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

April 6, 1982

32nd Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Hansard Transcripts

BOARD OF INTERNAL ECONOMY

SAFETY OF OFFICE EQUIPMENT

ORAL QUESTIONS

PHYSICIANS' SERVICES

TAX GRANTS FOR SENIORS

USE OF STRIKEBREAKERS

CHEMICAL SPILL

FOOD INDUSTRY PRACTICES

MENTAL HEALTH CARE

GREAT LAKES FOREST AGREEMENT

CHILDREN'S MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

TORONTO WESTERN HOSPITAL

PLANT SHUTDOWNS

FOREST UTILIZATION

BUDGET

TAX GRANTS FOR SENIORS

ONTARIO ENERGY INVESTMENT

MOTION

SITTING OF THE HOUSE

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

ONTARIO SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (CONCLUDED)

FUEL TAX AMENDMENT ACT

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS AND HOUSING

The House met at 2:03 p.m.

Prayers.

BOARD OF INTERNAL ECONOMY

Mr. Speaker: I beg to inform the House that I have laid upon the table a copy of an order in council appointing the Honourable Robert G. Eaton, Minister without Portfolio, a member of the Board of Internal Economy in place of the Honourable Robert Bruce McCaffrey.

SAFETY OF OFFICE EQUIPMENT

Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, I wish to get up on a point of personal privilege. I do not know whether you are aware that the legislative library is in the process of installing an integrated video display terminal system from Geac. Given that 44 persons will be exposed to this system, two of whom are pregnant, will the Speaker take the responsibility of investigating whether any tests similar to those conducted by the University of Waterloo have been carried out on these terminals?

I wonder whether the Speaker can assure the House that there will be a continuing monitoring system of those terminals once the investigation has been carried out.

Also, if the Speaker is investigating those terminals, which have been indicated to be safe according to the contracts signed by the legislative library, I wonder whether he will seek to find out if, in addition to the X-rays from the terminals, there are any other emissions that might be harmful to the personnel that might be working with the terminals.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the suggestion by the member for Waterloo North and to ask that you look into this matter specifically and most urgently if there are pregnant women who are going to be asked to work on those machines, and to rule very quickly that they be relieved of the obligation to do so and receive the possibility of having other work at the same kind of pay they are receiving now, if that is the case.

As you look at that matter, Mr. Speaker, I commend to you both my own private member's bill on this matter and the collective agreement that was struck between the New Democratic Party caucus here and our caucus staff in terms of the protection of workers operating video display terminals.

Mr. Speaker: I want to thank the member for Waterloo North for bringing this to my attention and the member for Scarborough West for his comments. I assure all members of the House that I will be pleased to look into the matter and report back as quickly as I can.

[Later]

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege that was first raised by the member for Waterloo North: There are two extra things I would like to raise, having to do with the video display terminals that you were asked to look into.

First, I would like to send you a copy of the collective agreement between the New Democratic Party caucus and its staff. Second, I would ask you to look into the situation in room 121 in the north wing of this building where there is a worker who is pregnant and who has been advised by Xerox not to work on a VDT. She is an employee of the Liberal caucus of this Legislature. I will send the member for Waterloo North a copy of our collective agreement so that she might be protected as well.

ORAL QUESTIONS

PHYSICIANS' SERVICES

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, there are rather slim pickings here this afternoon, with two or three notable exceptions.

Mr. Nixon: Yes, the member for Stormont-Dundas-Glengarry (Mr. Villeneuve) is here.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has the floor.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Health. In the light of recent press reports that more doctors are taking at least preliminary steps to opt out of medicare -- and I refer him to reports of the Orillia situation, for example, where it was reported last week that as a result of the impasse in negotiations another 18 doctors are considering opting out of Ontario health insurance plan, which would raise the level of opted-out physicians to some 66 per cent in that community -- will the minister tell this House what steps he is prepared to take to make sure that every citizen in Ontario continues to have access to physicians' services at opted-in rates?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I am relying upon the agreement reached between the Ontario government and the Ontario Medical Association some time ago whereby the OMA assured us there would be opted-in services available to every resident of this province. I take them at their word, and I am sure they will honour that undertaking.

Mr. Peterson: I am sure the minister is aware of certain statements, and I quote Dr. Ivan Elkan, president of the Toronto East Medical Society, who said in the context of the present dispute: "On an individual basis, I would not be surprised to see a large number of doctors opting out. That's one weapon that we do have."

What level of opting out is the minister prepared to tolerate and what is he going to do about it if it gets out of hand?

I am still confident that to solve what I hope will be a short-term problem, doctors will not choose to go the route of opting out in large numbers, because that will have rather Draconian results and implications for the entire health care system.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, in addition to the matter raised by the Leader of the Opposition, the new doctors opted out in Orillia and obviously the threat of yet more doctors opting out, there is also the threat reported in the papers that there will be five days of rotating strikes by doctors in North Peel and four days of rotating strikes by doctors in the St. Thomas area.

The evidence is clear that the minister's generosity has bought him nothing but additional trouble from the Ontario Medical Association. How much more trouble does he intend to take before he starts to act and protect the integrity of our medical care system?

2:10 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, at present the situation is largely composed of threats. The physicians in this province are faced with the choice of accepting $12,000 increases in their incomes, plus the government's open offer to resume discussions at any time the OMA requests. In those circumstances, a vast majority of doctors will be saying: "Yes, let us not take these kinds of steps. Let us instead resume negotiation."

I might say to my honourable friend the critic for the New Democratic Party that the NDP expressed its concern over rotating strikes throughout the province and asked what we would do. I could not help but be somewhat -- I should not say amused -- interested to read the comments made by the then leader of the NDP, who said as long ago as February 7 that doctors should be allowed to strike for higher fees.

I presume that remains the position of the NDP. If members of that party believe doctors should be allowed to strike for higher fees as their then leader believed, then the member's remarks should be framed in the context of trying to protect what he and his colleagues think is the doctors' right to strike.

As I indicated in my statement, I disagree with the NDP. I do not think the doctors have the right to threaten our health care system by withdrawing services. We, unlike the NDP, will take appropriate steps in the event the health care system of this province is threatened in any way.

Mr. Peterson: Will the minister inform this House whether his assurances with respect to access to health care apply to all specialties in all areas and if he is prepared to make those same assurances?

How does the minister know the doctors will live up to that agreement when they feel he has unilaterally imposed his point of view on them? At one o' clock today, Dr. Moran told a member of my staff that there have been no contacts with the Ministry of Health since March 31, except the minister's statements to the media. The minister is obviously not negotiating. How can we be assured they will live up to their side of the bargain from a previously arrived at decision?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I happen to trust the OMA. When they enter into an agreement with this government that they will ensure opted-in services are provided to all patients in this province, I am sure they will honour that agreement notwithstanding the current difficulties we are facing over the OHIP

schedule of benefits. I take them at their word; the Leader of the Opposition may not.

Mr. Peterson: Too bad it is not mutual.

TAX GRANTS FOR SENIORS

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Revenue. The minister will be aware that the cost of administering seniors' tax credits by the federal government in 1979 was $2.7 million. This year the cost of administering the seniors' tax grants is $10.87 million. Roughly five times the previous amount is going out by way of administrative expenditures by this government.

How does the minister justify this five times extra expenditure on a program that is not yielding any more results to most people in this province?

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Mr. Speaker, everyone is welcome to his own opinion as to whether the program is delivering more benefits to more people in Ontario.

The statistics show there are considerably more people in Ontario receiving more benefits than under the old program. Important from a delivery perspective, they are being delivered their benefits sooner than they were under the income tax system. They are getting them in the same year rather than in the following year. They are getting them, believe it or not, faster and with fewer errors -- and I know that will be challenged -- than they were under the income tax system.

If any members, particularly members of the second party across there, want to challenge that statistic, I suggest they check with their colleagues in Ottawa to see what the error rate is and was on income tax forms filed by seniors prior to and since the property tax grant.

Regardless of the number of errors we have had, and I have acknowledged in the past and will acknowledge now that we have some, the members opposite will find the actual number of errors by seniors in the completion of the income tax forms has been reduced substantially. They are much easier for seniors to complete.

There is no doubt at all that we have been able to eliminate the necessity of filing income tax forms for a great number of seniors in the province. I think that in itself is a very important change in the delivery system of a very important benefit to seniors in Ontario.

Mr. Peterson: I do not understand how the minister can justify this $8.8-million additional expenditure, unless it is an expenditure for political visibility only, when $1.4 million is going on advertising and another $429,000 in telephone expenditures. When so many ministers are crying out for money and when there are so many badly needed programs going underfunded in the province, how can this minister justify that additional $8.8 million in administrative expense?

Hon. Mr. Ashe: There is not an additional $8.8 million strictly under the heading of administration, and the Leader of the Opposition knows that. There are many parts of a new program that are nonrecurring. For example, we will not be doing the same degree of advertising this year as we did in the past two years, for obvious reasons.

Mr. Ruston: That means there is no election.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: That's fine; they are using up the clock.

It is too bad the members opposite did not realize that last year the election was on March 19. If they want to see when our advertising budget was spent during the past fiscal year, which only started on April 1, they would see it had nothing to do with the election. It happened to be the second year of a program that was not mature in nature. It happened to be the first year of the program in which the delivery of the benefits was split. In other words, an interim grant was made in the spring of 1981 followed by the final grant, and the advertising was quite justified to inform the seniors about the plan itself.

Believe it or not, I have had a few letters from members opposite suggesting that we are doing nothing to advertise to and contact seniors who may never have applied for the grant. They had better get their act together and be consistent.

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister how come last year he got the grants out by a target date, which I think was around March 19, and this year he does not seem to give a damn about a target date. Why is that?

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Mr. Speaker, if ever there was an irresponsible use of a date statistic, that has to be it. Obviously the honourable member did not research that statement before he made it off the cuff. If he looked into it he would find that once again last year, as in the advertising budget, the interim grant cheques went well beyond the date of March 19. They were sent out on April 6, one year ago today, well beyond the realities of the March 19 date the members opposite are fond of using. It had nothing to do with the election; there is no doubt one of the reasons they were not out earlier was that we did not want to influence the electorate in any way whatsoever.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: We sent it out on April 6 at my direction and my instruction. There is no doubt it is a little later; the interim cheques will be going out just a little less than five weeks later. Specifically, our target date is May 10. The reason we are doing it is to make sure we have updated all our base data and incorporated all the changes that are regularly fed into our system. Last year we had a 97 per cent accuracy rate; this year we want 99.9 per cent.

2:20 p.m.

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, the minister will be aware that in answer to my inquiry he said a second application form was not sent automatically to those seniors who did not return the original application.

Why is it that this government has done nothing about the 25,000 seniors who have not returned their applications? He knows full well that most of those seniors are probably in the lower-income brackets, since wealthier citizens have rarely missed any tax advantage.

Why is he not trying to find out who these 25,000 seniors across the province are, since they are very likely the ones who are most in need of financial assistance?

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Mr. Speaker, there is the inconsistency again. One of the reasons for advertising was to make sure that people were aware of the program. On the other side of the coin, if we once again contact all of these people and send out new applications, we would be criticized for increasing the administration costs. Let us be consistent.

When we become aware, through any way, of seniors who have not applied and should have, we get back to them again and find out what happened. Did they lose it, did they destroy it or did they misunderstand it? Believe it or not, we have had seniors to whom we have sent out a second application and it has not come back. As a matter of fact, in those cases, we are following them up individually to see what happened the second time. In most cases they have been generated because of a client inquiry or through a member in some instances. So we are following up on them.

I think it is completely realistic that the numbers are down. There are a group of people who are no longer with us to apply, and obviously that is why the applications did not come back. Also there is no doubt that in 1980 there was an abundance of applications that ended up being for nonqualified people. During 1982, the second year of the program, obviously the applications are a little more sophisticated and so are the applicants.

USE OF STRIKEBREAKERS

Mr. Foulds: I have a new question, Mr. Speaker; I have just two --

Mr. Havrot: Look at the tan.

Mr. Wrye: Sunny Jim.

Mr. Foulds: Just a living advertisement for the benefits of solar power.

Mr. Ruston: Sunny south.

Mr. Bradley: How are things in Cuba?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Foulds: In spite of the heckling I have a question, Mr. Speaker, that I dreamed up in the independent country of Antigua, which has, by the way, a Labour Party government. I would like to ask the Minister of Colleges and Universities --

Mr. T. P. Reid: Why didn't you just stay in paradise?

Mr. Foulds: Oh, jealousy will get you nowhere.

My question is about one of the ministry's agencies which the government has funded to the tune of more than $5 million last year, the Ontario College of Art. I wonder whether the minister is aware that this body apparently hired Securicor Investigation and Security Ltd. on March 26, just four days prior to the present strike by Local 576 of the Ontario Public Service Employees Union.

In view of the answer by the Solicitor General (Mr. G. W. Taylor) yesterday and his commitment to broaden the Ontario Provincial Police investigation into Securicor's activities, will the minister welcome a broadening of the OPP investigation into Securicor's activities with regard to the strike at OCA?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, if I can just overcome my envy of the gorgeous tan that the honourable member is sporting as a result of his lolling in the sun of southern islands while the rest of us were here slaving away --

An hon. member: There are some advantages to being in the opposition, you know.

Mr. Speaker: Having said that --

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I am aware that on March 26, without knowledge of the problems that have been raised related to that security firm, OCA did hire the firm. I wish to report to the member that I am in strong support of anything which the Solicitor General suggests in terms of investigation, but I also want the member to know that last night, at the board meeting, OCA discharged that firm from their employ.

Mr. Foulds: Can the minister confirm that the Securicor firm has been discharged? Our information is that half an hour ago Securicor was still on the job. Is the minister aware that the firm had engaged in harassment of the workers and surveillance of the workers back and forth to their homes? Can she tell us who took the decision to pay taxpayers' money to this firm and how much it was paid?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I am sorry I cannot provide that detailed information, which I think would be more appropriately a question on the Order Paper, but I can tell the member that the decision was taken by the board last evening to discharge Securicor. I am sure that is in the process of being carried out.

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, is the minister aware that the one central issue in the strike is the right to grieve unjust dismissal -- a fundamental right in most agreements? Given that this was the issue of the strike, what possible justification was there for hiring Securicor in this situation in the first place? Given that the issue is such a fundamental one, does the minister not think she could put a little pressure on to see that the strike is settled very quickly?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of some of the issues involved in that strike, including the fact that I gather a significant number of those on strike are students at the Ontario College of Art, who function part-time as both models and monitors within the program. I am not aware of the grievance procedure being the only significant issue within the dispute that is going on. I shall make it my business to investigate more fully the list of issues that seem to be outstanding.

CHEMICAL SPILL

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Norton), I would like to place a question to the Solicitor General as the minister responsible for public safety and spills -- chemical spills and otherwise.

With regard to the Junction triangle area and the spill at Bloor and Lansdowne, has the government yet ascertained the source of the spill? Are chemicals still being discharged? Has the ministry found the violator? What steps are planned to protect the residents of the area from any possible danger?

Hon. G. W. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, if I might direct the member's question to the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development, he has that answer. I believe he received it from the Ministry of the Environment and would like to answer that question on my behalf.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Mr. Speaker, at 4:58 a.m. the Toronto fire department phoned the Ministry of the Environment to report a chemical odour in the Junction triangle area of Toronto. Our duty officer then phoned Mr. Leo Butko of the Environment staff, who moved on site early this morning. There are now two MOE staff, Mr. Butko and Mr. Haldane, on site as well as the Metro police and Toronto fire department.

At 7:30, it was agreed to recommend the closure of the nearby Perth Avenue School until the Ministry of Labour advised otherwise. The fire department tested for explosive properties, and the levels are well below explosive capacity.

The odour problem appears to have passed, but MOE is sending two mobile air monitoring units from our air resources branch to the site. We are checking with the two industries in the area possibly responsible through a chemical leak, these being Nacan Products Ltd. and Glidden Co. Ltd.

The Minister of the Environment is in his home riding today for the funeral of the wife of former member Syl Apps this afternoon. He will be back Thursday and will be glad to answer further questions on this item.

2:30 p.m.

Mr. Foulds: Can the provincial secretary tell us now, or make sure the Minister of the Environment tells us on Thursday, whether the government is examining the possibility that this was an intentional discharge that got out of control -- because I understand there are allowable intentional discharges according to Metro and city bylaws -- or whether it was an entirely accidental discharge? Also, is the ministry not aware that there are more than two possible sources of the discharge?

Finally, is the government aware that Ministry of the Environment officials are telling residents of the area at this time that they still do not know any source and that they cannot tell the residents any action they should take to protect themselves until tomorrow? What is the government going to do to protect the residents from any possible hazards?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: While the minister will answer fully on Thursday, I have just spoken with the staff of the ministry and there is no guarantee that it came from either of the plants I have named. There is no guarantee that somebody did not take a load of something and dump it in the sewers there. We think it is these two plants, but the Ministry of the Environment staff are on the site and conducting tests.

There is no danger at the moment. This morning the fire department did flush what we believe is the dangerous material down the sewers. We do not believe there is a danger, but we have staff there and the Metropolitan Toronto Police are there as well.

Mr. Foulds: Have people been sent to the hospital?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: I can't hear you.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think you have already answered the question.

Mr. Ruprecht: Mr. Speaker, I am the member for this area, and I think the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development knows full well that while the potential violations of this spill could be handled under the Environmental Protection Act they could be more adequately handled by the spills bill, which received third reading in December 1979 and yet 28 months later still has not been proclaimed. Can the minister explain why the spills bill has not yet been proclaimed and when this bill, which was designed for incidents such as this, will be proclaimed?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Mr. Speaker, I will refer that question to the minister. He will be glad to answer fully when he is here on Thursday.

Mr. Charlton: Mr. Speaker, according to one of the staff members of the Ministry of the Environment on the scene, one of the chemicals released into the sewers is vinyl acetate, a very flammable substance. According to the city of Toronto bylaws that allow for periodic discharges into the sewer system, no flammables are permitted to be discharged even in periodic small discharges.

Will the minister see that the Ministry of the Environment investigates in this case why a flammable substance such as vinyl acetate had access to the sewer system, which is supposed to be precluded under the bylaws?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Mr. Speaker, I think I answered that in my original answer. I made it quite clear that we know there is something there that is not legal and not acceptable. The fire department flushed it down. Two members of the staff of the Ministry of the Environment are on standby, and the Metropolitan Toronto Police are there. If it can be found that somebody did it deliberately, there certainly will be prosecutions.

FOOD INDUSTRY PRACTICES

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Elgie), I wish to direct my question to the Provincial Secretary for Justice.

Is the minister aware that Dominion Stores Ltd. and Steinberg Inc. have recently combined their buying clout through the formation of a buying group known as Volume One, whose only purpose is to extract greater discounts and allowances from food suppliers? Is the minister concerned about this rapid concentration of buying power among the major chains that have all formed buying groups, which, through the decline of competition in this area, will eventually lead to higher food costs to consumers and a reduction in food suppliers?

What action is the minister taking to monitor this situation? Will he assure us that appropriate legislation will be introduced, such as we in the Liberal Party and the Ontario Federation of Agriculture have proposed, to protect the producers and small processors and grocers in the province from unfair trading practices?

Hon. Mr. Sterling: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I am not aware of the merger except through the newspaper accounts this morning and I cannot answer on behalf of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. I will forward the question to him. I am certain he is concerned about the matter. However, I cannot answer in terms of the remedial action he might take.

Mr. Riddell: I feel this is an issue the government is certainly going to have to come to grips with. It just cannot continue. Can the minister indicate to us what specific action has been taken concerning the recommendations contained in the report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Discounting and Allowances in the Food Industry in Ontario, since he and his colleagues have surely had time to study this $500,000 report of 1980 by now?

Why has the watchdog mechanism to monitor discounting practices, as was recommended in the report, not been established? Why has the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations not taken on the task of policing trade practices in the food industry, which task was to have been transferred from the Ontario Food Council when it was disbanded in 1978? Is the minister not aware that food suppliers are in a worse situation today than when that inquiry was established back in 1980?

Hon. Mr. Sterling: As I indicated before, the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations is unfortunately away from the Legislature this afternoon. In fact, he is at a funeral. I did receive a copy of a letter he had written to the federal Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs very recently, asking him to look into the matter in terms of whether the action contravenes the Combines Investigation Act and to report to him on that. Unfortunately I cannot respond to the member's question in relation to the previous report. I will pass that along to the minister.

Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, when the Provincial Secretary for Justice looks into this matter, either on his own or in conjunction with the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, will he take steps to do something about the royal commission report? The Ontario Federation of Agriculture suggested to the government that the report should not even be accepted because it was so totally inadequate, and the thing drifted into limbo and nothing has happened over a two-year period.

Will the provincial secretary take the initiative in terms of a policy enunciation to establish at the provincial level something in the unfair business practices area that will come to grips with the discounts and allowances, since the royal commission and all previous efforts have been totally abortive in coming to grips with this problem?

Hon. Mr. Sterling: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly be glad to bring this to the attention of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. I am certain that, as expressed by his letter, he is concerned about this particular situation. The minister has held that particular portfolio for only a short period of time. He will, of course, as a result of the member's question, look into this matter and report to him.

MENTAL HEALTH CARE

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health (Mr. Grossman). If he has left, I will direct it to the Provincial Secretary for Social Development. Is she aware that the body of the woman found on the beach of Lake Ontario was identified this morning as that of Margaret Daniel, the patient who has been missing from the Whitby Psychiatric Hospital since March 15? After this fourth death in a year and a half, can the minister now assure us a full public inquiry will take place into problems within the mental health care system in this province?

2:40 p.m.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, the latest knowledge I have is that the body of the woman has not been identified and that they are awaiting some dental checks to be done later today. I have no further information on the identification of that body.

Mr. McClellan: Since we are informed by the coroner that the identification has been positively made, surely the minister will agree that, rather than look at the problems a death at a time, inquest by inquest, we should put a halt to this procedure and immediately commission a full, independent public inquiry that can focus the best minds available in the mental health community on the obviously serious, critical problems in our provincial mental health care system?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: I think the member will agree there are many areas of concern to the government in the mental health field. We are attempting to address those concerns in many different ways in regard to the Queen Street Mental Health Centre situation, Whitby Psychiatric Hospital and the mental health system in Ontario in general.

We are all concerned when situations like this occur, but I think the honourable member will agree that, no matter how excellent the system is, we will unfortunately always have tragedies such as the one that has just occurred.

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, we now have evidence of a confirmed fourth victim, indicating again the tragedy that is taking place daily in our troubled mental health care system. Since the minister is not prepared to accept the advice of the member for Bellwoods and commission a public inquiry into this disaster area, what specifically is she going to tell this House and the people of Ontario she is going to do, as the senior policy secretary for the social development field, to give effect to this wide, sweeping and platitudinous concern she has yet again drawn to our attention?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, I think the honourable member is making a lot of assumptions that are not necessarily true. I would like to point out to him again that, no matter how excellent the system is, the very nature of the problems these people have make it impossible to ensure no one is going to commit suicide and that tragedies are not going to occur. I think he should be more realistic about the situation. Of course we are concerned and of course we will try to remedy the situation as best we can and in the best way humanly possible, but I am not going to suggest we will be able to prevent everyone in this province from committing suicide.

GREAT LAKES FOREST AGREEMENT

Mr. J. A. Reed: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Natural Resources concerning the three-year saga of the government's mediation process with the Whitedog Indian band regarding mercury health claims.

As the minister will recall, the province agreed in 1979 to assume liabilities in excess of $15 million against Great Lakes Paper Co. for environmental damage caused by mercury. He will also recall the province revised its position but finally clarified it on February 9, 1982, 38 months after mediation began.

Would the minister indicate why Great Lakes has now refused to meet with the negotiators for the Indian band, arguing it cannot make an offer because of the inadequacies of its internal purchase agreement with Reed Ltd.? Is it true that the Great Lakes private agreement with Reed to share the first $15 million of liabilities is enforceable only by a court decision and not through a voluntary mediation settlement?

Hon. Mr. Pope: Mr. Speaker, the last part of the question is difficult to assess. In terms of the enforceability of the memorandum of understanding and the actions of the parties pursuant to it since the time of its signature, there is a presumption of it being a binding contract and we would presume legal steps would not have to be taken to enforce compliance under the terms of the memorandum of agreement.

Unfortunately I am not able to help the member with respect to the time frame. I am not in charge of the negotiations on behalf of the province nor have I been directly involved in the meetings that have taken place. I think the chairman of the resources development policy field has been involved in that and may be able to assist the member. I do know it has been a protracted negotiation session. There has been about --

Mr. Kerrio: It is a sellout.

Hon. Mr. Pope: No, it is not a sellout at all. A number of resource allocation issues have been involved in that process and our staff have been involved in giving advice to the negotiating team. A lot of those issues have been resolved. We started off with some 30 issues that had to be resolved with respect to financial matters and resource allocation matters. Most of them have been resolved.

With respect to the status of the memorandum of understanding and the payment of the $15 million, some of those matters would be before the minister who has been in charge of those negotiations. I really could not assist the member with any accuracy.

Mr. J. A. Reed: I am astounded the Minister of Natural Resources is not closely involved with this issue. The whole thing involves Natural Resources. Could I redirect a supplementary to the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development?

Mr. Speaker: No.

Mr. J. A. Reed: All right. I will ask my supplementary of the minister. Hopefully he will be able to answer and be apprised of at least part of the issue.

The federal government has now settled with the Whitedog band and Ontario Hydro has reached a settlement that will be signed in the next two weeks. We are now in the 39th month of the mediation process. Why is the province now arguing that it has no legal responsibility, when it knows its responsibility is a moral one in the mercury pollution process? Why is it refusing to make any financial contribution to the Indian band? Why does the province not settle with the band on the four major outstanding issues that still need to be negotiated?

Hon. Mr. Pope: We have been trying to resolve all the outstanding issues. I indicated there is a long list of issues. A lot of the settlements the member just discussed with respect to the federal government and Ontario Hydro came about through the provincial government's interventions on some of the agreements it was a party to.

Mr. J. A. Reed: Why is the minister hanging back?

Hon. Mr. Pope: No, we are not hanging back. We are attempting to resolve the issues as we have been all along. It is very difficult. We are working as hard as we can and have been working very hard for the last year to try to wrap it up.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, surely the Minister of Natural Resources will agree he has substantial leverage when dealing with the pulp and paper companies in northwestern Ontario or anywhere else in Ontario? Is he not prepared to use that leverage to make sure justice is done?

Hon. Mr. Pope: Mr. Speaker, we have been trying to assure justice is done both through this process and through other processes we have been involved with in the council organizations in northwestern Ontario and through all of northern Ontario. We have been using all the influence we can exert in order to try to bring about a settlement of the matter.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Order.

Mr. Renwick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Will the Deputy Premier advise the Premier (Mr. Davis) that he undertook to the House on March 29 to answer the questions put by the member, and the supplementaries which were put, as a result of a question I asked on this very topic?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to communicate that request to the Premier. However, the minister responsible for these negotiations is the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development. If the member would like some information my colleague is prepared to share it with him and the House even this afternoon.

2:50 p.m.

CHILDREN'S MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services, regarding mental health services for children in the province and specifically for francophone children.

Last year I raised the concern about Ontario children being cared for in the Maison Rouyn in Quebec because we do not have suitable facilities in Ontario. Is the minister aware that this year there are still 25 Franco-Ontarian children, 19 from northeastern Ontario, in that facility? Those kids are there for between two and two and a half years because they are very severely disturbed.

Will he commit funds in Ontario for long-term mental health care for French-speaking children in northeastern Ontario? Will he take part of that 19 per cent that he promised and put it into children's mental health centres in northeastern Ontario for severely disturbed children?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I already have. A new children's mental health centre which offers bilingual services opened on March 31 of this year in North Bay.

Second, in the area represented by the Liberal critic, in eastern Ontario, I already have opened the first children's mental health centre for francophones. That is in direct relation to the member's question because he was talking about children being sent to a very excellent, I may say, facility in Quebec.

I notice the member did not ask me when the eastern Ontario population was going to disappear from there. We are very hopeful, with the steps we are taking in eastern Ontario, we can remove the eastern Ontario population from there.

In regard to northeastern Ontario, as the member knows, there is a shortage in this province of professional people for the treatment of francophone children with mental health disabilities. I am prepared to put money into the area to attract professional staff and it will only be when there is professional staff there that we can really begin to treat in the area.

In the meantime, we would be extremely foolish to not send children from Cochrane South and so forth over to Rouyn rather than bring them down to Sudbury.

As the honourable member knows, I wanted to start -- and so did a community group want to start -- the very beginnings of something in the Timmins area particularly, a multi-purpose centre. As he knows, we were run out of town. There is a limit to what the minister can really do in making a beginning when the community is so hostile that it will not give us a place.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: First, to dispel some of the notion that the minister has provided an answer to the problem with the Nipissing centre, let it be clear that the Nipissing centre is an outpatient facility that is not dealing with severely disturbed children. In fact, there are 90 kids already on their list and at their maximum capacity they will be able to deal with only 50, as the minister well knows. It is no answer.

M. Jacques Turgeon, director of the Maison Rouyn, has heard nothing about what is going to happen to the kids from eastern Ontario, so I will wait to hear from the minister when that is actually in place.

Is the minister aware, as he has just indicated he was, that there are no French group homes in the Timmins area? There is one child in a supposedly bilingual group home in that area. Is he aware that M. Turgeon of the Maison Rouyn wants to establish a group home in the Timmins area for kids coming out of Maison Rouyn to re-establish them in the community? He has asked to meet with the minister's officials next week.

What is the minister's position on that? Will he be supporting the establishment of a group home sponsored by the Maison Rouyn; or will he be moving to bring into northeastern Ontario the kind of facilities that should be established there, that is long-term care in Ontario for Ontario kids?

Hon. Mr. Drea: It is a very interesting question. If I say yes to either one I am damned and if I say no to either one I am damned. The member is not quite as smart as he thinks he is.

I would be absolutely delighted to look at using the outreach services of that particular children's mental health centre in Quebec. It would be interesting to have a look at that, but it would be on the basis that we do intend to build our own, or to arrange our own over the long term.

If we could take advantage for a period of time of the professional capabilities -- and they certainly have them in the centre at Rouyn because it is a prime resource and it is close -- I would be a fool not to, but I will say that we have to establish, one way or the other, professional residential services in northeastern Ontario. I intend to do it.

Mr. Foulds: When?

Hon. Mr. Drea: With the member's charming little thing about the Nipissing centre, the name of the game -- and it was invented by the party opposite -- was why were we not into more prevention, more early detection, more nonresidential and more home care? Now the member sits here today and sneers at what is going on in the Nipissing centre.

TORONTO WESTERN HOSPITAL

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Health. The executive director of the Toronto Western Hospital told the Liberal health committee last Wednesday that a woman outpatient, suffering a potential suspected breast tumour, could have to wait up to three months before she could even undergo exploratory surgery in his hospital. Does the minister feel that this time lapse, attributed to bed shortages and lack of equipment, is acceptable?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I do not know the particulars of that case, obviously, but as I am sure the new critic has learned by now, if there is a medically necessary procedure the hospitals operate in such a fashion, particularly an esteemed hospital such as the Toronto Western Hospital, that any medically necessary procedure will be done immediately. The member knows that.

Ms. Copps: I am surprised the minister does not have the details of that particular incident since he had somebody from the Ministry of Health monitoring all our hearings that day.

I am sure if the minister goes back to his representative from the Ministry of Health he will be able to read from his verbatim notes that the director also said that in some instances the delay could mean the difference between saving a breast and having a mastectomy. He also agreed it may mean the difference between life and death. Does the minister feel this situation is acceptable? If not, what is he going to do about it?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Since I do not have the verbatim details of whatever happened at the member's committee meeting, may I say that the administrator of that hospital, Mr. McAulay, who is well known to the medical community and very esteemed, I am absolutely sure would not have held out to the member that it was a reality that someone who needed medical attention was not getting it and could not get it because of a bed shortage. He runs his hospital in such a way that it is renowned, not only throughout Ontario but throughout North America, as a well run hospital.

I have no problem in saying there is no chance that anyone who needed attention immediately, and who was running a severe risk of serious disease or death in the event medical attention was not provided immediately, would not get that attention. That is not the way the system works. That administrator particularly, and most of our administrators throughout this province, and all of our physicians I might add, under any circumstances would not allow that to happen. That is not the way the system works.

Appropriate provision is made in that hospital and in other hospitals to make sure that emergency cases, medically necessary cases, are admitted and treated and that is done exactly when and where the physician says it is needed. That is simply the case.

Ms. Copps: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: If the minister is implying that I am misleading this House I would ask that he withdraw his statement because I have Mr. McAulay on tape.

3 p.m.

PLANT SHUTDOWNS

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Labour. Is he aware that SCM (Canada) Ltd. will lay off, in May, 150 workers at its Scarborough typewriter plant? He must be aware that the decision was made and announced in the United States. He must be aware that this confirms once again the general deindustrialization going on in Ontario and the shift in Ontario from production to warehousing.

Given that situation, what is the minister going to do to protect these jobs and keep the production in Ontario rather than exporting jobs and importing typewriters?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the situation the member for Hamilton East has brought to our attention this afternoon. It is a very weighty question. It is a circumstance that runs parallel to the severe economic decline this country is experiencing at this time. I do not think we are going to see too much improvement until the economy improves. We are hoping that will be some time towards the end of this year.

Mr. Mackenzie: Surely the minister must be aware that wiping out our deficit in the typewriter trade alone in Ontario would be more than sufficient to protect these jobs. Will he now help to establish a justification process to make foreign companies like SCM publicly justify their arbitrary decision to shift production out of Canada to the United States?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: The ministry has no plans at this time to initiate a justification process.

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, given the continuing export of jobs from Ontario into the United States and given the loss of employment to workers, will the minister -- I believe he was a member of the select committee on plant shutdowns and employee adjustment -- urge his cabinet colleagues to support a reintroduction of the select committee at the earliest possible opportunity so we may look at what policy options are open to Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: It is true I was a member of that committee, and I felt it did some very useful and worthwhile work, not because I was a member of the committee but because of the findings the committee presented. The Ministry of Labour did act on some of the recommendations that were made then.

That time was probably one of the most traumatic two months of my experience in that there were some terrible stories and illustrations brought before the committee. I say this not to embarrass the member for Hamilton East but to his credit: I can remember on one occasion, when a particularly sad circumstance was brought to our attention, I looked over and the honourable member had genuine tears in his eyes. I know there were others of us around the table who felt much the same way.

The point I am trying to make is that it does not take another plant closure committee, it does not take another two months of illustrations such as we had last time, to convince me or anybody else in this government of the problem. We know what the problem is. We have to find solutions for the problem.

FOREST UTILIZATION

Mr. Van Horne: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Natural Resources. In view of the statement made by the minister on March 12 regarding the establishment of a committee to examine forest utilization practices in the industry in Ontario, surely the minister is aware of the in-house committee on wasteful practices, a committee of his ministry established in 1978 because of the concerns of his own ministry foresters. Surely the minister is aware that many of the topics listed for study in his release of March 12 are the same topics as were studied by that in-house committee.

First, will the minister release that in-house committee report from the study of 1978; second, how much longer does he have to study utilization practices and wasteful practices before he acts on them?

Hon. Mr. Pope: Mr. Speaker, we have acted on wasteful practices. We have acted on utilization.

If the honourable member had taken the time to go through the forest management agreement process and the forest management agreements that had been executed and the impact in terms of utilization in both the short term and the long term and the protection for sensitive environmental concerns; if he had taken the time to look at the hybrid poplar program and its impact on utilization and the research work we are doing to lead the world in fast-growing species, including hardwoods and their effect on utilization, the member would be quite confident that all of those activities dovetail with an out-of-house program that is now going on to examine wasteful practices.

Additional utilization applications in the field will give effect to the very work we have been doing.

Mr. Van Horne: The minister very artfully dodged the question, which was, will he release the report? He has not answered that question. Is he going to leave the

schedule of charges unchanged, as it has been since 1952, until he finishes this new study? And what about the first question? Is he going to release the in-house report?

Hon. Mr. Pope: If I am having people look at the whole area, why would I change the level of charges before they have even looked at it?

The answer to the first part of the question is that as soon as we establish some changes in policies, we will release them to the members and provide any information we can.

Mr. Speaker: Final supplementary; the member for Rainy River.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: No, no, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, the minister --

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Nickel Belt.

Mr. Kerrio: He wasn't up quick enough.

Mr. Speaker: Yes, he was. I just didn't see him.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, some of us have read the forest management agreements; so I do not think the minister should use that argument on us.

I assume the minister is familiar with the report from Lakehead University which said: "If sustained yield exploitation of the forest resource is the goal of the people of Ontario, the existing demand-supply situation requires restraint on mills' wood demands. Additional manufacturing capacity should only be installed if existing facilities can be adapted (through higher pulp yields or wood chip use or greater hardwood utilization) or retired to free up wood currently required by the industry at 'normal' operating levels."

Does the minister not agree that this is a very sensible and practical approach to the supply crisis? Will he tell us very specifically what he intends to do to get industry to increase pulp yields and to increase wood chip use and hardwood utilization so that jobs in the forest industry will be protected, not just now but in the years to come?

Hon. Mr. Pope: One of the things we have done to protect jobs now and in the future in the forest products industry is the series of modernization grants that we, along with the federal government, gave to the pulp and paper industry; they protected 1,800 jobs in my community of Iroquois Falls and thousands of jobs throughout northern Ontario.

The member shakes his head. He would have taken a chance on it. I know what his party's policy is; it is to nationalize the resource industry. They will not nationalize the manufacturing sector because of job security but they will nationalize the resource sector because they do not care about job security. I understand the party's policy, and so do the people of northern Ontario.

I am glad that study agrees with the research work and the initiative that this ministry has taken with respect to the use of hybrid poplar, with respect to utilization in pulp and paper, with respect to the Domtar arrangement and with respect to the fast-growing species we are doing work on. Why are we doing it? Because we agree we should be exploring other species and fuller utilization of the trees to increase our capacities without licensing more land.

BUDGET

Mr. T. P. Reid: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Before the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) leaves, in view of the fact that day after day we are hearing about the decline of the Ontario economy, and in view of the fact that it has now become apparent -- or leaked perhaps by the Treasurer -- that May 4 is going to be the budget day, does he not feel he should tell the people of Ontario when the budget is going to come down?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Will he provide some indication when we can expect some guidance and direction from this government?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

3:10 p.m.

TAX GRANTS FOR SENIORS

Mr. Peterson: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: You will recall that I was involved in discussion with the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Ashe) with respect to the seniors' grants, and I want to quote him from Instant Hansard of today. He said, with respect to the advertising expenditures: "It is too bad the honourable members opposite did not realize that last year the election was on March 19. If they want to see when our advertising budget was spent during the past fiscal year, which only started April 1, they would see that it had nothing to do with an election."

I would like to refer members to Hansard of December 5, 1980, when then Minister of Revenue (Mr. Maeck) was discussing the expenditures for the seniors' program. He revealed the cost at that point to be $2,978,300, which included an advertising cost of $934,000. I believe the minister probably inadvertently misled the House with respect to advertising prior to the election. He probably wants to stand up and correct the inappropriate impression he gave this House.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: No, Mr. Speaker. The answers I gave were correct and accurate. We are talking about two different fiscal years. The expenditures in the fiscal year 1980-81 were in the fall of 1980, upon the introduction of the program, and again would have preceded the election by a considerable number of months.

ONTARIO ENERGY INVESTMENT

Mr. Ruston: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: I understand that the Deputy Premier (Mr. Welch) was on television saying what a great deal Suncor was for the people of Canada and Ontario. If it is so great, I wonder why he had a reclaiming truck come in the other night and haul away hundreds of pounds of the Suncor issue printed by the Conservative caucus. If it is so great, why did he not send these out to the public instead of having them burned?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what the honourable member is talking about. I think the member has jumped to certain conclusions which are not necessarily consistent with the facts. I do not know. I will be glad to get some explanation.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not a point of privilege anyway.

MOTION

SITTING OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Gregory moved that when the House adjourns at 6 p.m. on Thursday next, it stands adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, April 13, 1982.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

ONTARIO SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT

Mr. Charlton moved, seconded by Mr. Cooke, first reading of Bill 45,

An Act to protect and enhance the Quality of Drinking Water in Ontario.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Charlton: Mr. Speaker, the bill is intended to protect and enhance drinking water quality in Ontario. It provides opportunities for public involvement in the making of regulations to set maximum permissible levels for contaminants and other substances in drinking water. These regulations would apply to both public and private water supplies.

The operator of a public water system is required to monitor water quality regularly and to notify the users of the system, as well as the Minister of the Environment, of the result. Any user of a private water system may have the water tested by the Ministry of the Environment.

It is an offence for the operator of a public water system to provide water that contravenes the regulation or to fail to comply with monitoring and notice requirements. It is an offence for anyone to pollute a public or private water system.

The bill permits water users to sue to recover damages for contravention of the act and give the person standing to seek judicial review against the Minister of the Environment. The minister is authorized to commission research into matters related to drinking water quality, and an advisory council is created to assist the minister.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

House in committee of supply.

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (CONCLUDED)

On vote 1402, administrative services program:

Mr. Chairman: Just before I recognize the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart), I would like to bring to the House's attention that, for those of you who have been paying much attention, the chair, namely, myself as chairman, and my assistants have had difficulties from time to time determining the scope and line of questioning that members opposite have been directing to appropriate ministers.

It is my understanding that in the past supplementary estimates have not had the amount of discussion that seems to be taking place in more recent years. As a result, it leaves the chair in an embarrassing position of trying to decide on the scope of questioning.

After consultation with our advisers, if there is no further discussion with members of all parties, I am going to direct a letter to the Chairman of Management Board of Cabinet (Mr. McCague) suggesting that the chair would find it most appropriate if the ministers could be a little more explicit on the introduction of supplementary estimates so that the chair at least would be able to make the appropriate rulings on the scope of discussion and whether questions are within those authorized under supplementary estimates.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say a word about your comments, because I think they are extremely helpful. I would point out, however, that it seems to be in the minds of the representatives of the government that these supplementary estimates should be passed before the end of the fiscal year, which is why they insisted on proceeding with them right after the opening of the Legislature rather than going forward with the debate on the speech from the throne.

The fact that they were not carried by the end of the fiscal year does not seem now to have made any difference. As a matter of fact, we are a number of days past. While they do form a rather useful and important vehicle for members on all sides to express their views early in a session on a whole variety of ministries, and for the expenditure in this instance of more than $250 million, still it seems to me that if they are not necessary for the end of the fiscal year they could very well be referred to the committee with the regular estimates that will be brought down in the next few days in any event.

While I would not for a moment like the House to forgo the right to debate supplementary estimates, it seems to me that it might be wise in the planning at another time for the supplementaries to be referred to committee along with regular estimates, and we would not have to go over these important matters more than three or four times.

3:20 p.m.

Mr. Stokes: Mr. Chairman, I agree wholeheartedly with what you have said. I think the problem that has arisen is a result of the inability or the unwillingness of many of the ministers over there. To deal with the very first one, the Minister of Government Services (Mr. Wiseman), when asked to make an opening comment on the amount of money that was required and the specific area for which it was to be spent, declined to do so, which seemed to have set the pattern for all of these estimates.

The other thing that causes some problem for members is that a concurrence motion, which comes when a regular estimate is reported back to the House, is quite a bit different from a supplementary estimate. A concurrence motion gives members on all sides of the House an opportunity to speak on a variety of subjects within a two-and-a-half-hour time frame, as opposed to supplementary estimates where the ministers are coming in and asking for additional sums for specific uses within the ministry.

The point the Chairman raises is one that the Chairman of Management Board, and all ministers submitting supplementary estimates to this committee, should take under advisement. If they do not, they just invite the kind of thing we have had for the past week here in supplementary estimates.

The point made by the House leader of the Liberal Party has a good deal of validity, and I would hope that the Chairman would follow that course of action. But the onus is on those ministers who bring in these supplementary estimates to be much more specific than they have been up to this point.

Mr. Chairman: I have just been advised by the table that the standing committee on procedural affairs is apparently looking at some aspects of supply. Unfortunately, knowing the ways of the world here, the process suggested by the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) may be a little slow. As a result, it would be expedient to follow my procedure to try to help things along until such time as we get the other process under way.

In any event, what my assistant and I will be attempting to do, with the best unbiased impartiality possible, is to try to help supplementary estimates along as reasonably as possible and yet allow all members to have the best possible scope of discussion and questioning.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Chairman, I want to have a few words to say on the supplementary estimates of the Ministry of the Attorney General as they relate to legal aid and legal aid clinics. I am going to touch just briefly on three items.

The legal aid clinic in the Welland area was established some two years ago, if my memory serves me correctly, and legal aid, as such, has been in force for many years. I want to pay tribute here to the improvement it has been made in the area of the Niagara Peninsula with regard to equality under the law. It is certainly far better than it was previously.

My colleague the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) expressed his concern and that of this caucus the other day that it does not as yet go far enough to provide the equality and fairness that should exist in our legal system. We are concerned that there may be some retrenchment, as there has been in the health system in many areas, and in fact in the average income in this province, because of actions of this government.

We want to make it perfectly clear that we will oppose, as strongly as we can, any attempt to cut back on legal aid and the legal aid clinics, which do such an excellent job for so many people. That is the first point I wanted to touch on.

Second, and I hope the minister will comment on this when he rises, in recent times there apparently has been some attempt by the Law Society of Upper Canada to rather limit the operation of community legal workers. They are being told by the lawyers in charge, upon the insistence of the law society, that they should not be writing letters to various people, particularly other lawyers and other community workers, under their own signature, but that it should all go through the lawyers.

It is impeding the operation of the legal aid clinics and is causing some dissatisfaction among the workers, who often have far more knowledge of the situation than the lawyer who may head up the clinic and has not had any

part in the discussions.

I am hoping the minister will take a look at this and perhaps send out instructions to those in charge of the legal aid clinics that this should not take place. It is my understanding the ministry has not yet taken a stand on this. This is all being done by the law society directly through the lawyers in the legal aid clinics, and it is having an adverse effect on the service that can be given. I will not elaborate on that point any further. I think I have made the point clear and the minister will want to comment on it.

The third area I want to mention is the general umbrella of legal aid that has been set up. For instance, it is possible for certain citizen groups and certain organizations to get funding under legal aid. The Preservation of Agricultural Land Society was able to do so in the Niagara Peninsula. This funding is very restrictive. I understand it has been given out in only a few instances.

The board may have decided that, because the government of Ontario was not representing its stated policy at the hearings with regard to the land in the Niagara Peninsula, it should fund the group that was representing it. In any event, PALS got a minimum amount of funding, about one quarter of the total cost they had in this. It was appreciated by them, and I think it was a good move on the part of the government.

I believe organizations like the Canadian Environmental Law Association also get substantial funding under the general umbrella of legal aid. The suggestion I want to make to the minister here today is that this should be broadened further still. It should include some assistance to citizen groups fighting utility and rate hearings, whether before the Ontario Energy Board or the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, as is the case for Bell Canada.

I am sure the minister must be aware of the tremendous imbalance at these hearings. For instance, at the hearing that took place to set the rates for Consumers' Gas System there were some 20 witnesses and several lawyers there representing them all through the hearings. There was not one lawyer or witness representing the residential consumers. It is impossible to get a totally fair decision when there is that kind of imbalance.

I recognize that the Ontario Energy Board has its own lawyer there and cross-examines the witnesses for the gas company; but when there is nobody there specifically representing the consumer, it is certain they are at a disadvantage and are not going to get a fair shake.

It seems to me this is an area where this government is refusing to appoint a public advocate, as they have now in many states in the United States. It refuses to adequately represent the consumers. The terms of reference on legal aid should be broadened so they can represent the consumers at these hearings.

In the case of Northern and Central Gas, there were eight witnesses for the gas company before the Ontario Energy Board. Again, there was not a single representative there speaking for the residential consumers served by that company in northern Ontario.

3:30 p.m.

Tremendous increases were given and there were substantial increases in the profits of the utility companies last year. That was the only group, apart from the banks, that substantially increased its profits in this nation. They are going up 25 per cent on average. With the new ruling, their profits this year will go up at least another 25 per cent and perhaps another 50 per cent. The consumers of this province are going to pay for that.

The same holds true for the Bell Canada hearings. I have correspondence here, which I will not take time to read, from the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Snow) in reply to a letter I sent to him last fall. I said that in view of the fact Bell Canada had been awarded approximately an additional $440 million, he should appeal this to the federal cabinet or use the other appeals open to him.

He wrote back to me at that time saying they were looking into it and would take appropriate action if it was warranted. Then in January of this year we found out that Bell Canada's profits had increased by something like 105 per cent; 25 per cent higher than they had ever been before.

I wrote to him again asking him to launch an appeal against the proposed eight per cent increase here in Toronto and to ask for a Bell Canada payment holiday for consumers for at least one month to use up some of that excess profit. He wrote back a snarky letter in which he said it is always easy to attack profits and that sort of thing. He had no intention of making any appeal.

I give those examples to point out the need for an extension of the legal aid process at this time to assist those citizens' groups which may want to appear, and which should appear, before the hearings of the Ontario Energy Board and the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission. Perhaps we should go a bit further than that on many environmental matters as well. I hope the Solicitor General (Mr. G. W. Taylor) will answer this when he gets up to respond.

With the economic situation in this province now, with many people being hurt badly by high costs because their incomes have been reduced, any government should ensure that exorbitant charges are not levied against the citizens of this province for such necessities as gas for home heating, telephone and hydro, all essential to any standard of living. As we all know, those with low incomes are paying a higher percentage of their income for costs such as home heating.

I want to leave the thought with the minister that there is a real need for an extension into that area and I hope, although I do not have very much hope, he might reply that the government will consider taking further action in that matter.

Mr. McGuigan: Mr. Chairman, the member for Welland-Thorold has a problem of not having witnesses on hand to proceed with a case. My problem in Kent county is we do not have a judge. I would like to ask the acting Attorney General, since the application has come forward from Kent county for a second judge and as legislation has been passed here, can he tell us when the order in council will be passed, if it has not already been passed, approving a second judge?

I point out by way of information that I think on average there are about 55,000 to 58,000 citizens per judge and in Kent county we have 110,000 per judge. I was informed by an officer of the court yesterday that the judge was setting trial dates for December. Our problem is we have a hard time using funds for the purpose under discussion here today because of our lack of a proper number of judges.

Mr. Stokes: I have two very short comments I want to make, Mr. Chairman. I have been a member of an area legal aid committee since 1971 and have had an opportunity to get an insight into the way the whole system works. From my vantage point I would like to say that generally speaking it works extremely well, but there are two particular aspects I think I have a responsibility to bring to the minister's attention.

The first one is the way people who appear in court are represented where their best interests are protected by duty counsel. It is the responsibility of the director of legal aid to have a directory where courts are attended by duty counsel so that the best interests of the accused, some of them having little or no knowledge of the law, are protected and they are advised as to the proper course of action having regard to the nature and the severity of the charges being laid.

It is my perception, on the basis of having listened to appeals from the decisions of the director of legal aid for the district of Thunder Bay, that quite often it has cost the system, and therefore the taxpayers in Ontario, a good deal of money that probably would not have had to be spent at all if the duty counsel had given the proper advice to the accused at the time of the first appearance.

That is a pretty broad and general statement and generalizing in an area as complex and as sensitive as this is often dangerous. But it is my perception that if you could undertake to have guidelines laid down by the Law Society of Upper Canada, the director of legal aid here in Toronto, Mr. Lawson, or some other responsible person or group, that will have general application for most instances that occur when the services of duty counsel are required, the system of justice in this province would be a lot better.

I think it would make the job of the directors of legal aid across the province and the area committees a lot simpler if the proper action had been taken in the first place where the first line is with duty counsel. I have seen numerous instances where, because the accused did not get the proper advice on that initial appearance, it has cost the taxpayers in this province large sums of money to protect their interests after the fact rather than before it escalated into a problem of fairly major proportions.

3:40 p.m.

A good many of the lawyers who put their names on the list for duty counsel and are called are relatively young lawyers, some of them with very little experience in handling cases. I would like to see a system of guidelines developed and put in place for use universally across the province when there is a

summary conviction that is not going to involve a sentence where some time might be spent in jail.

I do not presume to speak for other areas, but I happen to know our system in the Thunder Bay district works reasonably well. Having talked to other people who are more knowledgeable about the system generally across the province, ours stands up extremely well. We have a dedicated director. I think we have a good area committee. But it is my perception the interests of justice across Ontario would be much better served if we had that system of guidelines for the use of duty counsel.

There is another area I would like to touch on briefly. For the last four or five years in northwestern Ontario, particularly in places like Thunder Bay and Kenora, with branch operations in Geraldton and Marathon, we have had clinics to serve the needs of our first citizens. That works extremely well, particularly with the little satellite operations in the more isolated and remote communities such as Marathon, Nipigon and Geraldton.

I am not very familiar with the level of costing or the amount of funds dedicated to those operations, but I have been advised by people who operate those clinics that their future is in some doubt. I am not sure whether it is because of a cutback or a retrenchment in that area or whether it is because there are not sufficient additional sums of money made available to take care of inflation, increased costs or an increased work load. I know that is of concern to some very dedicated people who are operating these clinics on behalf of our first citizens.

I do not wish to be overly dramatic or melodramatic about the problem in our courts and the number of our first citizens who for a variety of reasons find themselves before the courts and who spend a good deal of time incarcerated for a variety of relatively minor offences, a good many of them related to the use of alcohol. I can only say an inordinately large number of our first citizens find themselves before the courts for a variety of reasons in proportion to their percentage of the overall population.

I think it is absolutely critical and essential that in funding the legal aid plan, as you are asking during these supplementary estimates, a sufficient amount of money be dedicated to making sure the best interests of our first citizens are protected and looked after. I can appreciate that, given the relative numbers of our first citizens, one would think that in proportionate terms they are very well looked after. In terms of the work load and the number of appearances I can assure you they are not well looked after.

It is an excellent program. I think this minister would be doing everybody in Ontario a favour by ensuring that we maintain the level of service with regard to legal aid and these clinics and the wonderful work they do on behalf of the first citizens in Ontario. I think this is one way in which you can perpetuate a good program, build upon it, and make sure that it serves the need for which it was originally intended.

The Deputy Chairman: Does the acting Attorney General want to respond to the statement that has been made?

Hon. G. W. Taylor: We have formulated two or three different methods, Mr. Chairman. It started off that some of the ministers were saving their responses until the end. However, yesterday, when I started on behalf of the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) as the acting Attorney General, I started responding to each individual as the member gave his comments.

I believe there are a couple of members waiting who would like responses to their information at this time. I might give those, then I can carry on with the question and answer process and wait for the member. If he allows me that, I will answer the questions now.

Yesterday, the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) asked certain questions about the process. If I can keep them in order, he was concerned about the very basic future of the legal aid plan with regard to what he considered to be statistics that were showing up. He did not want to think that restraint was showing up in another manner in the program by the reduction of the number of certificates. I would also hope that is not taking place.

I can confirm for the member that we do, through the Law Society of Upper Canada and through the legal aid plan, keep very accurate groupings of statistics. I think history has shown that where those statistics bear out that certain activities or directions should be taken by the legal aid plan to improve upon it, those actions have been taken to make those improvements in the plan.

It was a wise decision made by the initiators of the legal aid plan that so many areas were statistically accumulated right from the outset and have been accumulated throughout the period of time so the legal aid plan can be improved upon. As the member for Riverdale knows, there have been ongoing reviews by the law society and by independent groups of the legal aid plan. I think all of them have resulted in an improvement in the plan. I hope to confirm that there is no restraint in the certificates. As acting Attorney General, I will bring it to the attention of the Attorney General.

I do not believe his actions are creating a restraint program in the use of eligibility certificates. I believe, as he suggested, there will be improvements in the method of eligibility for legal aid certificates.

In regard to the designation of clinic funding, the present method of funding of clinics, the payment and the timing is under review. I am given to understand that the 1982-83 clinic funding will be made available in the next couple of weeks. A decision will be made as to the designation for that funding.

As I mentioned yesterday, there was an approximate clinic funding budget made over the 1980-81 period for the fiscal year 1981-82. There was projected to be an 18 per cent increase in the amount of funding for clinics.

As to the matter of the federal contributions, you have heard it many times in this House by ministers, including myself more recently, that naturally we would like further funding from the federal government because some of the areas that the legal aid plan does assist happen to fall within its jurisdiction.

3:50 p.m.

For 1980-81, the federal funding was $8.5 million. For the 1981-82 estimate, it is believed it will be $9.3 million, and that is a 9.4 per cent increase. The officials of the ministry have been discussing with their counterparts at the federal level an increase in this amount. Those discussions are presently ongoing so that a further cost-sharing can be achieved through the legal aid plan so that the province will receive further money from the federal propositions.

On the Burnaby project that the member for Riverdale discussed, as you will recall at the outset of the legal aid plan -- it goes back to my early career as a lawyer -- the different public defender systems throughout the jurisdictions of the world were looked at and were not adopted. They were discounted as methods of supplying legal assistance to the citizens of the province.

The plan has instituted a solicitor and client relationship with a certificate so that the solicitor and client relationship was independent of the government, and really independent of even an appearance of influence, so you had a solicitor and client relationship and only the funding came in. That was one of the highlights of our system and indeed was touted as being one of the highlights of the legal aid system.

The present Linden-Ewart report, entitled Background Paper on the Implications of the Salaried Defender Concept for the Delivery of Criminal Legal Aid Services in Ontario, has been looked at. It has not been thoroughly reviewed to the point of saying, "No, it will not be done," but the Attorney General assures me it is under review and the concept of a public defender system has not been ruled out entirely.

There may be some place for it in the future, although when we look at our present plan -- you have the clinics, you have the solicitor and client relationship in the present system -- it appears a great many people have been serviced and are serviced by the process, particularly when you consider that the number of clinics are increasing and the number of salaried individuals with a background in law are increasing in those clinics.

You commented upon the appointment of two senior members to the ministry clinic funding committee. These appointments are not new in terms of senior representation, but it is indicated to me that the Attorney General is a strong supporter of clinic funding. He is personally satisfied with these two appointments and that they will strengthen the clinic movement in Ontario.

Another point you made was on the financial eligibility criteria. You asked specifically about the individuals. I do not have information as to the exact individuals. I thought that was the part you wanted in the question, the actual people who made up that committee. I am informed it is made up of representatives of the Ministry of Community and Social Services, the Ministry of the Attorney General and the law society, including Professor Ellis.

We understand the items are near resolution on financial eligibility criteria. If your question was to elicit the names of the individuals on that committee reviewing the material, I will obtain them for you, so that you may know the individuals. That information is not in the material that was provided to me today.

The tariff committee of the law society has not yet reported its recommendations for a tariff increase, and the people in the ministry and the Attorney General are awaiting the submission. Naturally, we will review it at that time. I think your comments are well taken as to the 25 per cent contribution made, or that was given the appearance of being made, by the profession. It was labelled by you, I think, as a charitable situation, that these people who are receiving legal aid certificates should not in any way or form be considered to be receiving charity in some respect from the legal profession who participate in the program.

I think those remarks are well taken. One might look at the tariff and suggest there should be a tariff and that should be it. The legal profession wanted to disguise this as being their donation to society. I do not find the words "some form of charity" acceptable either. As the member mentioned, I think those should be reviewed and there should be a tariff given to a duty counsel or a member of the profession for conducting those services under a legal aid certificate.

I believe those were all the questions the member for Riverdale posed to me yesterday. I hope I have answered them to some degree. Although I know this is a matter for legal aid, some of the questions were of a larger nature. I am sure the Attorney General will address those as to the direction they will take when he begins his estimates on his return later this year.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, perhaps the acting Attorney General would let me make one minor comment. I just want to say I appreciated the responses he made. As far as this supplementary estimate is concerned, they covered the questions I raised. They are broader than can be followed in any depth at this time, but they do express the concerns I have which can be reflected when we have a more ample opportunity during the estimates of the Attorney General.

Hon. G. W. Taylor: I thank the member for those comments. I will go now to the member for Kent-Elgin (Mr. McGuigan), who has been inquiring about the second county court judge appointment. I would have to refer that matter to the Attorney General. I have no knowledge of the appointment, when it might be, the statistical background of arriving at that second appointment or when it might be before the executive council for consideration.

As to the comments by the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Stokes), as I mentioned earlier in regard to comments made by the member for Riverdale, there is an increase in funding coming for legal aid clinics in this session.

When the law society administers those funds to the clinics, I would hope the clinics in the northern region will receive consideration and there will be no reduction in funding. I will bring that to the attention of the Attorney General so he can transmit the information to the law society.

With regard to guidelines, the only present guidelines for duty counsel are those set out in the Legal Aid Act and regulations. They are of a broad nature, stating when a person can and cannot act as a duty counsel and the services that can be performed as duty counsel.

The member for Lake Nipigon might dwell on whether the complications he is referring to are when the person is acting as duty counsel, whether the complications have been created by the duty counsel giving advice not necessarily suited to the situation, and whether it caused a later complication by having to go for an appeal to receive a legal aid certificate or specific help under the legal aid system.

In that situation it is very difficult to define guidelines for those duty counsel. They must assess the situation with their general, broad knowledge of law and not on their knowledge of when they can and cannot act as a duty counsel. I will bring that to the attention of the Attorney General, as you have. I am sure he will be reading the transcript on this, as will his staff, to check out the activity of the duty counsel in that area.

4 p.m.

You have brought to our attention that sometimes they are inexperienced. I think the statistics set out in the annual legal aid report show the number of individuals assisting in the legal aid scheme. If you were to look at years of experience in the 1981 annual report, 25 per cent of the lawyers are in years one to three of experience in the practice of law. It increases to 51 per cent for four to 12 years of experience, and then 22 per cent have more than 12 years of experience. The bulk of lawyers have four to 12 years of experience. I do not know whether that applies to the lawyers practising in the area you have indicated, but I hope it would.

They have the other feature I mentioned. Under the legal aid program they now have the mentor service where a senior counsel can give advice to a junior lawyer or to someone with less experience. I hope that program would be taken advantage of by the counsels in your area so they can give the best advice and the best assistance to the people they are serving. I hope those few comments will assist in answering some of your questions.

I go now to the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart), who I see is not here. He mentioned reduction of funding for clinics under the legal aid scheme. There is no reduction of funding. As I have repeated to three or four members, there is going to be an increase this year in the funding of legal aid clinics.

He also asked questions about the type of service and whether it should be for certain programs. I guess he was describing ones where he thought there should be funds available for somebody to contest applications before the Ontario Energy Board or other boards and tribunals.

Initially, when the legal aid plan was created, I think there was a refusal to fund test cases in the legislation that was passed. It was to be a solicitor-client relationship. If one had a test case, the legal aid scheme would not fund that. That philosophy has been changed, and now there is a committee for test cases. It is a subcommittee of the legal aid program. If one has a test case for which one desires funding, the group, individual, institution or whatever the label might be, can have a class action or a test case. There is a special committee one can appeal to for funding at this time.

The member also mentioned the Canadian Environmental Law Association. I look at the list of partially funded groups called independent, community-based legal clinics that receive some funding. He referred to the Canadian Environmental Law Association as one that might receive funding. It appears from the 1981 annual report that this group, the Canadian Environmental Law Association, if it is the same one, does receive some funding under the legal aid program, as do many others.

I will give some indication of them: Advocacy Resource Centre for the Handicapped, Industrial Accident Victims Group of Ontario, Injured Workers' Consultants, Keewaytinok Native Legal Services, Centre for Spanish-Speaking Peoples, Landlords' Self-Help Centre and Metro Tenants' Legal Services. There are others: Black Resources and Information Centre, Greek Community Social Services and Latin American Community Centre.

There is a broad group of legal aid clinics that are funded which have what one might describe as special interests, as well as the many groups offering services in the general nature of community legal aid services. The plan does cover many of those features that the member for Welland-Thorold commented on.

The only other one he mentioned was that the Attorney General might write a letter to the Law Society of Upper Canada instructing it how to administer the plan in regard to lawyers who seem to be having some conflict with other staff at these community resource centres.

I did not quite understand his problem in that regard. Perhaps if he would more fully set out the difficulty he alleged was taking place with lawyers writing or not writing letters to other members, possibly I could understand the problem on those community resource centres. If he could explain that more fully, I would be pleased to take it up with the Attorney General.

I believe that brings us down to answering most, if not all, questions of the members who have presented themselves here except the member for Ottawa East (Mr. Roy), who wants to make some comment.

The Deputy Chairman: He does.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Chairman, when we are discussing legal aid, I would not want to let an opportunity go by to offer a few comments on what I consider a very important topic.

I see my dear friend and colleague the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Ashe) is sitting there smiling, hoping that somehow the comments will be reduced so that we can get on to his bill and get that processed this afternoon. I want to say to him, he should not tax our patience after putting up with his enlightened answers in question period. He will be fortunate if he gets out of here by 10:30 this evening with his bill. In fact, he deserves even less than that. We should keep him here the rest of the week, after what he --

The Deputy Chairman: Just be reminded by the chair that the Attorney General's estimates are on the floor --

Mr. Roy: That is right.

The Deputy Chairman: -- and, in fact, they have to do with legal aid exclusively.

Mr. Roy: Do not curtail my --

The Deputy Chairman: I will curtail you only if you are not on topic. The Chairman made that clear at the beginning.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Chairman, please do not hamper my enthusiasm. I want to speak on this question of legal aid, first of all, to congratulate the Solicitor General. I have not had an opportunity to congratulate him publicly on his appointment and tell him that we wish him the very best in the position of Solicitor General.

Fortunately for him, he will not have many opportunities to come before the House to answer questions dealing with the legal aid plan. I suppose some would say that, fortunately for him, he will have to deal with matters that may be more difficult to deal with than the legal aid plan, when he has to answer on the police of Ontario and so on.

Nevertheless, we do wish him well for the future, and I appreciate some comments he made here this afternoon in response to some of my colleagues' questions.

I want to take this opportunity to make a few comments and pay tribute to many people who do not receive much credit for the operation of Ontario's legal aid plan. Through comments made by members of this assembly and judges at different time, the headlines we often read about legal aid are that the plan is being ripped off at times, that the plan is just an open door or a cash register for the legal profession of Ontario and so on.

I want to take this opportunity to correct some of these distortions, which I consider distortions of the --

Mr. Stokes: Why is your colleague squirming?

Mr. Nixon: He can't wait to get up and speak, that's why.

Mr. Roy: I hope he does because, with all due respect to one of my colleagues who shall remain nameless for the record at this time, he has made some slight contribution to what I consider distortions of the program and the contribution that lawyers make to the plan.

Mr. Chairman, as you know, the plan operates from the top with benchers from the Law Society of Upper Canada who are very much involved and who give up much of their free time. People from the law society give many hours of their time, without pay, to see that the system operates. From there, we proceed to all those legal aid committees. The member for Lake Nipigon talked about that. He serves on some of the committees. There may be other people, not only members of the legal profession but also other citizens right across Ontario, who put in many hours serving --

Mr. Stokes: It cost me money to serve on it.

Mr. Roy: Probably it does, because in areas like the member's one has to travel to attend meetings. I think many of these people who make a contribution without financial benefit to many of these local legal aid committees deserve the tribute and gratitude of the people of Ontario. Very often, their contribution is not underlined and appreciated here in Ontario.

4:10 p.m.

I move from those members who serve and who deserve our gratitude to citizens across Ontario who serve again in a fashion without financial benefit and who help out in those local legal aid clinics. Many of the people who are serving in those clinics are members of the community who make a sizeable contribution. What happens to legal aid happens in many other programs: a lot of people make it work because these people give a lot of time and effort and make a valuable contribution to the system and do not get the credit they deserve.

I want to take this opportunity to say to you that I have seen the legal aid plan evolve. I started practising in 1966, at the time the plan started. I have seen the plan evolve since that time. I have heard the different criticisms, and some have certainly been valid. There were times when there were lawyers and other people who abused the plan.

We used to have long discussions about whether the plan should continue to help fund the defence of repeat offenders. For instance, how often should an individual who is charged with a criminal offence get a certificate? Should he get two certificates a year? What if he committed five, six, seven or 10 offences a year? Should he get unlimited certificates in a year? The plan decided that for reasons of justice, if one was entitled to due process and to proper representation, there should not be any curtailment or restriction on the number of certificates for any specific individual per year. That was the decision.

I am convinced there are abuses, but to make the process work you have to suffer some abuses. Some people say there are abuses of the unemployment insurance plan, of welfare and so on. But to ensure the plan is sufficiently flexible, so that you do not exclude people who are entitled to or who merit a proper defence, you have to leave some flexibility in it.

It is just like the lawyers operating within the plan. It brings me to some of the criticisms that have been levelled by some of my colleagues here and by some members of the judiciary, about some lawyers who apparently take on cases, who are being paid on a per diem basis and then extend the case.

One case comes to mind, and you may recall this situation, Mr. Chairman. We read about it back in December 1981, where county court judge Ian Cartwright talked about some lawyers who abused the plan in one case. Judge Cartwright labelled this -- and I am trying to quote the judge correctly as to what he was talking about when he said these lawyers were just carrying on this trial to accumulate more per diems --

Mr. Nixon: He called it meter spinning.

Mr. Roy: That's right. My colleague the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk would have a keen memory for that sort of comment. That is what the judge was talking about. He called it meter spinning.

I notice that subsequent to the comments of this judge there has been some investigation. Maybe the minister can comment on whether there is a situation whereby a limited number of lawyers are apparently using the system, not so much to give a proper defence to the individual they are representing but to do what my colleague has said and the judge in the case said, meter spinning; since they are being paid on a per diem basis, they just extend the case.

The judge in the case talked about the fact that the interrogation had not been properly prepared, and he went on to say that there was sheer laziness on the part of these lawyers in the preparation of their case. Subsequent to the judge's comment, these lawyers made some complaint to the Law Society of Upper Canada and there were some comments made.

I would like to get a comment from the minister on whether this is a problem because, if it is, we must not let a limited or restricted number of lawyers undermine the legal aid plan in Ontario.

I notice that some time ago another judge, Mr. Justice John O'Driscoll, commented about a case. A newspaper report said:

"Toronto lawyer Jack Pinkofsky, accused of ripping off the province's legal aid plan by a Supreme Court justice, may be docked for wasting the court's time when he submits his account to the Ontario legal aid plan.

"Mr. Justice John O'Driscoll yesterday accused Pinkofsky and another defence lawyer, Len Miller, of needlessly delaying a trial of three men charged in wounding a variety store owner during an attempted robbery.

"'The whole system would collapse if more than a few counsel acted this way,' O'Driscoll said after sentencing the three convicted men to long penitentiary terms. They were convicted after a trial that took more than 41 days."

I had occasion to discuss this case with Mr. Justice O'Driscoll earlier this year. He talked about a limited number of lawyers and he pointed his finger mostly at lawyers practising here in Metro Toronto who apparently are using questionable methods in defending clients.

The prime interest of such lawyers seems to be to extend a trial as long as possible, raising every conceivable issue. And where you have multiple accused, you can do it. Each counsel takes advantage of the situation to ask questions that have been asked by other counsel. There are endless motions made whereby counsel can extend the process. Finally, they try to exasperate the presiding judge in such a way that he will make some error in law either by comment or by making a particular ruling on a case. Then they can take the matter to the Court of Appeal and get their retainer or the legal aid certificate extended.

I would like to know from the minister whether there have been cases where the legal aid plan has judged that some of these counsels have abused their certificates, where it has been clear that their prime motivation was getting more in per diems than the case warranted. When I see cases taking this length of time, I have to think there was an abuse.

I note in Ontario's News Update for March 1981 that John Bowlby, treasurer of the Law Society of Upper Canada, reported to the annual meeting that 87.5 per cent of lawyers dealing with the plan receive $10,000 per year or less. That is an indication that a high percentage of lawyers who deal with the plan are not ripping it off. I think that should be put on the record.

The treasurer also stated at that time that 78 per cent of lawyers in the Ontario plan have been practising at least four years. This should allay the concern of those who say that only junior members of the bar are willing to do the job. I refer to my colleague the member for Lake Nipigon. I think his concern is valid, that in spite of statistics, the plan is certainly not geared to attracting people who have lengthy experience at the bar.

4:20 p.m.

Mr. Stokes: The figure should be 75 per cent.

Mr. Roy: Yes. And the tariff was $40, $50 or $60, depending on your experience, I believe. The minister may correct me, but I think the most the legal aid plans pays is $60 an hour, no matter how senior or how experienced the counsel is. As the Chairman knows, from his lengthy experience at the bar, $60 an hour is not something that will attract very many heavyweights. I am told the going rate for many senior counsel is more in the range of $120 to $150 an hour.

Mr. Nixon: God help us then.

Mr. Chairman: Order.

Mr. Roy: My colleague the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk should be brought to order. We know his frustrations with the legal profession, and I will not get into it with him, but certain facts have to be raised even if they are annoying to some members of the assembly.

I say to the minister, if $60 an hour is the top rate and then you reduce that by 25 per cent or $20 an hour, the result is that the senior, most experienced counsel are making about $40 an hour.

I do not know whether any of the members here know the paperwork involved in the processing of forms for a legal aid case. That alone could keep a secretary going for some time. I ask the minister if he can send a message back so that endless forms and reports do not have to be filled out. Whether you represent someone and give him advice for $10 or represent him on a murder case and bill $1,500 or whatever, the flat rate for representation in a major criminal offence, there are endless forms that have to be filled out.

Lawyers who work under the plan will be fortunate if they get paid within six months. I understand this supplementary estimate is to speed up the payments of accounts that have been submitted, but this whole system is not conducive to attracting senior members of the bar to participate in the plan.

I would hazard a guess that the plan would not be able to respond to the need were we not facing a situation where the economics of Ontario have dictated that there are too many lawyers. There is an excess of lawyers who have nothing to do. A lot of young lawyers are coming into the system and they are doing a lot of legal aid work.

Mr. Stokes: They are doing a lot of ambulance chasing.

Mr. Roy: Sure they are. When there are too many lawyers in the profession, especially in the major urban centres, they are hustling. Were it not for the fact that there is an excess of lawyers, you would not have sufficient lawyers to respond to the needs of the plan. In that sense I suppose it is fortunate that there are too many lawyers, but it leads to abuses.

Mr. Nixon: There should be a lot more of them here in the Legislature. That would ease it.

Mr. Roy: I say to my colleague, we are very cautious about criticizing the farm community. The nice thing about the legal profession is that its members have broad shoulders; they can defend themselves and they can take the abuse whether it is warranted or not.

I ask my colleagues to compare different professionals. The other day I was reading a report from 1979 which stated that at that time there were 49 lawyers in Ontario who were paid more than $40,000 from the Ontario legal aid plan. Another 54 collected between $30,000 and $40,000, and 118 were paid between $20,000 and $30,000. That means lesser fees were received by more than 4,000 of the 4,805 lawyers who received fees under the plan.

Compare that, I say to my colleague, with how many doctors received $40,000 or more under the Ontario health insurance plan. Just make a quick comparison of that --

Mr. Nixon: These lawyers don't do anything else but legal aid?

Mr. Roy: That's right. Some of them do. I can assure you that if lawyers --

Mr. Nixon: They must be pretty junior.

Mr. Roy: There are many junior lawyers in Ontario. Do you realize that --

Mr. Nixon: The older ones won't step aside.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Chairman, can you control him? My statements today are directed not so much to the government as to some of my colleagues in my own party who are prejudiced against a particular profession.

Just to correct the record, I know the Attorney General's job in times of constraint is an impossible one, but in criticizing some of the members of the profession who abuse the plan we should make sure it is not undermined. We lose sight of the fact that a lot of people make a substantial contribution to the plan. Many senior lawyers do so out of a sense of duty and certainly not out of a sense of economic profit when they represent people further to a legal aid certificate.

My final comment is in relation to some of the comments made by my colleague the member for Riverdale about the mixture of having people using the public defender system as compared to the system here in Ontario.

I have no doubt in supporting some of my colleagues here who have said that the plan we have here in Ontario is possibly the best system around. We will have to make sure when there are abuses that they are corrected if we want to keep a system such as this, but I think it requires a certain amount of flexibility. There are areas where public defenders on a full-time basis could be more effective than people working just on the basis of a certificate or a fee for service.

I give the example of people working as duty counsel in certain courts. Some of these people possibly are seeing a high volume of people at one time. They may be seeing 30, 40 or 50 accused a day. With experience, they could be making decisions that would save the plan large amounts of money at the earliest opportunity.

We should not be paranoid about whether it is through one system or the other. I think the best system is one giving a certain amount of flexibility to an individual, let's say, who has a certificate, to be able to say, "I have a choice." Because the weakness of the public defender system is just like the weakness of many other government agencies in that it just becomes another number. The public defender is overworked, and he is just trying to get rid of a case; so the defendant does not get the attention he deserves --

Mr. Nixon: Just like the crown attorneys.

Mr. Roy: Some people will see a weakness in the process where the public defender and the crown attorney are determining the future of individuals and both these people are paid on a full-time basis by the government --

Mr. Nixon: Yes, but the judge is above all that.

Mr. Roy: My colleague wants to intervene, and I trust the record will not show his interventions to be as nasty as they appear to be, at least on the floor of the Legislature.

Mr. Nixon: No, I am a friendly witness. I agree with what you are saying about public defenders.

Mr. Roy: What I am trying to say basically to the minister is that we need a system with a certain amount of flexibility. It is important to all of us to recognize that flexibility is required.

I hope some of my colleagues here, who tend to look at the legal aid plan as just a bonanza for the legal profession, will understand the useful public contribution that many people make within that plan.

4:30 p.m.

For instance, although this has not been pointed out, there are substantial funds -- I do not know how many millions of dollars -- which come out of the interest on trust accounts. I do not know what that amounts to per year. Perhaps the minister can tell us. This is a further contribution made by that profession. I think all of these contributions --

Mr. Nixon: Do you mean the lawyers should get interest from trust accounts?

Mr. Roy: No, I never said that. Mr. Chairman, I trust someone will curtail the distortions being made by the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk!

Mr. Chairman: Order. I am hesitant to do so because, being painted with a similar brush as to the profession you have been speaking about, I may not be in an unbiased position. However, I do want to remind the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk that we appreciate his attendance very much and we are sorry the weather is so cold outside, because normally he would be away farming about this time of the season.

Mr. Stokes: You really know how to hurt a guy.

Mr. Havrot: There's lots of fertilization for farming in here too.

Mr. Nixon: I am waiting for the tulips to sprout.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Chairman, I should have said something like that because I saw him this morning. He was on the steps of the Legislature and he kept wetting his index finger and sticking it up in the air. I thought maybe he had ideas of going somewhere other than this place.

In concluding, I want to say to the minister that we appreciate his involvement in this and we appreciate his responses to some of the queries made by my colleagues.

Hon. G. W. Taylor: I welcome the comments of the member for Ottawa East because often plans such as this receive more criticism than is warranted. Many good works are carried out by those donating time and, of course, our legal aid committees and the Law Society of Upper Canada do donate enormous amounts of time.

Indeed, when I practised law one of my partners was Charlie Seagram, who was a bencher of the law society. Being a very particular individual, much of the time he would calculate his time as a lawyer. The number of days he contributed to the Law Society of Upper Canada accumulated to about 36 working days each year. Part of that was in regard to the legal aid plan. He used to mention that meant his time was lost to the firm in that regard. I bring that as a personal experience.

Besides those individuals there are many who are not lawyers. Lay people contribute considerable amounts of time to legal aid committees as well. When I hear criticism, I think the criticism stands out more than some of the good work. I am sure when the lawyers are working for legal aid certificates they work for the amounts of the certificates and know full well at the outset they will be working for those amounts. They do not consider, as has been remarked, that there is any charity involved in it. They know the figures.

The member for Ottawa East asked about the dollar figures. I have a 1979 legal aid tariff which I believe was the last time it was revised. The sum is $48 an hour and if one has roughly 10 years' experience, it can go up to a maximum of $60 an hour. I believe the rough and ready rate is about $48 an hour.

Mr. Haggerty: If one has his QC, does it go up to $75 or $80?

Hon. G. W. Taylor: No, under the tariff $60 is the maximum. Since the inception of the plan in 1968, there have been two tariff revisions, one in 1973, when it went up 25 per cent, and one in 1979. Over a period of time, the tariff increase for payment of accounts and moneys to lawyers has not gone up a considerable amount compared to many other areas.

When one talks about public defenders, the overall plan itself has been reviewed on numerous occasions. It originally started with only duty counsel and fee for service solicitor-client relationships with certificates, but the watchful eyes of the Legislature, the law society and other people have expanded upon that program. We now have the clinics, a greater number of duty counsel and some salaried people working for these clinics.

As I mentioned earlier in my comments, the original idea that was touted after studying many other plans throughout the world was that the solicitor-client fee for service was considered far better than any of the other plans that had restricted themselves solely to a public defender system. I think we are achieving the best of all worlds so individuals before our courts receive assistance in the form of counsel.

The member for Ottawa East mentioned the number of lawyers in the plan. He used some figures and I used some from the 1981 annual report, which is before him. The greatest bulk of lawyers, 84 per cent of the 5,165 lawyers who billed the plan during the last fiscal year for their services, were paid less than $10,000 from the legal aid plan.

When one looks at the other statistical features which are on page 9 of the 1981 annual report, there are really very few lawyers receiving any substantial sums at all from the plan. These are very small in comparison to the number of lawyers participating. When 84 per cent receive under $10,000, it shows those lawyers are interested in making the plan work. They are interested in working for those sums and assisting people.

When one looks at the total amount of activity over the plan, there were 67,204 activities before duty counsel in 1968. When you get up to 1981, there were 221,669 activities before duty counsel. There has been a remarkable increase in the activity of the plan; the plan has serviced that many more individuals. The numbers of applications and certificates granted for individuals have also increased enormously.

I think the plan, overall, has served the public well. I think the criticism by the bench -- I recognize the bench cannot often speak for itself as we can in this forum and make comment on it -- and some criticism by others, allows us to look at the plan and be a little more detailed in correcting that plan. I think if there are any abuses they are minimal.

I recall at one time there was some discussion about the number of lawyers taking too many cases. There is now a self-imposed checkoff method. If a lawyer has too many certificates, the plan will not allow that lawyer to increase his caseload. So there is a self-imposed protective system in the plan. I think the law society, in administering the plan, is always looking for methods of improving the process for the benefit of the public which it is serving.

I think that touches all the comments the member for Ottawa East made, as well as those his colleague the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk will traditionally make. I will now sit down and enjoy his comments. I think I have three assistants in the House who may wish to hear those comments.

Mr. Chairman: The minister has indicated the member would be speaking next. I do not know if the chair will be in a position to recognize that.

Mr. Nixon: Whatever Mr. Chairman wishes.

Mr. Chairman: That is right. I am sure there is someone else who would love to speak before the member.

Mr. Ruston: I can speak.

Mr. Chairman: There, I knew the member for Essex North would have a few worthwhile comments in defence of the lawyers.

4:40 p.m.

Mr. Ruston: I do not know that, Mr. Chairman. What I wanted to mention concerns me. I have a letter from a constituent of mine, dated almost two years ago. He has apparently been charged with fraud. Up until two years ago, he had paid $9,000 to his solicitor and never got anywhere in court. Then he got this letter from the solicitor, which says:

"I estimate that the trial of the various counts pending against you will take approximately five to six months in court, and I estimate my fees will be between $80,000 and $90,000 to defend the various charges. However, if for some reason the trial does not go on as long as I anticipate, I can advise you my fees will be $750 a day."

He is wondering if there is some way he could dispose of his small farm and home and then get legal aid. Can the minister tell me how much legal aid would pay if that is the estimated cost of the legal fees?

Hon. G. W. Taylor: Mr. Chairman, I have no comment. I would have great difficulty to try to estimate the cost of another lawyer's services.

There is in the legal aid tariff a very specific tariff so that each stage of conduct of a trial or a piece of litigation has a specific dollar value attached to it. The solicitor carries out that stage, submits the account, and it is reviewed by the accountants who work for the Ontario legal aid plan.

It is very thorough. As the member for Ottawa East commented earlier, there is a very thorough submission of one's account to the legal aid system. When one is going on to a more lengthy trial, before one gets a certificate one also has to indicate to the body that grants the certificate the length of time and approximate expense the conduct of the piece of litigation is going to take.

In the legal aid plan there are some safeguards to control the amount of expenditures and to make sure the direction the lawyer is taking on behalf of the client is a direction that can be accounted for in dollars, as well