who don’t understand -- when they read of situations like the member for Grey gave here a minute ago -- about a man who was convicted of taking cattle valued at $3,300 and was ordered to make restitution and then he appealed, and it looks from what I heard that the farmer is going to be out that money -- it is pretty hard to convince the man on the street that justice is equal for everyone. I’m just wondering what your feeling is on the courts being used in such a way for such a minor thing.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Chairman, I certainly would share any concern of the member opposite for any abuse of the process which in my view would be the case if the courts are used as a collection agency. There’s nothing to prevent an individual from coming before a JP and laying a charge. They must swear they have reasonable and probable grounds to believe that an offence has been committed -- namely the obtaining of something by false pretences.

But as I recall the law, the crux of that offence is that you must have reasonable and probable grounds to believe that the individual did not have the funds in the account when he wrote the cheque. I would think in many cases this would be very difficult. I know the chief judge of the provincial court, who has jurisdiction over the justices of the peace, continually reminds them that the courts are not to be used as a collection agency.

I’d be interested in following up the matter that the member has written to me about, Mr. Chairman. I haven’t yet seen the letter to find out why the JP would issue process, particularly when it was such a minor amount. The fact that it is a minor amount in itself does not mean that a criminal offence has not been committed. But I’m very concerned about the possibility of courts being misused in that manner.

It’s a very difficult area because it’s hard to generalize. But I will certainly pursue the matter that you’ve written to me on, and we will remind the JP, hopefully through the chief judge in that area, to be concerned about the possible abuse of the process in this respect.

Mr. Worton: I would appreciate that, Mr. Minister. I’m sure if the story as I’ve got it has been told in a truthful way there should be accommodation. Not that I want to ever interfere in the duties of the court. I’ll be most happy if you and your staff look into it thoroughly and see if there’s another solution to the matter.

Mr. Stong: I have a question for the minister. For some time now I understand that the provincial judges’ association has been dealing with the financial management branch of your ministry concerning their pensions. I wonder if you could give us an update as to just how those negotiations are proceeding and what the attitude of the ministry is toward the pension fund of the provincial judges.

[4:15]

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Shortly after I assumed my present responsibilities, I made it very clear I did not wish to have anything to do with the judges’ salaries, or judges’ pensions. When I speak of myself I must, of course, speak of my ministry in the same light, because I viewed it as something that could only give the perception of a possible conflict of interest. After all, it’s something that could have the appearance of affecting in an adverse way the independence of the judiciary. Obviously, they shouldn’t be negotiating salaries or pensions with the chief prosecutor, the person responsible for bringing cases before them.

So to my knowledge all of these matters are dealt with by the Management Board; and all negotiations, to my knowledge, have been carried on by my colleague, the Hon. James Auld, in this respect.

Mr. Stong: Am I given to understand that things have changed, since July 1975, at any rate, where the provincial judges were considered at that time employees of the ministry for the purposes of group insurance plans? And is not your ministry involved in the remittance of salaries to the provincial judges?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Certainly it has changed since July 1975. I guess I was sworn in on October 7, 1975. It’s changed since that time. The mechanics of issuing the cheques may still be done through our ministry but that’s a mechanical operation.

Mr. Stong: Am I given to understand that the provincial judges are concerned about the very thing you have stated you want to avoid? That is, if they are not employees or servants of your ministry, they may be perceived to be so in terms of salary negotiations? In fact, they do receive their salary from your ministry and at the point of receiving their salary, unemployment insurance is deducted, for instance. They are concerned about that as well, as I am given to understand.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: That may have been the case. It’s no longer the case, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Lawlor: On the matter of the horrendous figures that have to do with the provincial courts in criminal division: The case-load backlog for Metropolitan Toronto as of March 31, 1977, was 1,630,114 cases -- that’s quite a few cases; the rest of the province is around 1,600,000 to make a grand total in these courts for the province of over 3,000,000. The Attorney General has, to some degree, indicated his concern in estimates, although it was done far more thoroughly last year. But there is no use repeating yourself unduly. What has to be done is known and the mechanisms by which it can be done are being gradually seized upon.

But that surely is a startling figure. I suppose the chief weight of the figure comes with the highway traffic offences in which justices of the peace are playing a greater and greater role and for which tribunals of various kinds are being set. I think the Attorney General would agree with me that to some degree the siphoning away from the regular courts of that particular kind of offence, would do very much to lighten this case load, and the very heavy burden and what appears to be monstrous number of cases.

I don’t know how the filing systems in those courts can ever remain apace and whether there aren’t all kinds of snafus developing because of the sheer load. Once a problem gets up past a certain marginal point it compounds itself and all kinds of elements enter in which were not original parts of the problem and are really, from an operative point of view, quite unnecessary.

Without any great and elaborate reply, could the Attorney General comment on that?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I think the figures referred to by the member for Lakeshore are not the backlog, but actually the disposition, so that in the fiscal period ended March 1977 the provincial courts disposed of 400,000 more cases than they did the year before. So the increases actually are in what they’ve been able to dispose of. The charges outstanding are significant and are contained on page 11.

Mr. Lawlor: They were two million.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: We’ve indicated what we’ve done with respect to the provincial offences legislation, which will certainly help in relation to highway traffic offences. We’ve appointed a significant additional number of provincial court judges in the provincial division in the past two years. But, in any event, I don’t know that I can add anything further than what I’ve said in respect to the matter of the backlog.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Does the member for Lakeshore have any further comments on this item?

Mr. Lawlor: No. As I say, Mr. Chairman, due to the time element here -- and I said we’d be out of here sooner than we are at this time -- I’m not going to press this matter any further this year.

Item 4 agreed to.

Vote 1306 agreed to.

On vote 1307, administrative tribunals program, item 1, assessment review court:

Mr. Lawlor: On the decisions of the assessment review court and the criteria upon which it operates -- those very elusive, those very esoteric grounds upon which assessments are shifted with respect to the same kind of building in the same sort of community, the house two blocks away probably ruled out because it’s not close enough. I always find that a very trying part of the thing when people come to see us in our constituency offices complaining and trying to nail that down. In other words, I’m asking whether there is more information by which to form an opinion obtainable as a result of the work of this particular court?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I am not sure that I totally understand the question. The criteria, of course, are laid down by the Assessment Act. All I can state is that, hopefully, in gaining experience the courts are more effectively able to deal with these matters.

Mr. Lawlor: Are the cases reported?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: No, they are not.

Mr. Lawlor: For the general guidance of the public and even the legal profession, this is a highly subjective area. I am telling you both on the part of the county court judges and on the court here. Just how the rules of thumb are linked to the chancellor’s foot and operated in this particular area bemuses me. Any information that can be supplied in a general way is far fairer to the public on going into this court, so they know what they are faced with and the type of argumentation that appears to be valid or non-valid by the court.

I don’t know if you have ever appeared before one of those courts. I have on numerous occasions. I never know what to say, what the best arguments are -- or if there are any, for heaven’s sake. You go in and it’s a little like this place. You talk through your hat for a few minutes and you might just come out with a favourable decision. Normally, if you talk long enough, you do.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I have not appeared before any of these courts, as the member will appreciate.

Mr. MacDonald: That classifies you to speak at length.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: A great volume of cases is handled. I will explore the matter with my senior officials as to how we might better assist the public to understand the process and whether it would be helpful to publish some sort of booklet to help the individual citizen. I must admit I don’t have any suggestions to make myself but I would be happy to pursue it and get back to the member.

Items 1 and 2 agreed to.

On item 3, Criminal Injuries Compensation Board:

Mr. Stong: I have just had handed to me immediately before we got to this vote the eighth report of the Ontario Criminal Injuries Compensation Board.

Mr. Lawlor: Have you read it already?

Mr. Stong: I am sure that would have been very helpful. I do notice on page five there has been an increase in the awards of some 37 per cent. I am wondering in general about the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board whether the attitude that seems to be prevailing among provincial judges and being leaned on perhaps more and more is assisting in this regard in keeping down the cost and the necessity of going to the board.

I am speaking about the reparation and restitution provisions under the Criminal Code that can be acted upon by provincial judges. I have even heard where some provincial judges are making awards for personal injuries, such as an injured thumb or some physical injury.

What is the policy of the ministry in this area? If it is the policy of the ministry to district provincial judges to make awards for personal injuries in criminal cases, I wonder whether that is viewed as being directed towards cutting down the number of cases that are going before the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I have some concerns about the matter of our provincial or criminal courts making assessments in relation to personal injuries. I know the Court of Appeal has recently struck down an award that was made by a provincial court judge for general damages. Although the federal government has suggested this might be a part of the process, I must confess I have grave reservations about protecting the rights of all parties, even the rights of the accused, in facing assessment of damages in a tribunal which really isn’t set up to deal with assessment of damages.

I have to say I am rather inclined to the view that in this type of case it is best to deal with it through the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. It’s quite clear there are many more people every year making use of the board and this trend is likely to continue. We are considering the suggestion I have just referred to, but I have to confess I have grave reservations about it.

[4:30]

Mr. Stong: Along those lines, have you or are you contemplating sending out a directive to your Crown attorneys as the chief Crown, in the event a provincial judge or any judge within the trial division asks counsel on both sides to direct their attention toward compensation for personal injury, that they ought to leave that to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board and therefore a judge ought not to address himself to that particular problem?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I hadn’t considered that but I am quite happy to consider it because I hadn’t become aware of the fact this really had become an issue and counsel were in fact doing that. I think there was a decision reversing the order of the provincial court judge recently in the Court of Appeal. I think that decision is generally known. But I will certainly be happy to take under advisement the wisdom of sending out a directive to that effect.

Mr. Stong: I am glad to hear you say that, because I am personally aware of a situation where one of our provincial judges in the county of York ordered an award to be paid in the amount of $700 for personal injury arising out of an assault occasioning bodily harm charge. The Crown was obviously at a loss at the time.

Better direction from the ministry would assist, because in my mind, as well as I can see in yours, it is a matter best left to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board.

Mr. Lawlor: I notice pain and suffering is 70 per cent of the total picture; legal fees are six per cent, that is counsel fees in the hearings; and there were 609 awards given in the course of the last year. I just have one comment, and that is to thank the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board for publishing their report -- a little late this year for the purpose of these estimates but better late than never -- and the way in which they set up their format and outline the cases. This gives you some insight into the basis on which they set forth their awards.

That was my complaint with respect to an earlier vote -- you didn’t get any insight or facts of the situation which would give justification for any particular act they did. But here you do, and that’s valuable. Thank you.

Item 3 agreed to.

Item 4 agreed to.

On item 5, Ontario Municipal Board:

Mr. Gaunt: If I may raise the matter I raised a couple of times with the Attorney General, does the Attorney General have any further information with respect to the problem I indicated to him?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: There is a trial date set for sometime in December, about mid-December. All I can say is I will lean on my office to get that for the member opposite. I am sorry we don’t have it for you now; I know it is under active review at the moment.

Mr. Gaunt: I appreciate that; if the Attorney General will keep leaning, I’ll keep leaning on him.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: This concludes the estimates of the Ministry of the Attorney General.

Mr. Lewis: You can go back to your office and lay some charges against nefarious scoundrels.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: While the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Grossman) is taking his place, I’d like to make this gratuitous statement: I was well prepared to answer a question, usually asked by the member for Lakeshore, in relation to the office of Her Majesty’s Proctor. I have to say I’m a little disappointed -- the question wasn’t asked.

Mr. Lawlor: Oh, you are disappointed.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: If I may, I’d like to deliver this brief to the member for Lakeshore. I’m sure he’ll find it of great interest.

Mr. Lawlor: John Hilton, the Queen’s Proctor.

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AND COMMERCIAL RELATIONS

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I’d like to introduce our estimates with some statements about the short-term goals, and long-term philosophies and directions of my ministry. In short, what we feel we can honestly, fairly and realistically accomplish, with energy and dedication to the difficult job at hand.

As you know, this is a time of budgetary restraint, but there is certainly no restraint in our approach to service. By increasing efficiency, the ministry plans to offer viable, helpful services, programs and protection, and to show ingenuity at the same time. You will see in the estimates of the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations, a continuing emphasis on efficiency. I have made a commitment to the people of this province to provide an aggressive and active response to consumer needs.

I intend to honour this commitment; and also to honour my commitment to permit, and indeed encourage, business to operate, expand and develop free of unnecessary, wasteful red tape, paperwork, rules and regulations. We do not see our responsibility in the areas of consumerism and commercial relations at cross purposes, rather they have common goals -- healthy, fair honest competition supplying dependable items to an open, effective and active marketplace, one in which consumers and good businessmen can operate safely and effectively.

My predecessor, Mr. Handleman, laid the groundwork, legislatively and administratively. I now intend to follow through with the performance consumers are looking for. The question is how to deliver more without spending more; that is the essential question which I hope to discuss with you during these estimates. Frankly, I welcome your views and your ideas. I’m a new minister and I have come here today to participate in a dialogue with you.

Basically, there are two types of consumerism. The first kind has government answering complaints; investigating, mediating and disposing of them. We do a lot of this, and we do it well; however, we do not think the taxpayer can afford to have us act as legal counsel for all of Ontario’s eight million consumers.

The second kind of consumerism is larger in scope and potentially much more powerful. It emphasizes consumer education in the schools and the provision of preventive information to groups and individuals in the community at large; it makes business groups more responsive to complaints; it establishes compensation funds for restitution and gives consumers direct access to claim against those funds, rather than relying solely upon our mediation or expensive legal action; it features highly visible action by the ministry against businesses or companies which do engage in bad or unfair practices.

To summarize in a sentence, this second approach means developing better consumers and encouraging better businessmen. It has the advantage of being inexpensive but visible, while helping a lot of people. It’s a good and effective way, and one which I have chosen to encourage. We are going to continue responding to complaints, but we are not going to claim complaint handling is our only business. Our attention is going to be focused as well on the big issues.

What I would like to do now is highlight two main themes in our estimates -- a more efficient ministry and a more active ministry.

First, efficiency: As you will note in the briefing material provided to you, there is no increase in the number of full-time, non-rent review, staff positions in the ministry. The actual staff of the ministry has dropped this year, compared to last year, by 180 employees. This overall reduction has been achieved while substantially increasing the service we provided to the public.

The total increase budgeted in our estimates for 1977-78 is $10.7 million, an increase of 15.6 per cent. The rent review program is excluded from this calculation. The estimates show funding of the rent review program for only a part of the current fiscal year, because they were prepared last November when the future of the program was uncertain. Since then, additional funding has been obtained from Management Board to continue the program for the remainder of the year.

The largest portion of the increase, about $6.3 million, is for salary awards. These are economic increases authorized by the government over the past two years.

These estimates don’t reflect some of the astute management which has resulted in savings during the past year. For example, we have instituted a records and forms management program which now yields savings of $130,000 per year. We also have a computerized fixed asset inventory control system. Next on the list of improvements are a consolidated purchase plan and a five-year accommodation plan, including office consolidation and workshops and records management. We anticipate average savings of $230,000 a year from these and similar measures.

Long-range planning is also being emphasized. By