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

May 5, 1975

29th Parliament, 5th Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L038 - Mon 5 May 1975 / Lun 5 mai 1975

ESTIMATES

LENNOX TO OSHAWA HYDRO LINE

METRO TORONTO ACT AMENDMENTS

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS ACT AMENDMENTS

LIAISON WITH INDIAN COMMUNITIES

SUPPORT OF ATHLETES

COCKSHUTT BRIDGE

AUTO INSURANCE RATES

HARVESTING OF WILD RICE

METRO TORONTO HOUSING

INSURANCE SERVICES IN NORTHERN ONTARIO

PORTRAYAL OF VIOLENCE BY COMMUNICATIONS INDUSTRY

KIMBERLY-CLARK EXPANSION PROGRAMME

PORTRAYAL OF VIOLENCE BY COMMUNICATIONS INDUSTRY

CHICKEN IMPORTS

HOME BUYER GRANT

HOME IMPROVEMENT FUNDS

CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

CONDOMINIUM AMENDMENT ACT

MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO AMENDMENT ACT

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS AMENDMENT ACT, 1972

TRAINING SCHOOLS AMENDMENT ACT

TRAINING SCHOOLS AMENDMENT ACT

THIRD READING

ESTIMATES, PROVINCIAL SECRETARIAT FOR JUSTICE (CONTINUED)

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ HOUR

LANDLORD AND TENANT AMENDMENT ACT

The House met at 2 o’clock, p.m.

Prayers.

Mr. R. D. Kennedy (Peel South): Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I would like to introduce, in the east and west galleries and in your gallery, Mr. Speaker, enthusiastic members of the Peel South Progressive Conservative Women’s Association and their guests. Would members join me in welcoming them?

Mr. Speaker: Statements by the ministry.

ESTIMATES

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Mr. Speaker, I have a message from the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor signed by her own hand.

Mr. Speaker: By her own hand, Pauline M. McGibbon, the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor, transmits estimates of certain sums required for the service of the province for the year ending March 31, 1976, and recommends them to the legislative assembly, Toronto, May 5, 1975.

LENNOX TO OSHAWA HYDRO LINE

Hon. A. Grossman (Provincial Secretary for Resources Development): Mr. Speaker, in June, 1972, pursuant to the provisions of the Public Inquiries Act, the Solandt commission was established to inquire into the transmission of power from Nanticoke to Pickering. On March 21, 1973, the terms of reference of the commission were extended to include an examination of the proposed route of Ontario Hydro’s transmission facilities between Lennox and Oshawa.

During the course of his inquiry, Dr. Solandt held public hearings in a number of municipalities between Lennox and Oshawa. These hearings were conducted between May, 1974, and January, 1975. After consideration of all the evidence presented at these public hearings, Dr. Solandt has prepared and submitted his report, which I am now tabling, containing recommendations regarding the preferred location for the transmission line between Lennox and Oshawa.

A commission of this nature is a valuable step in a planning sequence designed to satisfy both the wishes of local residents, who may be affected by the location of a transmission pathway, and the needs of residents in a wider area who require an assured future supply of power. This difficult task must be accomplished, while at the same time ensuring that environmental, agricultural, technical and economic factors are given full consideration.

Dr. Solandt notes in his preface to this report that the choice of routes is so large and the pros and cons are so varied that there is no single selection that stands out as the best or even the worst. He also notes that each potential route was stoutly opposed by at least one ministry, municipality, planning group, local citizen organization or by individual citizens.

The Solandt commission has performed a thorough and commendable task. On behalf of the government, I would like to thank Dr. Omond Solandt, and his staff who have worked so hard during the past two years. This report, like its predecessor, is a remarkable compilation of facts and a wise and considered judgement of the situation. Copies of the commission’s report will shortly be delivered to those who made submissions to the commission. A

summary report will be distributed to others and will be publicly available in municipal offices between Lennox and Oshawa.

As was done with the previous report on the Nanticoke to Pickering line, I am inviting public comment, during the next 60 days, on Dr. Solandt’s report and its recommendations.

Hon. W. D. McKeough (Treasurer, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Mr. Speaker, while I am on my feet, perhaps members might join with me in welcoming --

Mrs. M. Campbell (St. George): He just got on his feet.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: That’s what I said. While I am on my feet, the members might join with me in welcoming a group of grade 12 students from the Wallaceburg District High School who are here today to witness our proceedings.

METRO TORONTO ACT AMENDMENTS

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, later on I will be introducing

an Act to amend the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act. The purpose is to make several not necessarily related amendments.

One important amendment, requested by the Metropolitan Toronto council, is to establish an Exhibition Stadium Corp. The corporation would have responsibility for managing, operating and maintaining the Canadian National Exhibition stadium, in accordance with policies of the metropolitan council.

A second amendment would permit the metropolitan council to build and operate other sports stadia which could be used for track and field and other amateur sports activities.

Another amendment would enable school boards to undertake contracts with private school bus operations. It would also authorize the operation of horse-drawn sightseeing vehicles in Metropolitan Toronto.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Two horses, one named Krauss and the other Maffei.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: The bill also includes certain amendments, Consistent with existing provisions of the regional Acts, to increase the interest rate charged on overdue payments of the metropolitan levy, as well as to increase the penalty rate on charges for water supplied to the area municipalities.

A final amendment would provide the Metropolitan council with authority similar to that of the regional municipalities in issuing debentures in foreign currencies.

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS ACT AMENDMENTS

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I will also, sir, be introducing amendments to the Municipal Elections Act.

Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): About time.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: The second amendment would make provision for the holding of a new election if a municipal council or local board is unable to conduct its business for a period of two months because of a lack of a quorum.

The final amendment would provide for the fulfilling of responsibilities of a council or local board where the majority of the seats of the members are vacant, until a new election is held and the members so elected have taken office.

Mr. Speaker: Oral questions.

The hon. Leader of the Opposition.

LIAISON WITH INDIAN COMMUNITIES

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): I would like to put a question to the Minister of Natural Resources. It really concerns a matter in his own constituency, and that is the relationships with the Indian community in the town of Kenora.

Is he prepared to recommend to his colleagues the appointment of an all-party committee from this Legislature which can go and talk to the Indians in their own council houses and talk to the elected people in the communities concerned -- that is, in the elected councils such as Kenora -- about the situation as it was last summer and as it may well be again this summer, so that we can use the good offices of this Legislature as well as the government to at least move toward an acceptable situation in that area rather than wait for problems that might come forward this summer?

Might I ask another question at the same time: Does the minister recall me putting forward this alternative a year ago now to his colleague, the policy secretary (Mrs. Birch) when she said that it was under consideration; and could I ask the minister if he would agree that this is the time the good offices of this Legislature could be used rather than waiting for some problems later -- and I hope there are none -- when about all we can do is send a Deputy Attorney General to the Kenora area?

Hon. L. Bernier (Minister of Natural Resources): Mr. Speaker, if I may respond; and I can say that I would respond as the local member, I don’t think I could respond on behalf of the government at this point in time until the matter has been thoroughly reviewed.

First, of course, I want to commend the Leader of the Opposition for going to that great riding of Kenora.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I was very well received there.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: We are always most appreciative of those visits. They come quite seldom, but nevertheless it’s good to have him there.

Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbury East): Just around election time.

An hon. member: There must be an election coming.

Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): The people he met had to ask who the local member was.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: They thought it was Pat Reid.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I am particularly pleased, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. Leader of the Opposition has seen for himself the situation in Kenora. It gives me a great deal of concern; in fact, I would have to say I spend a considerable amount of my time conferring with a number of people in the local area, both inside and out, as to how we could resolve the situation. I think it is fair to say that as a result of the recent publication that has come out, there is further tendency to divide the community.

Mr. Lewis: A recent publication?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Yes, a recent publication.

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): “Bended Elbow.”

Mr. Lewis: That savage book.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: To come up with an answer that would solve all our problems at this point in time -- I just don’t have the answer. I think the member’s suggestion is one that should be considered by the government. Certainly, as the local member, I would support any move that would tend to bring to bear the services of this Legislature and the efforts and the guidance of other groups throughout the province. I have to say that some of our problems are caused by outsiders -- I say it very, very sincerely -- and it may well be that this would be the approach we should take; certainly it is something I would support.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I appreciate the tone of the answer, believe me. Is the minister aware that municipal leaders in Kenora have indicated publicly they have been disappointed with the federal initiative and the provincial initiative in dealing with this matter? To be informed, as members of the Legislature, is surely the beginning of some kind of wisdom, not only for this Legislature but for the government itself. If the minister is prepared to recommend it, certainly we would be glad to participate.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I would have to say, not in defence but I think in thrust, that the situation which occurred in Kenora last year was one that this government took very seriously. In fact we dispatched one of the highest level civil servants to that particular area in the person of Dr. Doug Wright, who was actually involved in the discussions and who has been continuously trying to bring the situation to a reasonable conclusion. He has spent a tremendous amount of time both in dealing at the local level and in conferring with my cabinet colleagues.

I am hopeful that the Social Development policy field, along with the thrust of the local member, can come forward with some positive suggestions.

Mr. Lewis: A supplementary, if I may.

Mr. Speaker: A supplementary, the member for Scarborough West.

Mr. Lewis: To what extent, in the last two or three months, have cabinet ministers or senior officials of government been in direct contact with the leaders of the Indian community, in particular in the Kenora area, to deal with them about another reaction similar to last year? What direct conversations have taken place and what ground has been covered and what is the minister’s sense of the situation now and in prospect?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, again, of course, I speak as the local member and I can say that a number of my cabinet colleagues have been very much involved in dealing with the situation. I have spent considerable time dealing with the new mayor and his council.

The Solicitor General’s and the Attorney General’s offices are very much aware of the situation, as is the former Community and Social Services ministry group now under the Indian community secretariat. We have established a new representative for the Indian community secretariat in a person from Moosonee who is very able and very well qualified to deal with that aspect of the situation. In fact, as late as last Wednesday, we met with the Indian chiefs from across Ontario and the issue was brought up that there may be further problems this coming summer.

Hopefully there will not; I think all sides are hopeful that this confrontation does not go in the direction it went last year. We are very concerned about it.

I had to indicate that it may well be that if there are movements in these directions, with this type of confrontation where there are arms, as the local member I would certainly ask that law and order come in immediately. I think this has to come in before the news media is there and I have said this publicly. I don’t think we can have the harassment we have had.

The people in Kenora -- and I have full sympathy for them -- have gone through a lot. They had the occupation of the post office about a year ago, without any control. They had the occupation of Anicinabe Park, in which the people of Kenora have a great deal of pride. To have a third occurrence -- I don’t think the people in Kenora would stand for it, really I don’t. There has to be law and order brought in very quickly.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Rainy River? The Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Martel: A supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry.

Mr. Martel: A supplementary question of the minister: Doesn’t the minister think it is time the government itself took a positive role and put the Indian secretariat into a ministry where it would remain rather than pass it from pillar to post as it has now done by taking it out of Community and Social Services and putting it into Culture and Recreation? Wouldn’t that be the first positive step?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I don’t think that really matters, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Martel: Sure it does.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: -- because the Indian secretariat is being moved as a package. The same people are there and the same thrust is there; to say moving it around from ministry to ministry does not help the situation, but they have a place to go. I think it is fair to say that during our meeting on Wednesday last, the cabinet approved in principle a new structure for the Indian people to confer with the policymakers of this province, rather than have to go through an Indian secretariat.

Mr. Lewis: Some decade the government will deal with causes; then we won’t have the symptoms.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: We accept that principle; it’s one that’s been given to the federal government and one that we’re going to seriously look at.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition.

SUPPORT OF ATHLETES

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I have a question of the Chairman of the Management Board. Does he recall giving approval, and in what amount, to a recognition dinner for athletes, which I believe, was held a week ago at the Sheraton-Four Seasons? As a second question associated with that, did he read the column in the Toronto Sun, written by George Gross, the sports editor, pointing out that a number of Olympic athletes from Ontario are leaving this province to go to Quebec because they are not given sufficient dollar support to early out their preparations for the Olympic Games in 1976?

My question is this: Is the Chairman of Management Board satisfied that the scarce dollars, which are to be applied to put forward our athletic opportunities here, are being spent properly when they go mostly for this colossal dinner at the Sheraton-Four Seasons rather than for the direct support of our athletic endeavours?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the first part of the question, this has been an annual affair for quite some time and has been included in the consideration of the ministry’s estimates.

The second half of the questions concerns me more than somewhat. I regret that I have not as yet seen that

article in the Toronto Sun --

Mr. Lewis: Rush out!

Hon. Mr. Winkler: -- but I will appraise myself of it and discuss it with my colleague the Minister of Culture and Recreation (Mr. Welch).

Mr. Reid: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Can the minister inform the House sometime this week what the total bill was for that particular dinner at the Four Seasons?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: If I can acquire the figures this week, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Reid: Or next week?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: -- I certainly would be delighted to announce to the House what we spent on this dinner in honour of the athletes who participated in the programmes of the Province of Ontario.

Mr. Speaker: Further questions?

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): One supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: A supplementary. The member for Wentworth.

Mr. Deans: Has the minister considered the financial hardship and difficulties that confront a number of athletes who don’t live within the immediate area of Metropolitan Toronto and the fact that some are not able to attend the dinner because of the distance and the cost? Has he given some thought to whether some appropriate arrangement might be made to assist them?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: I wasn’t aware of that situation, Mr. Speaker, but I’m certainly willing to take it under consideration; because I believe that all of them should be able to participate.

Mr. Speaker: Does the Leader of the Opposition have further questions?

COCKSHUTT BRIDGE

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Perhaps this shouldn’t be directed to the Treasurer, but he’ll be able to answer it if he chooses.

What is the situation in the city of Brantford and the county of Brant whereby, because of the structural weakness of a major crossing of the Grand River, the Cockshutt bridge, the city decided to go ahead with the building of the bridge, and the Municipal Board, in reviewing these capital expenditures, cancelled it on a basis of financial capability? What is the position that can be taken, since it appears that even on appeal this might not be permitted?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: It is my understanding that the member for Brantford (Mr. Beckett) is arranging a meeting with the Ontario Municipal Board about this matter.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary: Since the Treasurer, I suppose, is responsible for finding a large share of the money, would he be in communication with the Minister of Transportation and Communications, who has just taken his seat now, to see that the provincial highways are going to be maintained in a safe and viable situation? Apparently the OPP cruisers are not even supposed to cross that bridge.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: It is my understanding that the member for Brantford has been in touch with the Minister of Transportation and Communications, and I think the matter is in hand.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Then I would put a question to the Minister of Transportation and Communications: Is the Cockshutt bridge going to be built this year?

Mr. Martel: It’s election year.

Hon. J. R. Rhodes (Minister of Transportation and Communications): Mr. Speaker, a letter has already gone out to the mayor of Brantford and to the county people as to what our participation will be. I understand the project is well in hand and will be taken care of.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary: Since the government maintains the OMB in this position of fiscal supervision, even over a city like Brantford, is the minister simply going to reverse the OMB position on that from his cabinet position? How is that going to be accommodated?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I have had a number of meetings with people from the area. I don’t know whether they have discussed this with the hon. Leader of the opposition as well, but in my discussions with them it was their feeling that the position I have taken in my ministry will be adequate to meet their requirements and that they will be able to go to the OMB and resolve their problem. That’s the last I’ve heard from them. As recently as late last week a letter was sent to the mayor outlining exactly what our position was and it seemed to satisfy them.

Mr. Speaker: Are there any further questions?

An hon. member: Why didn’t the minister get his letter to the mayor?

Mr. Speaker: Does the member for Scarborough West have any questions?

AUTO INSURANCE RATES

Mr. Lewis: Yes, I was listening Mr. Speaker.

I have a question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Has he investigated the intention of the automobile insurance companies to raise their rates by yet another 15 per cent in the near future? What is the process which his ministry will follow?

Hon. S. B. Handleman (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): First of all, Mr. Speaker, I think it’s a little premature to say there is an intention expressed. There have been some newspaper articles speculating on this. Those newspaper articles are based on the so-called green book which is given to the Superintendents of Insurance in the various provinces and we’ve just received that.

We will be reviewing the information in the green book, and I’m told that the rate advisory group for the industry is also studying the report. We will be monitoring any suggested changes and I can assure the House that we shall continue to monitor closely industry decisions and suggestions in this regard, as we always have done. At the moment, there has been no decision with regard to increased rates.

Mr. Lewis: Yes, that is wonderfully useful. That’s terrific.

By way of a supplementary, instead of simply monitoring the rates which the insurance companies impose -- and the minister knows those green book rates will be imposed -- is he finally prepared, in defence of the consumers of Ontario, to insist on an open and public justification of any rate increase application and to recommend to his cabinet colleagues that those increases in automobile insurance premiums be rolled back if they cannot be justified, as we believe they cannot be justified?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I do not admit those suggested rates in the green book will be imposed.

Mr. Lewis: They always have been.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: We have always required the industry to justify its rates.

Mr. Lewis: Has the government ever rolled them back?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: It is done internally and we will continue to do it.

Mr. Lewis: Has the minister ever done anything about them?

Mr. Speaker: A supplementary, the member for Downsview.

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): Mr. Speaker, since the minister is not going to be able to tell us any one year in which those rates in the green book have ever been varied, can the minister advise us if this year it is the government’s intention to proclaim the two unproclaimed sections in the Insurance Act which would give the government power to roll the rates back, which sections have been in the Act for over 30 years and have not been proclaimed?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, it is not my present intention to proclaim those sections.

Mr. Singer: No, of course not.

Mr. Martel: Does the minister ever do anything but attack Ottawa?

Mr. Speaker: The member for Scarborough West.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary, can the minister give the House one instance in the last 32 years --

Mr. Singer: There aren’t any.

Mr. Lewis: -- or perhaps in the last four, when the superintendent of insurance of Ontario has called into question an automobile insurance premium rate increase? if he cannot, why does he give to the auto insurance companies the right to take from the people of Ontario whatever they please without intervention on the part of government?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the first part of the question, I would have to inquire as to whether or not there has been that kind of question. Second, I don’t admit to the assumption which is inherent in the second part of the question.

Mr. Singer: There have been questions but the rates have never been rolled back.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: In our view, there is competition in the insurance industry and we will make sure that any rate increases proposed to us are fully justified.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. There are a number of supplementaries; the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would like to ask the minister why he would not accept the principle that automobile insurance is a necessity even though the ridiculous law in this province allows some people to drive without liability insurance? Since it is a requirement by everyone who drives, why shouldn’t there be a rate review the way there is apparently going to be some review of a change in hydro rates and certain other things? Why not have a review before a committee of this House or a committee established and responsible to this House?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, I am certainly prepared to give consideration to that suggestion. I agree that insurance is a necessity. However, as my predecessor has said and I have to repeat again, the number of people insured in Ontario compares favourably with that in any other jurisdiction in North America.

Mr. Reid: The minister is afraid of the insurance companies.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Therefore, we are absolutely convinced that the necessity which is automobile insurance is fully available to all people in Ontario.

Mr. Lewis: I have a supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: One final supplementary, the member for Scarborough West.

Mr. Lewis: What does the minister mean when he says he will make sure the increases are legitimate? Does he mean he will tell the Legislature where they appear to be unreasonable? Does he mean he will measure the rates of return on investment? Does he mean he will look at the interest paid on the reserve funds of the insurance companies to offset rate increases? Does he mean he will look at the American ownership? What does the minister mean when he says rate increases will be “legitimate”?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, first of all I think it will have to be justified to the Superintendent of Insurance on the basis of all of the grounds that the hon. member has mentioned, as well as the history of underwriting experience of the particular company.

Mr. Lewis: They are unreasonable,

Mr. Speaker: Any new questions? The member for Scarborough West.

Mr. Lewis: On a separate question: If the minister’s examination finds them to be illegitimate, will he prohibit the increase?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: We’ll discuss that with the company involved.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions.

Mr. Stokes: Supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: I understood it was the last supplementary a few moments ago.

Mr. Lewis: That is complete catering to the automobile industry.

Mr. Speaker: We are spending a lot of time getting the same answers. It seems to be repetitive material.

Mr. Stokes: Yes, will the minister also --

Mr. Speaker: Order please. I indicated that we had the last supplementary a couple of moments ago.

HARVESTING OF WILD RICE

Mr. Lewis: A question of the Minister of Natural Resources, if I may; and I guess it flows in a sense from what was discussed at the opening of the question period. What decision is the government making about the wild rice legislation, the Wild Rice Harvesting Act? Is the government permitting the harvesting of wild rice in northwestern Ontario by individuals or groups other than the Indian communities?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, if I may just explain, there were funds allocated this year -- I think through the DREE agreement, the regional priorities agreement -- to study the entire wild rice situation in northwestern Ontario. At that time it was to look at specific lakes, to look at the natural harvesting areas of the Indian people.

Mr. Reid: The government has been studying that for the last five years.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I would point out to you, Mr. Speaker, that there is no right given by legislation or by statute or by regulation to the treaty Indian people for the exclusive harvesting or growing of wild rice in this province.

Over the years we have tended to lean in that direction. Because of their cultural past and their cultural ways, we give these people the opportunity of going in there first. In fact we designated areas, I think something like 10 specific areas in northwestern Ontario, for the various bands to operate. So, obviously, over the years, the non-status Indians, the Metis groups and certain whites were very concerned with this restrictive policy which we had. So we thought we’d study the entire management and the harvesting practices for wild rice; and we are doing it at the present time. We’ve assured the native people those traditional harvesting areas would be theirs.

However, we’ve looked at other areas, because there are something like 40,000 lakes in northwestern Ontario. Many of these don’t have wild rice now, but could support wild rice.

There has been no firm decision. Our discussions are going on and they will go on. The Indian people will be involved in those discussions.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary: Why does the minister say there is no undertaking, when under Treaty No. 3, signed in 1873 --

Mr. Singer: I remember that well.

Mr. Lewis: -- the substance of which the Premier acknowledged in a letter of Jan. 13, 1975 -- gives the Indians of the area the right to harvest wild rice? Why does the minister slough over that so lightly? Why have the Indians not been consulted up until now in the reassessment he describes? Does he not recognize that this threat to their economic livelihood is precisely what underlies situations like the occupation of Anicinabe Park in Kenora?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, this is not entirely right, what the hon. member is saying. At no time did we indicate we would take over those traditional harvesting areas in any of our discussions; and they are very much aware of that. In no way would we move into those traditional harvesting areas. But there are other areas that will support cultivation, if the individual wants to go in and plant that rice and control the water levels.

There are 40,000 lakes in the Province of Ontario, Mr. Speaker. We are harvesting about 20 per cent of the wild rice now -- that’s a million pounds -- and we should be harvesting four to five million pounds. I point out to you, Mr. Speaker, that one lake in Manitoba produces more wild rice than we do in all the province.

Mr. Lewis: Give some support to the Indian communities and you wouldn’t have the Kenora situation.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: We do; we have given strong support to the setting sip of a co-op that does processing of their wild rice in the southern part of the Lake of the Woods. They are doing very well; and we encouraged them to continue.

Mr. Lewis: Who does the processing?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: They do.

Mr. Speaker: Further questions?

METRO TORONTO HOUSING

Mr. Lewis: Yes, a question of the Minister of Housing, if I may. Has he seen a recent comment -- I’ll just simply quote it to him:

“The housing situation in Metro Toronto, as in many of Canada’s big cities, is reaching, if it has not already reached, scandalous proportions. The vacancy rate in apartments is approaching one per cent, when in fact under normal conditions it would be almost five per cent. Consequently, there are no vacancies. This is a scandalous situation.”

Has the minister seen that statement from outside and within the Conservative Party?

Hon. D. R. Irvine (Minister of Housing): Mr. Speaker, I haven’t seen it outside or inside the Conservative Party. I have heard it, from the members of the NDP.

Mr. Martel: We wouldn’t understand.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: I wouldn’t believe them.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: In any such event, we still say that supply is the answer to the problem which we have in Metropolitan Toronto and other areas of low vacancy rates. We think the programmes that the federal government and ourselves will supply will offset the vacancy rates we have now.

Mr. Singer: Those terrible people up in Ottawa again.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: It’s too low, we recognize that.

Mr. Lewis: I ask, because what I read from was the PC Metro Times, the quarterly newspaper for Metro’s federal Progressive Conservatives. The

article is by Jim Gillies, MP, who describes the rental and housing situation in Metro as “a scandalous situation”.

Mr. Breithaupt: Very perceptive.

Mr. Lewis: I take it the minister doesn’t agree with that. Given his figures about rental problems, will the minister reconsider the rent review and rent control alternatives that we have given and that he clearly indicates are necessary?

Mr. D. W. Ewen (Wentworth North): It’s not working in BC.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I said several times in the House last week that I am continually reconsidering our position in regard to how we may have a supply of housing for Metropolitan Toronto and other areas, and what action we should take. It will not be done quickly, nor will it be done because of certain statements made by the opposition; it will be done after we have had a very careful review of all the facts. What Mr. Gillies has stated may be his personal opinion. I don’t necessarily agree with that.

Mr. Lewis: I see.

Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Jim Gillies is an NDPer, is he?

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions?

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): The minister won’t get any votes from tenants in this election.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Lewis: The minister has declared war on tenants.

Mr. Cassidy: He certainly has.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Rainy River with his question.

INSURANCE SERVICES IN NORTHERN ONTARIO

Mr. Reid: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations -- a matter I have discussed with him privately. What action is his ministry taking in regard to insurance companies with their head offices in Toronto which pull out of areas in northern Ontario, doing away with their agents there? The second part of the question: What is he doing about the fact that these head offices in Toronto are requiring consumers not only to have their auto insurance and house and fire, but requiring people holding these policies to have all their insurance with the one company?

Mr. Stokes: I wrote the minister a letter on that last week.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, first of all, there is a special problem in northern Ontario. The underwriting losses of some of the companies have caused them to withdraw.

Mr. Reid: What are they in business for?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Of course, in the north there are not as many companies operating as in the south, which makes it much more serious when one or two or three companies withdraw.

Mr. Lewis: We should have public insurance.

Hon. C. Bennett (Minister of Industry and Tourism): And have a BC loss.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: These are all foreign-owned companies. They represent something like 1½ per cent or less of the total writings in Ontario. What our superintendent is doing is ensuring that everyone in the north, by one means or another, is covered or can obtain coverage if necessary.

Mr. Martel: Well, what’s with the monopoly?

Mr. Lewis: Whatever the price.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: With regard to the second question, Mr. Speaker, I’m not aware of that practice.

Mr. Martel: Certainly he is. I’ve written to him.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Certainly the superintendent is looking into all complaints at this time. I would appreciate the hon. member giving me any specifics he has with regard to that kind of a tie-in to auto insurance, because I would agree with him that it is not a proper method of obtaining auto insurance business.

Mr. Cassidy: It happens in the minister’s riding.

Mr. Reid: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Will the minister or will his Superintendent of Insurance sit down and tell the industry that the minister won’t put up with this kind of practice? And also, does he not think that it’s highly unfair for these companies, no matter where they come from, to withdraw from the market where they happen to be losing money and stay in those areas where it’s profitable for them? I thought the idea of insurance was to spread the risk.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, first of all, without being as blunt as the hon. member was, the Superintendent of Insurance has done exactly that to members of the industry. In other words, we will ensure there is service available.

With regard to the second question, there are certain statutory requirements with regard to capital, as compared to portfolio investment. The falling value of portfolio investment made it impossible for some of the foreign-owned companies to do business in Ontario at all, simply because of their inability to raise capital at home. As a result, and as a result of underwriting losses which they have incurred -- very substantial losses -- they have withdrawn from the Ontario market completely. It’s not simply a question of making money in one place and withdrawing from the north. They have, in fact, withdrawn from this market completely.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Thunder Bay.

Mr. Stokes: Supplementary: Will the minister specifically investigate the actions of Prudential and Continental Insurance; whether they have absolutely refused to underwrite any car insurance east of Thunder Bay along the north shore of Lake Superior?

Will he further investigate the reasons they have done this? They say it’s because of their accident loss. Will the minister check with his colleague, the Minister of Transportation and Communications, to see whether it’s road alignment and extremely hazardous winter driving conditions that have brought up their accident statistics to such a high rate that they would withdraw from underwriting automobile insurance in the area?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, first of all I don’t think it’s the responsibility of the ministry to ensure that any specific insurance company continues to do business. What we must ensure is that coverage is available. That’s exactly what we are trying to do and have been able to do. At the moment, we are not aware of anyone who has not been able to obtain auto coverage.

Mr. Stokes: They won’t underwrite it unless they get the whole package.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: The cause of the accidents is a question that quite properly, I think, could be addressed to my colleague, the Minister of Transportation and Communications. There is the other matter, of course -- the cost of repairs -- and that is one of the reasons the underwriting losses are as severe as they are.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Those roads are pretty rough.

Mr. Speaker: Does the member for Kitchener have a question?

PORTRAYAL OF VIOLENCE BY COMMUNICATIONS INDUSTRY

Mr. Breithaupt: I have a question of the Premier, Mr. Speaker. Is the Premier aware of a report in the Legislative Library covering a two-year study by 12 American medical doctors and psychologists, entitled “Television and Growing Up: The Impact of Televised Violence”; with five volumes of research reports? Would the Premier acquaint himself with these items so that the necessity of Ontario’s further studies on the subject might be averted at the saving of some public money?

Hon. W. G. Davis (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I must confess I haven’t read the report. I am aware of it. As the leader of the NDP pointed out, that is not the only report; I think there are at least five or six reports, some of which have some relevance here, some of which were done primarily in the United States and some of them not necessarily up to date.

If the hon. member is suggesting that such a study is not worthwhile and that he and his party are not concerned about this aspect as one part of violence in our society today, then let him say so.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: We think the study is not worthwhile. It’s throwing money away.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am aware of the report and if it makes him feel any happier, I’ll make sure that the chairman of the commission is also made aware of it.

Mr. Lewis: We think the government should investigate sin with as much relish as violence.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Would the member define sin for me?

Mr. Lewis: I will give such a broad definition of sin that no one will escape.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Is there a supplementary question? The member for Rainy River.

Mr. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Premier if he is now prepared to tell me how much the government has budgeted for this entire LaMarsh study? Does he have any idea what it’s going to cost the taxpayers of Ontario?

Mr. Lewis: It is the LaMarsh sabbatical.

Mr. Reid: I understand that at $250 for 180 days, she’s going to make $45,000,

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I told the hon. member that when we had some idea as to what might be the anticipated total, I would get it for him. I can only assure him -- and this view is supported, I must tell him, by a number of people -- that if the commission can come up with some possible solutions to the problem, then the investment will be well worthwhile. I shall try to get the figure for him.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Thunder Bay.

KIMBERLY-CLARK EXPANSION PROGRAMME

Mr. Stokes: I have a question of the provincial Treasurer. Have the staff of his regional development branch apprised him of the problems associated with the $240-million expansion by Kimberly-Clark, whereby towns like Nakina, Geraldton, Longlac, Schreiber and Terrace Bay are going to be forced to come up with a lot of money for services to accommodate that huge expansion? Have the personnel of his regional development branch apprised him of those problems and will he be prepared to assist those communities that so badly need assistance in this time of rapid expansion there?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, meetings are going on, yes.

Mr. Speaker: The members of the NDP missed their turn on the questions before. Who’s next? The member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): They are not getting up; it is not your responsibility.

PORTRAYAL OF VIOLENCE BY COMMUNICATIONS INDUSTRY

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I want to pursue the question of the television inquiry as well, because I am concerned about the implications of censorship that may be involved.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Question?

Mr. Speaker: What’s your question?

Mr. Cassidy: Can the Premier say whether the government of Ontario has ever made representation to the CRTC about violence on television? And since almost all programmes that are seen in southern Ontario containing violence come from American stations and are available both by cable and by direct transmission, can the Premier say what the government intends to do about those programmes if, as one would expect, it’s found that the violence in them may be harmful?

Mr. Breithaupt: Even “Provincial Affairs” is getting pretty violent.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I want the record to show that the hon. member for Kitchener has observed that when the Liberals do “Provincial Affairs,” it has become bad and violent. I think that’s what I heard him say. I certainly wouldn’t dispute that at all, particularly the bad part.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: One thing for sure, it’s not sexy. I can tell him that.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would only say this, Mr. Speaker, I have rigid --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: He is the one who killed “The Baby Blue Movie.”

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Did he kill the Baby Blue?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I want it to be on the record, Mr. Speaker, that the Leader of the Opposition is very concerned that “The Baby Blue Movie” is no longer on. I didn’t think he was here on Friday nights.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I’m delighted to see that he has missed them.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: He has lost his reason for staying over.

Mr. Lewis: God, they were boring.

An hon. member: They weren’t on.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I want the record to show the leader of the New Democratic Party found “The Baby Blue Movie” boring.

Mr. Lewis: I will give the Premier a more definitive description than that.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, just to show you how square the leader of the government is, I am not in a position to comment. I haven’t watched them.

Mr. Reid: They are a lot like the Premier’s speeches, boring.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, they may be. I guess the hon. member for Rainy River has watched them too much and finds them boring. But I must also point out, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Reid: I have.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- because I have been out working, I haven’t seen them.

Mr. Ruston: We’ve got to work too.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I am trying to reply intelligently to the question asked by the member for Ottawa Centre, if there aren’t any more provocative interjections. What did he ask?

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Davis: No, Mr. Speaker, I know exactly what he asked, because it has been asked half a dozen times, and quite frankly I would say in a more articulate sense, by his own leader, if my memory serves me correctly. If the hon. member wants to check Hansard and find out what I said to his leader, perhaps that answer will suffice. If it doesn’t suffice, I will take five minutes to explain it again. In fact, I may take five minutes to explain it again.

Mr. Lewis: Maybe the Premier could crack a few more jokes, a little humorous repartee.

Hon. Mr. Davis: That’s right.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Davis: As I endeavoured to say some few days ago in reply to the question from the member’s leader on this very same subject, I want the record to show I admit, Mr. Speaker, that a certain amount of the violence that I think --

Mr. Lewis: Spare us!

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- is on television comes from the American networks, which I know are shown here in the Province of Ontario.

Mr. Lewis: They know not what they do; no kidding!

Mr. R. F. Nixon: How is Judy going to stop that?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I recognize, Mr. Speaker, there are some members opposite who would say that because we do not have the constitutional right to do anything about it we should shrug our shoulders and say we are not interested. Mr. Speaker, I will acknowledge once again that the Province of Ontario does not have the right to censor television. But the Province of Ontario does have obligation, as far as I am concerned, because the concern I feel is there with a lot of parents and with the public generally about violence in a total sense in our society today. I say this, and I say it personally, that I think --

Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): The government could change society.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- television is partially a manifestation of it. I think the study will not only focus public attention, but it may come up with recommendations that could have some influence, and there is no question it could have some benefit.

Mr. Lawlor: Change the economic system and we would have that.

Hon. Mr. Davis: If the member for Ottawa Centre is totally content with what is happening in society today -- and if he says this government should not assume any leadership --

Mr. Martel: You are the government.

Mr. Cassidy: You are the government.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- then why doesn’t he say that to the public?

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I happen to believe otherwise, and that is why we are having this commission. I should forewarn the member that there are an awful lot of people in the public who generally support it.

Mr. G. Samis (Stormont): You’ve been in power all along.

Mr. Martel: All the Premier does is look for a scapegoat.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: One supplementary by the member who asked the question; and then one over here.

Mr. Cassidy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would just remind the Premier, as a supplementary, that I also asked --

Mr. Speaker: A supplementary question should be very short and to the point.

Mr. Cassidy: Since the government has jumped into this with both feet, could the Premier reply to the first part of my question? Did the government ever make a representation to the CRTC about violence on television before announcing the LaMarsh commission?

Mr. Lewis: Before he referred it to the commission.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I certainly haven’t made representation to the CRTC.

Mr. Samis: Why not?

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Davis: And I doubt there will be any representation made until the commission is finished. That would be the appropriate time for submissions to be made to the CRTC.

Mr. Speaker: A supplementary, the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Lewis: I mean one wants to manifest concern when it is possible.

Mr. Cassidy: Well, that is the answer, isn’t it? We have had television for 20 years and the government didn’t bother.

Hon. Mr. Davis: No.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would like to say to the Premier that we recall his concern about violence on the ice rinks last year. We had a royal commission then. What has happened since his concern sort of calmed down a little bit? We have been reading about a lot of violence on the ice.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I told one of the Leader of the Opposition’s colleagues, if memory serves me correctly, again last week, that I would try to get some more specific information. My impression has been that in those areas, certainly up to junior D -- is there a junior D or a junior C? -- the number of incidents involving teams in the OMHA, the Metro league, the NOHA or the Ottawa Valley -- whatever number of minor hockey leagues there are -- without question the amount of stick swinging, fighting, etc. has been less. This is the information provided.

An hon. member: Not at the rinks.

Mr. Reid: Doesn’t the Premier read the newspapers?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I will go one step further, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: There are court actions.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would say that at the professional level it is probably not any better than it was, but I happen to be fairly optimistic. The member for Rainy River has urged this. Really, I think he was very much in support of this study some few months ago, if memory serves me correctly.

Mr. Reid: That is because the Premier was supposed to do something about it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think the member for Sarnia (Mr. Bullbrook) was almost in support of it. I would say, yes, it had a very beneficial effect. Not only here in this province; it is interesting that two or three other provinces -- one I know for sure -- have adopted a good part of the report for their own use.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The Premier hasn’t --

Mr. Speaker: The member for Huron-Bruce.

CHICKEN IMPORTS

Mr. M. Gaunt (Huron-Bruce): I have a question of the Minister of Agriculture and Food.

Mr. Lewis: Ask him about the violence to the turkey farmers.

Mr. Gaunt: Is the minister concerned that the importation of chicken into Ontario has increased 500 per cent in the past year and exports are down 86 per cent during the same period? Does the minister attribute this particular increase to the increase in vertical integration in the broiler chicken industry in the Province of Ontario?

Hon. W. A. Stewart (Minister of Agriculture and Food): In the Province of Ontario?

Mr. Gaunt: Yes.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: I will have to take the question as notice, Mr. Speaker. I have not heard those figures before. I want to take a look at them before I make any comment.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Wentworth.

HOME BUYER GRANT

Mr. Deans: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question of the Minister of Housing. Can the Minister of Housing explain that portion of the advertising currently being conducted with regard to the $1,500 home buyer grant which says this grant is part of an overall programme to increase the number of new homes in Ontario, when the minister himself stated the $1,500 grant was not intended to produce new homes in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I think it does two things. First of all, the programme is to stimulate the economy which it will do by making sure the new and used homes vacant at the present time are taken off the market and are sold, so we have people buying the appropriate facilities for those homes.

Second, we will have builders putting new houses on the market and we will have people ready to buy those homes -- we haven’t had them in the past -- who have the available cash, which they wouldn’t have otherwise. They would have to borrow from the hank or have a personal loan.

Mr. Lawlor: Does the minister think $1,000 will make any difference? One has to have $25,000.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: In this way they will be able to supplement their resources which will allow them to have a home and have the amenities in the home which they wish to have at all times.

Mr. Deans: A supplementary question: If it is true that the grant is not available to anyone unless they are first in a position to buy a home, how can there be more people buying homes in the Province of Ontario? How can this possibly stimulate new home production in this province?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I think it is very obvious. If they didn’t have $1,500 or $2,000 in the first instance, they would be more inclined to rent. This way, they have the federal --

Mr. Deans: But they don’t have it now. They can’t get it until after they buy the house.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- government’s $500; they have our provincial government supplying $1,000 this year on top of the federal’s $500; they have our $250 next year and $250 the year after. This certainly helps a young couple obtain a new home.

Mr. Deans: But they can’t get it until they buy the house. They have to qualify first.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The member for Windsor-Walkerville.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Speaker: No; new questions. The member for Windsor-Walkerville.

Mr. Cassidy: Is he going to use singing commercials on all of these advertisements?

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

HOME IMPROVEMENT FUNDS

Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): I have a question of the Minister of Housing. Is the minister aware that under the Neighbourhood Improvement Programme the funds available from the federal government and the government of Ontario total $7,500, and those funds are insufficient to repair homes to the minimum housing standard in the city of Windsor? Many of these poor who live in their homes will have no other alternative but to sell their homes to the highest bidder.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, the same question was asked last week. As a matter of fact, I have just got down to signing two letters to people from Windsor. As I said before there is absolutely no way I can agree with the member or with the complaints. If people have a loan available to them through the Ontario Home Renewal Programme, or if they have a loan or grant available to them from any federal or provincial programme, I think it allows the people to maintain that home.

We must preserve the homes in any community. I just don’t follow the member’s argument as to why they should lose their homes. I would be delighted to hear a more well-placed argument than I have had so far.

Mr. B. Newman: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Is the minister aware that the city of Vancouver has expressed that same doubt and that same concern as far as housing in that community is concerned, and it has asked the federal Minister of Urban Affairs to increase the federal grant to at least the extent of the cost of living increase since 1973 when this programme was originally implemented? Would the minister do likewise and increase his portion of the grant according to the cost of living increase?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I will even do more. I will ask the federal minister responsible for housing to increase all the funds allocated to Ontario to make sure that we have the proper amount of funding for Ontario in 1975. I think we will support BC very much in all their requests, which have not to this date been answered. I have been, along with my deputy minister, very much in contact with British Columbia, and they are as disillusioned as we are with the federal programme so far.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Windsor West.

CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Mr. E. J. Bounsall (Windsor West): A question of the Chairman of the Management Board of Cabinet, Mr. Speaker: Can the minister explain why

section 9 of the 1974 Act to amend the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act -- that

section dealing with the bargainability and grievability of layoffs -- has not yet been proclaimed? Is the lack of proclamation to this date because Mr. Justice Estey could make this award to the community colleges in this area but can’t until the Act is proclaimed -- under the old Act he can’t -- and the minister wants him to be in this position?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Speaker, I will have a very careful look at that. I think I have made arrangements for a number of the sections to be proclaimed, if that has not already been done, but I will have a very careful look at that.

Mr. Speaker: The oral question period has expired.

Petitions.

Presenting reports.

Motions.

Introduction of bills. The member for Etobicoke.

CONDOMINIUM AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Braithwaite moves first reading of bill intituled.

An Act to amend the Condominium Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. L. A. Braithwaite (Etobicoke): Mr. Speaker, this bill makes further amendments to the Condominium Act so that condominium purchasers and owners will be better able to successfully cope with the many problems associated with condominium ownership. The transition from the original developers to the individual owners is facilitated by amendments governing the appointment of a registrar of condominiums, the common elements, leasing, absentee landlords and the continued ownership of some units by the developer. Further, the bill makes provision for the handling of many of the continuing difficulties --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Will you just state the principle of the bill?

Mr. Braithwaite: -- I am just finishing, Mr. Speaker -- which plague boards of directors and complicate the management of condominiums after the developers leave.

MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. McKeough moves first reading of bill intituled,

An Act to amend the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS AMENDMENT ACT, 1972

Hon. Mr. McKeough moves first reading of bill intituled,

An Act to amend the Municipal Elections Act, 1972.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Mr. Speaker, I am calling the ninth order. On Friday I actually said I would call 10 first and 9 second. I’m waiting for the chairman of that committee to arrive, so I would ask the House to consider item No. 9 first.

TRAINING SCHOOLS AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Potter moves second reading of Bill 64,

An Act to amend the Training Schools Act.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Essex-Kent.

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): Mr. Speaker, we don’t have very much to say on this bill. It’s something that we have asked for in the last few years during the estimates of the Ministry of Correctional Services, and we agree with the bill.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Lakeshore.

Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): Mr. Speaker, one of the first speeches I heard in this House, coming into it, was that of the member for Scarborough West (Mr.

Lewis), who was not the leader of this party at that particular time, inveighing against the clauses incarcerating and sending to training schools -- and they were much worse institutions in those days than they are now -- young people, children who had done no wrong against society nor breached any statute, provincial, federal or otherwise, and whose parents would appear before a family court judge and give evidence against the child with respect to its unmanageability.

Then, as a last, desperate, hand-wringing measure, the judge -- probably in most instances very much against his own will, but what else could be do in the circumstances? -- would send the child off to a training school, there to be indoctrinated for a further successful life in pilfering, various forms of assault. Even possibly, among the elite in the profession, he might just be trained to become a proper safecracker. And this is what has gone on.

This minister is to be commended, therefore, after all the torrent of words that appeared in Hansard over the years on this very section, for moving in on it and eliminating it. We completely confirm the legislation and think it beneficial and enlightened legislation, but we are a little concerned that there be no perversity involved -- namely, that they go out of their way now, police and custodians and others, to find precisely a

section under a provincial quasi-criminal statute or the Code or in any way in order to catch these kids.

During the estimates of last week this matter came up. It was pointed out, as I recall, that 30 per cent of 30 per cent of the kids who went into training school would be there under this particular head, and that would now be out.

The group home concept, the expansion thereof and the placement of children who find home conditions absolutely impossible, and in particular working through the social welfare mediums in the sense of some compassion and suavity, are the fitting and the proper substitute for children in this particular situation. I think we’ve indicated and will indicate our complete and wholehearted assent to this matter.

Mr. Speaker: Do any other hon. members wish to speak to this bill? Is the member for Ottawa Centre standing to speak?

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words about this bill, perhaps to resume one or two of the remarks that I made the other day when we had the minister’s estimates here.

It seems to me that obviously we are supporting the bill as it stands. It’s a very simple bill and it’s about the most straightforward way that we could get rid of a very objectionable

section in the Act. Very briefly, it’s just being taken out entirely and the minister is not surrounding it with ifs or ands or buts. It’s just going out, and it should have gone out a long time ago.

That begs the question, however, of what preparation has taken place. I’m sorry the Provincial Secretary for Social Development (Mrs. Birch) or the Provincial Secretary for Justice (Mr. Clement) is not here.

What is being done out there in the Ontario community for children who were previously being sent to training schools under

section 8? What proportion of these kids will still wind up in training schools because they will be put in for various offences under

section 9, but would have been put in under

section 8 because it was more convenient? What’s going to happen to kids who are in the training schools right now under

section 8? I think that’s a particularly important question. What is going to happen with the training schools, which were largely, or exclusively, dedicated to looking after kids who came in under

section 8; that is, the training schools that were for girls? Those are the main questions I would like to have answered.

Let me just take up the one question about kids who are in training schools right now because of

section 8 committals. I think the minister owes an explanation now of what the plans are for these particular children. On an average, they stay for nine months. In certain cases they may stay for a year or more, but they then remain under the tutelage of the ministry for a period which may extend for as long as five or six years, until they reach the age of 18.

I wasn’t able to be here for the second session that we had in committee on the minister’s estimates in dealing with training schools. I don’t know whether the minister, at that time, gave any indication -- but my brief perusal of the debates indicates he did not.

There are no particular plans, as far as I can understand, Mr. Speaker, for changing those sections of the Act, which are quite different from the treatment of adult offenders, in the treatment of juvenile offenders and of kids under

section 8. They permit the ministry to keep charge of a child for the period after it leaves training school -- not lost for a few months or for a period of probation, but all the time until a child reaches the age of 18.

It seems to me that the situation we face is that tomorrow a child, which the Children’s Aid want to put in as being unmanageable, would have to be steered into a community facility which presumably is run by the Ministry of Community and Social Services. Or, maybe, God forbid, they will try to look after the kid in its home. But a child who is released from a training school today or tomorrow, who had been put in under

section 8, could still be committed and recommitted; will still be under the supervision of the training school administration for a period of up to four or five years.

I would like an assurance from the ministry that either that will also terminate today or that there is a plan and a programme to terminate that kind of tutelage over

section 8 kids, who are now within the system over the period of, say, the next six months; or, realistically, the end of the year.

I would also like a commitment from the minister that the children who are in training schools now under

section 8 will be released. I would like to know when they will be released and how and what plans the ministry has. It seems to me wrong to continue what, in effect, amounts to a sentence in training school for a child who hasn’t committed an offence, when kids no longer will be put into training schools because of

section 8 treatment.

Then there is the question of the training schools for girls. The minister may recall the figures I had, which I put into the record here, that something like three-quarters of the girls who were admitted to training schools have been admitted under

section 8. As I recall, there are at least two training schools for girls, exclusively, plus another two or three that are coeducational.

If those girls being admitted were, in fact, unmanageable or deemed to be unmanageable, but did not have records of criminal offences, then the minister is not going to get them in.

I think that he should tell the House now what are the plans for closing down girls’ institutions as rapidly as possible because, otherwise, we are simply going to waste money. There is going to be a temptation of trying to shovel people into an institution because it’s there. That, obviously, is not in line with this particular amendment.

I think, also, that the minister should give us some indication of what the overall record of the ministry is liable to be after the

section 8 referrals are terminated.

As I recall -- and this is recently -- something like half of the kids who went into training school had never committed an offence, and had never been convicted of an offence, but they came in under

section 8. The recidivism rates of the training schools are therefore truly remarkable, Mr. Speaker, when you think that somewhere around half of the kids who came out of training school were back there or in another institution within 18 months, despite the fact that half of them who went in hadn’t committed any offence at all. As I said in the debate earlier, they are training schools for crime, rather than the other way around.

When one considers the fact that police don’t catch every offender, that many of those responsible for burglaries, shopliftings, break and enters, and offences like that that teenagers may commit, or may have attempted to commit, are not in fact ever caught -- that is, only a small proportion of them ever result in an arrest and a conviction -- then one has to wonder whether the training schools are in fact not being counterproductive. If that’s the case then, as I suggested to the minister before, we really ought to be talking about closing all the institutions down rather than just beginning with a particular end of the problem.

Finally, I’d like to know from the minister just what arrangements are being made about care in the community for kids who formerly would have been committed to training schools under

section 8. What arrangements are being made for the kids who would otherwise have been committed to training schools?

I would like to assume that there have been some plans made in conjunction with local Children’s Aid Societies, the Ministry of Community and Social Services and possibly the Ministry of Health and other agencies of government which may be involved. I would like to think that that was the case. During the last year I believe something on the order of 300 or 400 kids were admitted to the training school system under

section 8.

I presume the problems that led to agendas wanting them committed haven’t ended overnight. It’s obvious, as far as we’re concerned that they would like to see care in the community and wherever possible care within the family setting, within the home. But if the ministry is simply agreeing to abolish

section 8 and not taking any other measures at all, then it’s a typical kind of Tory reform.

It is rather similar to the reforms that were made in the wake of the Williston report when there was an effort to get kids out into the community and out of government institutions, but there was no corresponding effort to provide the institutions in the community. The government cleared out the mental hospitals; it tried to clear out institutions for the retarded and places like that. But in that effort there is never a balance at the other end, in order to ensure that the community is capable of accommodating and locking after the people who are in fact cleared out.

Those are the questions I wanted to raise with the minister, Mr. Speaker, and I hope he can give us a good reply I to those particular ones, particularly the questions of what is going to happen to

section 8 kids who are now either in training schools or under the supervision of the ministry.

Mr. Speaker: Does any other hon. member wish to speak to this bill? If not, the hon. minister.

Hon. R. T. Potter (Minister of Correctional Services): Mr. Speaker, I do want to thank the hon. members for Ottawa Centre and for Lakeshore for supporting this bill -- the member for Ottawa Centre particularly -- and the member for Essex-Kent.

The member for Ottawa Centre has brought up several matters that we did discuss during my estimates. It’s unfortunate that he wasn’t able to be here when we went on with that part of the estimates. But I pointed out at that time, and I just want to repeat today, that an interministerial committee has already been set up, with representations from the social and justice policy fields, to review the co-ordination of children’s services in the province, particularly as they relate to emotionally disturbed children and those children who have been sent into our care.

This committee is charged with the responsibility to set up an implementation plan for the transfer of responsibilities from this ministry to Community and Social Services and we expect it is going to take them several months to complete their job and then of course we will proclaim the Act at that time.

I do want to point out that we are very concerned about this group of children, not for political reasons; we are just as concerned as the opposition or anyone else is because we feel the children must be properly taken care of. We feel each child who has been placed in our care under

section 8 at the present time should be individually reviewed, bearing in mind their individual needs under the new legislation and making sure that plans are made for them in the future.

As far as closing training schools completely is concerned, we don’t agree on this, the member for Ottawa Centre and myself. I feel, like the majority of people not only in this province and this country but around the world who have been studying the situation, that there will always be a need for a training school facility for a certain type of child who can’t be handled in group homes or in the community.

We have introduced a programme of closing our training schools when there is no longer a needs for them. We’ll continue that programme but I don’t think we should try to kid ourselves by saying there will not be a need for any type of facility such as this. In other jurisdictions where they have closed them, they have found they do need them.

I would ask the House to give approval for second reading of this bill.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, could the minister permit a couple of questions on matters not handled in his reply? Maybe I could just pose them briefly.

Mr. Speaker: If they are brief, perhaps the minister will answer them.

Mr. Cassidy: What will happen to

section 8 kids who are either now in training schools or else are still under the supervision of the training school ministry when this Act is proclaimed, as the minister now says, in several months?

Hon. Mr. Potter: I replied to that. I said each child’s wardship would be individually reviewed, taking into consideration what is best in each particular case. They will be dealt with accordingly.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

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

Mr. Cassidy: To committee, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: To committee of the whole House?

Agreed.

Clerk of the House: Order for committee of the whole.

TRAINING SCHOOLS AMENDMENT ACT

House in committee on Bill 64,

An Act to amend the Training Schools Act.

Mr. Chairman: Does any member wish to speak on any portion of this bill? If so, which section?

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):

Section

Section 1 agreed to.

section 2:

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, I sent this to committee to pursue this matter a bit more with the minister. The minister is simply saying, “Trust us. We’ll proclaim the bill sometime when we’ve got everything else under control. We will review on an individual basis the kids who are in training school right now under

section 8.” That’s the end of it as far as he is concerned.

I don’t think that should be the end of it, Mr. Chairman, and I am looking for some more definite commitments from the minister. In the first place, how soon does the minister expect it will be possible for proclaiming this bill? What is his deadline for proclaiming it?

Hon. R. T. Potter (Minister of Correctional Services): I have not got any deadline. As I said earlier we want to make sure we do have provisions for looking after these children. The committee is set up. We are asking them to bring in the implementation plan. We think it will take several months and, you made the suggestion yourself just a few minutes ago, perhaps we are talking about the first of the year. Perhaps we are. I’m not prepared to say this would be July 1, Sept. 1 or Oct. 1. I think it is one of those matters we must continue to press for and make sure the committee does act as quickly as possible so we can get it under way.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, my next question is, since you are now getting perhaps 40 to 50 kids coming into the system every month under

section 8 will there be any instructions to Children’s Aid Societies, the family courts, other people who are involved in committals to training schools and family court judges to tell them to cool it on

section 8 committals during this interim period while you are trying to set up other facilities?

Hon. Mr. Potter: This is what the committee is set up for. Maybe the committee will make any recommendations. I have already spoken to many of the family court judges and many of the provincial judges as late as last week. I am anticipating they are going to do so. Once they know this bill is passed -- it will be proclaimed as soon as we have the necessary programme set up -- I can anticipate their co-operation. I don’t think this is a particularly big problem; it’s a matter of making sure that the children are properly looked after, and we will do that.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr. Cassidy: Well, the minister’s attitude is still, “Just trust us,” and that’s about all.

What about kids who are in training school right now and were committed there under

section 8? Will they have to find themselves a lawyer and fight their way out? What will be done in order to get them free from the tentacles of the system, which is a real problem they face for as long as three or four years?

Hon. Mr. Potter: Once again, Mr. Chairman, I just got through telling the hon. member that it’s anticipated each one of these cases will be dealt with individually. There is no need for them getting a lawyer or fighting anything. This will be done for them. We’re anxious to get them out of the training school system. We’re determined to do that. The only way to do that is to make sure that each case is dealt with individually, and we’ll make sure that they do get out of the training school system.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, the minister is huffing and puffing a little bit on this. I don’t understand why. After a certain date -- Sept. 1, Aug. 1 or maybe Dec. 31 of this year -- a family court will no longer be able to send a kid to training school under

section 8. But a child who is in the system now or who is under the supervision of the superintendent of his friendly neighbourhood training school and sent back in the community at this time under

section 8 will not necessarily be cut off from that supervision at that time.

It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that there are two laws being put in here. On the one hand, we’re putting in a law that says

section 8 is wrong and we are ending it. But, on the other hand, we say it wasn’t wrong to send a kid in under

section 8, nor is it wrong to keep a child under the supervision of the training school system under

section 8 after Dec. 31 or whatever the cut-off date is. Is that what you are saying?

Hon. Mr. Potter: I agree. Once the cut-off date is reached, then that’s cut off, yes; they will no longer be under our care and there won’t be anybody admitted to our care under

section 8. What I am saying is that in the meantime we must make sure that we have social and family services and the other agencies properly set up so they can handle these children and not just leave a vacuum there.

Mr. Cassidy: Will the minister make a commitment, Mr. Chairman, that every child now in the training school system under

section 8, whether in an institution or under the supervision of one, will also be moved over to other facilities in the community or sent back to their homes, and that there will be no child left in the system under

section 8 after Dec. 81 or whenever the date of the transition is?

Hon. Mr. Potter: Definitely, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Cassidy: I appreciate that commitment, Mr. Chairman, and on that point I will rest. Thank you.

Sections 2 to 4, inclusive, agreed to.

Bill 64 reported.

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

Motion agreed to.

The House resumed, Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Motion agreed to.

THIRD READING

The following bill was given third reading upon motion:

Bill 64,

An Act to amend the Training Schools Act.

Clerk of the House: The 11th order, House in committee of supply.

ESTIMATES, PROVINCIAL SECRETARIAT FOR JUSTICE (CONTINUED)

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Lakeshore.

Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): Mr. Chairman, I was on my feet the last time the committee met. Let me see, one, two, three, four, five, six -- I am not calling a vote -- just six Tories in the House, seven including yourself, Mr. Chairman, if you call yourself a Tory, but you are above all that when you are sitting in that chair; you become practically nothing, One, two, three, four, five -- five New Democrats alone -- one, two, three, four, five, six Liberals. Why must it always be this way, Mr. Chairman? Oh, does the House leader ever count?

When I get up on this thing I am going to count every time I get up, and since I get up six times a day. I will be counting all the time. I think it’s iniquitous that you shouldn’t have any members over there,

whereas we have to supply the quorums all the time.

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): I think the actions of the hon. member are despicable; shouting like that in this assembly. I remember counting very well one other evening when --

Mr. Lawlor: Where are all your people? It is always this way. I will prove it to you.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: -- there were only two or three of you, I have forgotten which.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: That’s all I can tell you.

Mr. Lawlor: Every time I get up I will count to see who is here and who isn’t.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Lakeshore is out of order.

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): He is not out of order. He is very much in order, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: You are all out of order. Will we go on with the estimates? Now, if the member for Lakeshore would like to speak to the estimates.

Hon. J. T. Clement (Provincial Secretary for Justice): Mr. Chairman, I don’t want the member for Lakeshore to get mad. I don’t want him to get annoyed, because I want him to be in good humour here today. I will speak to my House leader privately if I may. I want him to be in good humour today.

Mr. Lawlor: Well, sweet as the provincial secretary is and with all the light in the world, I am sure it won’t get through. We have spoken before. If you speak harshly, it matters not.

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): Despicable.

Mr. Lawlor: If you speak gently, or maybe if you whisper to the beggar, something may happen. The last day, Mr. Chairman, I went over approximately 28 different heads of law, which was designed to make it very clear that the ministry in question is in a state of stagnation and that nothing, really nothing, of value is happening despite the really urgent need in area after area which I discussed at that time. There is no point in recapitulating that.

I have two other areas which I shall mention before we sit down on these particular overall comments. One has to do with a perhaps somewhat lofty theme, mainly what law is all about, what you are supposed to be doing in an overall way since you have tentacles in and influence these new ministries around you, and the second one has to do with a brief review in line with what the member for Downsview (Mr. Singer) did on Friday with respect to the really remarkable statement that you made -- you see, the word “remarkable” is very neutral on the whole; it neither gives any condemnation nor any condonation of the statement, but we will see when we get to it.

That’s all I want to bring up at this particular time just in the purview of the overview of this ministry, which is precisely designed to have an overview, a wider compass and a higher perspective of the whole interrelationships between those things which are most specifically directed to justice policy in the province.

For 100 years in British law we have been under an incubus, a bane. A man by the name of John Austin, back in 1843 or thereabouts, invented a theory called legal positivism. Legal positivism has permeated our law schools ever since. It has bred a particular kind of mentality in lawyers, a carping, narrow, empirical mentality which abnegates, which denies from its inception a vision of law as having first of all anything to do with morality. For John Austin and for generations of legal professors in the law schools, in the courts, and the --

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): Mr. Chairman, I hesitate again to interrupt my friend, but I can’t see a quorum here.

Mr. Lawlor: Well, I wasn’t going to call one.

Mr. Singer: I think it’s rather disgusting. The minister can’t even get his parliamentary assistant here. He’s down for $5,000 and the minister can’t even get him in the House.

Hon. Mr. Clement: He’s probably at the committee meeting.

Mr. Singer: Yes, probably. His estimates are up; he should be here.

Hon. Mr. Clement: We work in many areas.

Mr. Singer: Yes.

The Chairman ordered that the bells be rung for four minutes.

Mr. Chairman: We now have a quorum.

Mr. Lawlor: As I was saying, before I was so delightfully interrupted, the overall British view of law -- and it’s true in most western countries -- is that law has no relationship with any other discipline at all. It must be taken independently, on its own.

The division of the sciences has been such that what was previously a religious influence in law, and always was so in Hammurabi and primitive law, where there were other sanctions and where there was a deep sense of piety invested in law, it was rubbed away. Where moral theory had something to do with it, either in terms of compassion or mercy on one side of the fence or in terms of justice on the other, that was abrogated and left out of law; there was no central portion to play.

It basically came from a particular and very peculiar image of man, from Thomas Hobbes and his leviathan, whose basic thesis was that man is a beast of prey and that we live, all of us, whether we know it or not, whether we want it or not, as aggressors. We are animals from the jungle who stalk one another and who would devour one another if we got the opportunity. That is the basic background that permeates British law. It has a good deal to do with theories of violence in this society. We’ll come back to that in a moment.

Therefore, when it talks about things like justice, this particular theory, which is so powerful, says that justice is basically to obey the law, and that the chief virtue in men, therefore, is obedience; and to the extent that we learn to obey or are made to obey, that the law has point in purpose and validity.

A socialist theory of order has to do with justice, basically. It says justice is the chief end of a society and law must subserve justice. It is found in terms of class interest and in terms of advantages taken by individuals over against other individuals within a society.

The liberal theory is that freedom is all important; human self-determination in a very narrow, individualistic sense. And that the law has one end-purpose and one only. It is not to serve justice, and not necessarily to serve order, except as order is ancillary to freedom, and therefore to the extent that the law makes men free or permits them by having no law to be free. Therefore, in that theory, law is an enemy. It is something that by and large constricts, restricts and imprisons man. Therefore law, the state and all that, is to be scouted, is to be very suspicious of and to be got rid of to the fullest extent possible.

There is a third theory which comes out of Catholic philosophy; St. Thomas Aquinas, basically. It is that the whole purpose of law is not freedom. Freedom for Aquinas is a means, a method. It is something that has to be given, for sure; it has to be recognized, it must exist for the ends of justice or otherwise the law will have no force; it would be for evolution of human development. What it is basically about is the “common good,” as he calls it.

That is a sense that all elements of the population are listened to and heard and have a voice, and cognizances taken of their needs, over and against any particular weight being thrown on law in favour of any particular element in the society. You see, our society doesn’t measure up to that definition of the good purposes and the fundamental rationale of law. We fail grievously in this regard.

The liberal conception has had a certain day in the sun and it’s now under fire because of its kinds of tolerances that it had written into it. It’s regrettable to see. But having got the handle by the wrong end and not seeing that freedom is a necessity and a sine qua non for social justice, it has placed its emphasis on that point solely, to the exclusion of justice and therefore to the encouragement of certain forms of social injustice. I put to you the socialist notion of law subserving justice. Where it doesn’t do so, then grave questions of obedience to law arise.

There is the theory of the modern status conformity -- conformity to the law taken as the chief end and good of a civilization. It therefore has no amplitude, no scope, no wider vision, and no sense of how things fit into a social whole. It’s taken rigorously just as it stands. The letter of the law must be obeyed. It is somehow sacrosanct. Law is a fact. Law is a command.

In fact, law isn’t a command. It’s a directive of reason. Those who think that its chief function is to command all the time and that it works in the imperative mood mistake its basic purpose. I find, standing up year after year in this House, that as laws are handed down that’s its chief motivation. That’s the driving force behind it. Put the screws on. It’s an imperative. It will twist men to its purposes.

The liberals find that unpalatable too because it doesn’t give the sense of autonomy, the sense of self-determination that is necessary for men to grow within the law and to act as a soothing and suave force, bending human nature and not breaking it over a particular stump.

These, I thought I would make mention of, are the chief theories as they exist in the modern world. In a wider sense, as I always do once a year in these particular estimates, I would like to put on the record a few remarks about this type of subject from a man by the name of John MacMurray, a Scottish philosopher, a man of 84 years of age, who lives in Scotland today. He writes:

“So we are brought back to the question of justice. What is justice, we ask? How are we to know what is just and what is unjust in human relations? Can there be any other standard of justice than the law itself, namely, the positivist position? This is a proper question indeed and yet it is not the primary question. The really important question is, do we intend justice or not. Justice is an aspect of morality. It is a restriction which I oppose on my own power for the sake of others. To be fair in my dealings with others means that I do not exploit their weakness to my own advantage. To intend justice is to intend that my own claim shall not take precedence over the claims of others.”

Therefore, if I may depart from the text for a moment, to what extent is this society just? To what extent do individuals not prefer their own claim over against the legitimate claims of others? Not very much, damn it and thank you. To continue:

“Justice is an obligation that each of us has to other people. I cannot be just to myself except in a strained and metaphorical sense. My political obligation to maintain the law is derived from this moral obligation. It rests upon an intention to see to it that my freedom of action does not directly or indirectly injure anyone who is affected by it.

“Now the law is a mere device. It has neither hands nor feet. To be effective, it must be operated, and the power which operates it is derived from all those against whom it operates as a restriction on their freedom. If the power of the state is not to be misused, then those whose power maintains it, that is, the society whose law it is, must intend justice. Insofar as a society intends justice, the law will be properly used; insofar as this is not the general intention, law will be inevitably misused.

“Justice, after all, is the negative aspect of morality only, the minimum of morality that can be demanded as necessary to the co-operation of free agents, the negative of habitual rightness in action without which all the positive aspects of morality lose their rightness. Without justice as the very bare minimum you have nothing. All the rest of the virtues and powers of men are erected upon this very minimal attention to other persons.”

This is an almost impersonal, highly rule-wise notion of morality, as though it were guided by a whole set of nostrums like the Ten Commandments, or something like that, which is largely alien to the higher reaches, but he is consonant with the theory of justice involved. So, this is a theme which I am going to repeat since the Premier (Mr. Davis) sees fit to repeat the opposite theme.

In a society such as ours we have endemic violence. We have followed and entrenched in our law a form of violence, in even so simple a thing as the procedures of the court; namely, the adversary system, which lawyers will boast of as the finest thing that has ever come down the pike. The adversary system is a form of violence. It is a form of seeking to overreach, undermine and put down the other guy. The co-operative instinct is abnegated or de-emphasized; it is ferocious.

Of course, it’s subtle now, subtle as a stiletto, when you think of Scarlett in the British courts and his mode of operation -- Machiavellian subtle -- the ability to go behind and undermine and overreach and domineer and put down. This entrenched and enfranchised aggression in our society takes the name of free enterprise. That’s what it is supposed to be -- the finest flower of a civilization, when it is one of the weakest reeds upon which any society of men ever started to build a decent relationship among themselves.

This aggression, I say, has been encouraged. It is deep in our society. It wins all the palms. They carry away the loot who are most inclined in this particular way. This is the positivist theory in law, that law is fundamentally force; that he who is the most powerful will win. A thinker called Callicles set it out in “The Republic”; 3,000 years ago it was thoroughly discussed; hundreds of men in the society held it to be the truth of the way things are and it was Socrates who went to work on it and tore it to pieces.

But the lesson has never managed really to go through and here we stand today still talking, listening to the Premier at question time on the same subject, having engendered and supported and found benefit from a society rife with violence, rife with aggression, fundamentally founded on fear.

That is where violence comes from; that’s the root of it -- fear of oneself, fear of the world and fear of others. Its order to defend you hit and you hit first before you can get hit, because the defensive mechanisms are all working. The society has grown up in that particular fashion instead of meeting some kind of symptom out there. One of the symptoms is the adversary system in the courts. Another symptom is violence on television. But they are symptoms; they are not the disease.

The disease is basically in the economic system and in our social relationships. If you want to make any change in this, when are you going to get about it? In order to do so all I can promise you is a complete transformation of everything you believe in, or ostensibly believe in, because in some part we believe in the co-operative instinct and that sort of thing.

Another part of us, because of the positions we have achieved in society and because of the entrenched positions we wish to retain, repudiate what we most deeply believe and we go on every day practising the old thing and blaming everybody else for certain manifestations of it out there -- having very little to do with it, because “I don’t watch blue movies on Friday night,” the Premier says.

Yes, I agree with my leader; I watch them once in a while. I have to get up to keep my kids from watching them, but I agree with them, they are dreadfully dull. That is the chief thing you can say against the wretched thing. If they’ve been taken off, that’s fine.

I suppose you could go on. When the so-called culture estimates, whatever they are, come along, I intend to spend a good deal of time on this particular subject.

In the meantime we’ve had before us opening remarks by the minister. He talks on the second page about a rapidly changing society, rapidly changing times, and needs a body urgently to co-ordinate the various segments of the rapidly changing scene around him in the justice thing. I think I have flayed the department long enough. I agree with you -- let’s get on with it. If it is that important it should occupy your first remark. That is fine.

The interrelationship of the ministries. I’ve pointed it out in many areas and in areas which you don’t cover; I pointed it out in terms of your relationship with the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Brunelle), in terms of your relationships with that incredible Environment Minister (Mr. W. Newman) and the terms of law in his department; to snaffle them in once in a while to bring them into dialogue with the super-ministry, if you are going to retain it at all.

An ongoing input from people who are particularly well equipped to see the issues in this regard, namely yourself and your senior officials, would be visited upon his head, too, because that’s a pretty purblind head which has very little sense of what the needs are, particularly in the area of law in the particular area of environment.

You want to find ways and means within the system of diverting people from the courts themselves to start with; and when they are in the courts, ways of diverting them from being jailed, necessarily. You are working on various schemes. It is not very explicit what you’ve got in your mind here; you don’t say particularly. You go off on to that incredible series of questions which gave me the tenor of my middle remarks a few moments ago.

You ask a question, “To what extent should the government intervene in the regulation of economic and market activities in order to achieve a sound financial and market environment in terms of your justice ministry?” -- I admit it should have an enormous impact and the question is legitimately put but it seems a little far-fetched. It seems to me the first time I’ve ever heard a Minister of Justice refer to matters of an economic import. With that in mind we certainly had a lot of elbow room in which to make our initial remarks on this particular occasion.

It’s perfectly right -- to what extent should it? -- bearing in mind what I have said about what the ends of justice and the ends of society really ought to be.

One of your estimates coming np in the Attorney General’s department is going to show an enormous $1 million increase; another $1 million increase in another. I suppose this all has to do with the stuff on the fourth page, having to do with data processing, the expansion of statistical information. I couldn’t agree more.

The amazing thing is we’ve reached this degree of sophistication in this society without knowing these facts. At this latter day we certainly want to clue ourselves in as to what is happening in the courts; where the convictions go; who is convicted; what happened to them. There are no figures with respect to the recidivist rate; no figures apparently with respect to anything. There was free enterprise for you. You know nothing; you pretend you know nothing and you do nothing about it.

You are changing. As I say, every day we are all becoming a little bit more like us, the socialists. You want a little insight, a little intelligence, brought to bear upon the great “out there” and you want to be able, in this particular thing to plan how you are going to work things, particularly the administration of the courts and that whole thing by which you have apparently been burned. I mean the reaction against you by the totally conservative milieu -- the legal profession and the judges -- thinking their toes are going to be stepped upon because you’re going to appoint court administrators.

If I were a judge I think it would be the thing I would want first so as to be able to get back into the courtroom. I suppose some of them have forgotten whatever law they ever knew and therefore are terrified to get back into that courtroom. They’re like school teachers who have been away for 10 years. They are sitting at their desks and rattling off six dozen reports for you a week. Now you are going to have somebody to do it for them. That’s great. I think you should get on with it.

I know you set up a pilot study project -- I forget what you call it -- somewhere down in southwestern Ontario in order, gently, with the utmost caution, with a true Tory sense of perspective, gradually to test the water to see whether or not it will work and if it has any feasibility at all.

Then you come to your Thursday gatherings, those pleasant little get-togethers where you appear in three suits of clothes with several hats and sit around us, as my friend the member for Downsview pointed out, leaping from one end of the table to another, contradicting yourself and giving in pro tem through one side of your mouth and taking it away with the other; breathing in and breathing out, both at the same time. It must be a wonderful gymnastic display to see what happens on that Thursday morning, particularly if the other two guys don’t show up.

Mr. Singer: He has got a parliamentary assistant who doesn’t show up either.

Mr. Lawlor: There being only one vote, I don’t think these particular estimates will be prolonged, except we would like a little insight as to what really happens on various Thursday mornings. As a matter of fact, I wrote down here: “What took place on Thursday, July 29, and on Thursday, Sept. 26?” There was no particular reason for having those dates; I’m sure they’re not red-letter days in your life. Still, it would be interesting to know whether the relationship between the OPP and Correctional Services was considered on that particular day or what went on.

Mr. Singer: Was that before or after he was appointed?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Which year?

Mr. Lawlor: Last fall; last year.

Mr. Stokes: In 1974.

Mr. Singer: Careful, he might not have been appointed then.

Mr. Lawlor: You’re going to get off the hook, are you? All right, don’t let it worry you.

Mr. Singer: Make it this last month -- or January.

Mr. Lawlor: Let’s say any two Thursdays in January and February to see what happened.

Mr. Singer: Tell us what the member for Peterborough (Mr. Turner) did at those meetings? He was on the committee, wasn’t he?

Mr. Lawlor: Your role with respect to native peoples is commendable, but your lip service to participational democracy is a constant theme without substance, as far as we can see. I’m talking about the top of page 9:

“The secretariat will be engaged in organizing meetings across the province with a view to studying the question of how the general public can be more directly informed of, and involved and consulted in, the whole process of justice.”

La-di-da! We’ll wait and see on that particular one.

There are 14 pages and they tell strikingly little. They are kind of an exercise in legal rhetoric, which is not the kind which is most mellifluous. But I won’t run you down on it. If you want to make that kind of statement each year, fine. I would put a little more substance in it. I’d outline precisely what I intended to do -- not so much padding, not so much mere sentimentality and a little more hard facts on straight law as to what the programme should be. That kind of statement can be valuable. But this statement is not that disvaluable; for your first time up, we’ll forgive you. Don’t let it happen again.

You’re still standing at $1 as far as we’re concerned too. We’ll get around to your Attorney Generalship in a few hours.

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): Mr. Chairman, when the Provincial Secretary for Justice stood up at 10 o’clock on the evening of Monday, April 29, and read his 14 pages into the record, I don’t believe he ever thought it would produce, albeit over an interrupted period of time, such a torrent of words from my colleague, the member for Lakeshore, and my associate, the member for Downsview. So it is with some diffidence that I rise to extract from the provincial secretary’s speech my version of what he was trying to say to the assembly.

Mr. Singer: If you can, good luck to you.

Mr. Lawlor: Let’s not say anything, Vern.

Mr. Renwick: First of all, whether we like it or not, and despite the difference in viewpoint as to whether there should or should not be a Provincial Secretary for Justice with this particular grouping of ministries over which he has some responsibilities for coordinating policy, I am going to accept it that we do have one at the present time. In all likelihood some version of it would be retained by this party should it become the government.

Apropos, first of all, of nothing at all, other than to draw it to the attention of the provincial secretary, I was intrigued at the opening of the courts -- I say apropos of nothing at all because I have wondered just exactly what the treasurer of the Law Society of Upper Canada was trying to say at the opening of the courts on Jan. 6, 1975, and it really bears little relationship that I can see to what I basically want to say about the minister’s speech. But perhaps he would ponder on it.

Perhaps he would at some point indicate, not to us, but in the discussions which he may have in his position as ex officio bencher of the Law Society, what the responsibility of the treasurer of the Law Society of Upper Canada is when he takes it upon himself to address the judges at the time of the opening of the court.

Is he speaking just for himself? In other words, the night before, does it suddenly dawn on him that he has to make a few opening remarks the next day, so he feels free to make whatever remarks he may wish to make? Does he speak for the governing body of the Law Society in making the opening remarks? If he does so speak, I think these remarks which he made on Jan. 6 deserve very careful consideration by the Provincial Secretary for Justice, by the Attorney General, being as he is an ex officio member of the Law Society of Upper Canada? Am I correct in that you are, ex officio, a bencher of the Law Society of Upper Canada?

Hon. Mr. Clement: For life.

Mr. Renwick: Then regardless of how long your tenure in office is you are ex officio for the rest of your life?

Hon. Mr. Clement: By statute.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Stuart Thom, who was then the treasurer of the Law Society and may still be --

Mr. Singer: Who was?

Mr. Renwick: Stuart Thom.

Mr. Singer: He is.

Mr. Renwick: He still continues to be the treasurer of the Law Society of Upper Canada. He said:

“My Lords, it would be idle to make a pretence of believing that the year that lies ahead will be an easy one. The economic and social pressures that are building up in the community will place an increasing strain upon established institutions and the courts over which Your Lordships preside will not be spared.”

“It is a matter of satisfaction to the bar and to all right-thinking citizens -- ”

Mr. Lawlor: Who are they?

Mr. Singer: Tories.

Mr. Renwick: To continue:

“ -- that whatever the pressures and strains may be, the courts will continue to perform their proper function in full accord with the traditions of competence and justice which have prevailed in the past.”

Well, that form of polite rhetoric for an opening paragraph is not something that I would question. I suppose somewhat similar words would be said by anyone in that position. The next paragraph or two concern me, and again I pick up the quote:

“A serious risk of damage to the integrity of the judicial system is posed by the increasing custom of our political masters -- ”

Mr. Lawlor: That’s you.

Mr. Renwick: He says:

“ -- to attempt to avoid the responsibilities which are those of the Legislature and of government by imposing on the courts the burden of attempting to enforce laws which are ill conceived and on occasions were not even meant to be enforced by those who put them on the statute books. Chief Justice Deschênes, of the Superior Court of Quebec, in September last year refused to impose judicial penalties on a large group of strikers -- ”

Mr. Singer: He is about to do it again today.

Mr. Renwick: I continue:

“ -- at the instigation of the civil authorities who were seeking to use this method to put down an admittedly illegal strike. He said that the political power does not have the right to leave the judicial power to rule on social conflicts within the unsatisfactory framework of the present law. It does not have the right to unload on the judicial power its political obligations. The court must always make use of its repressive power with circumspection, must not collaborate with an action bound in advance to fail and unsuitable for resolving a dispute which is a matter for the political authority.

“My lords, the courts cannot fulfil their basic function of upholding the rule of law if public acceptance of their integrity is undermined. Chief Justice Deschênes was attempting in a way which may not be entirely satisfactory to bring it home to the government and the politicians that the rule of law is their responsibility too.”

I find that, Mr. Chairman -- not the criticism of your government -- a strangely ambivalent statement, coming as it does from the head of the governing body of the Law Society. I leave it for the Provincial Secretary for Justice perhaps to ponder and to think about. It causes me some grave concern, simply because I think it is fair to say that the laws which this assembly pass are passed with some degree of due deliberation, regardless of whether on occasion there is or is not a quorum in this assembly.

After they have presumably been conceived by and put forward in the assembly after due consideration by the government -- and I am speaking now in a nonpartisan sense -- they are debated, albeit not perfectly but albeit publicly and albeit many times in committee.

It ill behoves the leader of the legal profession of the Province of Ontario, without having made any effort to understand the process by which the legislation is passed, to suggest that of the laws which are passed by this assembly. To call this assembly or the government the political masters of the judges is a non-contribution to an understanding of what our system is about and how it functions.

My colleague, the member for Downsview, interjected that by coincidence Chief Justice Deschênes is being asked today a very similar question, because we do not know any more than the government of the Province of Ontario knew how it was going to enforce a back-to-work order. It may well be that the words or the rule, “the supremacy of Parliament” and the law which has been passed by the federal Parliament about the return to work of the dockworkers is one which is not isolated to the Province of Quebec but is a very real problem which we here in this assembly should be considering.

Regardless of the merit or demerit of whatever the partisan political judgement of those in opposition may be about the law of this assembly, there is unanimous agreement, I believe, amongst the members of the assembly and amongst the people whom we represent that if this assembly does pass a back-to-work order there must be an efficient and fair method by which that law is implemented.

Strangely enough, I would like to hear at some point from the Provincial Secretary for Justice or in his capacity as Attorney General later on just how a back-to-work order of this assembly, being a law of the Province of Ontario, is enforced against those persons who are in breach of it.

It is all very well to say it will be enforced in the same method as any other law would be enforced, but I am curious to know whether in the kind of situation where there was substantial disobedience of such a law by a substantial number of citizens, who obviously would be acting in what they considered to be within their right to object to that law, a government such as this would proceed to enforce that kind of a law. I think it is most important, if we are concerned as we all are about the security of our society, that we understand the methods by which a government will enforce a back-to-work order.

It seems to me it is a unique exercise of the power of the Legislature over citizens who believe themselves to be in the right. Therefore it is particularly a political law in that sense rather than a criminal law. I leave that for what it’s worth. I just wanted to say to the Provincial Secretary for Justice that I don’t think we can ignore the procedural steps by which an assembly such as this should enforce that kind of law.

Having made those two remarks, basically flowing out of the ambivalent and rather strange remarks -- to me in any event -- of the treasurer of the Law Society of Upper Canada and the problem inherent in what might have happened in the TTC strike in the Province of Ontario --

Mr. Singer: It happened for four days and then it stopped.

Mr. Renwick: -- and is happening, of course, in the case of the dock workers’ strike. I think it is a problem to which government has to address its attention, particularly the members of the government who are charged with the responsibility of the impartial and effective but sensitive application of the laws of the province.

Turning now, if I may to the address which the Provincial Secretary for Justice made a week ago in the House, I was struck by the number of times he mentioned the words crime, criminal justice, control of crime, the crime problem, the limiting of criminal activity, crime prevention, the awareness of the public of the true nature of crime and a reference to some survey polls. There was a rising crescendo about public participation in discussions of these problems about the nature of crime, ending in the final crescendo of his address that we’re going to host an international conference to deal with crime and the treatment of the offender.

I don’t know exactly who wrote this speech. I have a feeling the provincial secretary either wrote it himself or had a substantial

part in rewriting it because it sounds very much like the provincial secretary. I think that’s what concerns me about it. I have become a fairly avid watcher of certain ministers in the government through their public speeches which come across our desk. Some I read for amusement; some for the Boy Scout enthusiasm which they bring to their tasks. I do read what the Provincial Secretary for Justice and the Attorney General says. I do read what the Treasurer (Mr. McKeough) says and on occasion I read what the Premier has to say if they bear on matters which appear to have any significance.

What concerns me about the secretary’s speech in this context is I can’t tell whether or not his whole speech is hinged upon a survey or surveys of attitudes and responses of the public done for the purposes of the Progressive Conservative Party in its political role. Or whether or not his speech is hinged upon a survey or surveys done by the ministry in its role of government; by the Provincial Secretariat for Justice, by the Attorney General’s department, by the Solicitor General’s department, or by the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

I suspect that it’s the former; that we are seeing introduced into the address of the Provincial Secretary for Justice the attitudinal response of people in Ontario through a survey conducted for the purposes of the Progressive Conservative Party. If I am wrong in my suspicions, I hope the minister will allay them. I quote from his speech:

“While it is true that surveys of the public’s attitude to crime indicate that people do not consider it to be one of the major problems facing society, those same surveys indicate that while there is no general alarm there is concern that what has happened south of us could happen here and there is a determination that it must not happen here.”

Well, the first questions of importance to me are: What are those surveys? Where are they? What are the questions which were asked? What was the result of those surveys? Will the provincial secretary make them public? Or how did he come by what appears to me to be a major statement in his address?

I suppose it’s fair to say that with one exception the society of the United States differs not in quality but in degree only from the society that we have in the Province of Ontario. I certainly didn’t read into what the provincial secretary said any sense of a holier than thou attitude about we being different from those south of the border. The one qualitative distinction, of course, is the obvious one. It is the extent and degree of racism in the United States society, which has been documented many times and has been documented both authoritatively and otherwise for a long, long time. That racism, which is inherent in the United States society, is perhaps not a visible theme here.

I want to say to the minister that I want to express my concern that there may well be not a qualitative distinction, but really only one of degree in the Province of Ontario on the question of racism based on colour. It may well be that given the same kind of pressures in a different degree in Ontario, white racism would be a dominant problem for the Provincial Secretary for Justice and for the Attorney General and the Solicitor General and the Minister of Correctional Services (Mr. Potter). I’ll perhaps come back to that in a moment or two.

Certainly, I would suggest that the ministries have watched -- the Solicitor General’s department, and before the Solicitor General’s department the Attorney General’s department -- an immense increase in the expenditures on the police forces of the Province of Ontario. I would suggest that if one looked at the figures -- and if I have time before we come to the Solicitor General’s estimates, I intend to do so -- we will see a tremendous growth in the number of actual dollars which are spent on the police forces.

A substantial part of that, of course, goes for salaries and recruitment in order to recruit personnel for the police forces in Ontario. But a very substantial other part goes with respect to their inventory of equipment of all kinds for the purpose of crime detection and crime prevention.

So when the minister says -- as he does in another part of his address -- that our neighbours to the south have poured in an immense numbers of dollars but haven’t slowed the rate of increase in crime, he is drawing what I believe would be an exact parallel to what has happened in the Province of Ontario. We have already poured in immense numbers of dollars, and we are being pressed to pour an immeasurable number of more dollars into the police forces. And yet at the same time, we are faced with this anomaly of a constantly rising rate of crime.

Well, I do want to say that I’m rather surprised at the minister using one lone iso