Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

Prayers.

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, I have a message from the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor signed by her own hand.

Mr. Speaker: By her own hand, Pauline M. McGibbon, the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor, transmits supplementary estimates of certain additional sums required for the services of the province for the year ending March 31, 1978, and recommends them to the Legislative Assembly, Toronto, November 7, 1977.

ORAL QUESTIONS

HYDRO CONTRACTS

Mr. S. Smith: A question for the Minister of Energy, Mr. Speaker, regarding today’s Globe and Mail article which indicated that the minister is “unhappy” with certain of the operations of Ontario Hydro and its relationship to the government does this unhappiness include the fact that there is still no contract with the Lummus company for heavy water plant D? What is the delay in the signing of this contract and would the minister not agree that the ultimatum with regard to the construction of the plant is extremely weak since there is no contract that has been signed which can then be cancelled?

Hon. J. A. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I would like the Leader of the Opposition to know that I am a joyful man, not an unhappy man.

The answer to the question in connection with the contract is that as matters stand that contract was signed. So I am happy; as a rule, I am a happy fellow. No, to the second part of the question and to the third part of the question, it is my understanding that the contract is signed.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary, since the indication from Hydro until just now has been that the contract has not been signed, can the minister indicate to us exactly when the contract was signed, what the reason was for the delay and whether this contract in fact is exactly the same kind of contract that we had so much difficulty with under Bruce B?

Hon. J. A. Taylor: I would be delighted to get the date for the Leader of the Opposition in terms of the actual signing of the formalized contract, although he should have a pretty good feel of its terms and the contents, and how it compares with B, in view of his many communications and conversations with the chairman of the board and so on --

Mr. S. Smith: They refuse to give it to me.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: I am sure he has all of that information now, but I would be happy to get the signing date.

Mr. S. Smith: May I simply ask two things? One, will the minister please table the contract and, secondly, is he not aware that the information I requested from the chairman of Hydro during the meeting he keeps referring to, has been denied me by the chairman of Hydro pending some authorization from the minister, which authorization has not yet come and will the minister give it?

Mr. Stong: Yes or no.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: Again, may I say in direct reply to the Leader of the Opposition that there has been no refusal from me or no permission required by me for the chairman of Hydro to supply information pertaining to the questions on that list.

I said in the past, to the Leader of the Opposition, that the chairman of Ontario Hydro does not require my permission, has not sought my permission. As far as I am concerned, the Leader of the Opposition is entitled to sit down with the chairman to get all the information he wants.

Again, it is my understanding that because of the penetrating and the very wide scope of the information requested, it has taken Hydro some time to put it together. I don’t know how many people they have working on it, but I am sure that you would put a lot of people to work in connection with that.

Mr. Nixon: Well, you’ve got 25,000 jobs over there.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Increasing employment opportunities.

Mr. S. Smith: It’s one of my job-creation programs.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: That’s your contribution to the unemployment problem in this province, is it?

Mr. S. Smith: That’s right.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: As to the matter of the tabling of the contract, the member asked the chairman of Ontario Hydro for a copy of the contract relating to Bruce B; he very joyfully gave him that contract. I don’t see why that type of information couldn’t be shared in connection with Bruce D.

TORONTO TRANSIT CONSULTANTS

Mr. S. Smith: A question for the Minister of Transportation and Communications: Will the minister explain why it appears to be the policy of his government to prevent Toronto Transit Consultants -- that’s the consulting arm of the TTC -- from doing business? Under what authority would the Treasurer (Mr. McKeough) have told Chairman Godfrey that Toronto Transit Consultants are not permitted to do business outside?

Hon. Mr. Snow: I would suggest that the hon. member ask the Treasurer that question.

Mr. S. Smith: The Treasurer being absent, Mr. Speaker and by way of supplementary, may I ask the Minister of Transportation and Communications to make a clear statement as to whether it is or is not the policy of this government to prevent Toronto Transit Consultants from doing business on a paid basis outside the city of Toronto and outside the borders of this province and this country? Would he please make a clear statement of this; and could he explain whether in fact this is part of any prohibition of Toronto Transit Consultants from doing this kind of business, and if so is it part of a general policy? As with Gray Coach, is it that the TTC mustn’t do anything that’s profitable?

Hon. Mr. Snow: As I recall it, this request from Metropolitan Toronto was for an amendment to legislation to allow the setting up of this corporation. It was not a request to my ministry, I did not deal with it; it was a request to the Treasurer and to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs for special legislation.

Mr. S. Smith: The minister has no objection?

Mr. Cunningham: Would the minister not agree that this direction is only a rather blatant attempt to continue to prop up the UTDC with further work that is completely unnecessary and which would further legitimatize this wasteful exercise of the UTDC?

Hon. Mr. Snow: No, Mr. Speaker, I wouldn’t agree with that.

HOSPITAL CUTBACKS

Mr. Lewis: A question of the Minister of Health: In view of the news stories today on the statements by the Ontario Hospital Association, is the Minister of Health willing (a) to indicate publicly that he is not happy with the prospect of 4,000 workers out of jobs in the province of Ontario at this point in time, and will therefore attempt to correct the financial disparity which the association claims exists; and (b) that it is utterly unacceptable to the province of Ontario to have the imposition of a $5 a day deterrent fee placed upon patients in hospitals in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Let me deal with the last part of that question first. I think my leader and my colleague, the Treasurer, have indicated on a number of previous occasions when the question of deterrent fees has come up -- and I certainly have, too -- that we have no intentions, no plans, to introduce deterrent fees. Certainly, one hears from time to time from a variety of sources, professional and otherwise, that one of the means of beginning to get a handle on health care spending is, in some manner or means, forcibly to draw to the attention of the individual citizen exactly how much the system is costing. I’m sure the member has heard as much as I have about the free health care system, which obviously it isn’t.

[2:15]

Mr. Lewis: Entering hospital isn’t quite like going to a doctor’s office, however.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Not necessarily.

Mr. Deans: You cannot just walk into hospital. The minister knows that.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Dealing with the first part -- I haven’t read the newspaper articles. The first I heard of it was this morning when somebody from the Star got me out of the shower to ask me about it.

I don’t know where the 4,000 figure has come from. In September when the Treasurer was speaking with the PMLC he did at that time, as you know, outline in fairly broad terms the strategy for the next year. He indicated that the social development field -- the Ministries of Community and Social Services and Education and my own -- would see in 1978 at 5.9 per cent increase overall.

The fine details of that as to how much will go where in the Health ministry’s appropriation have not been finalized. I think this is perhaps a little premature, but certainly the allocation to the hospitals will be less than the rate of inflation. I would anticipate and hope that whatever adjustments will undoubtedly have to be made can come about mainly through attrition and probably through the closing of excess or surplus active treatment beds around the province.

Mr. Lewis: Supplementary -- maybe I can just make two quick supplementaries: None of the Ontario hospitals can, of themselves, introduce a deterrent fee, I take it, in the province of Ontario. That must be a legislative enactment. Therefore, is it fair to assume that the minister’s disavowal of that, today, means that $5 a day won’t be applied?

Secondly, has he looked at the possibility that the Ontario Hospital Association is using these threats -- and some of it is clearly in the category of threat -- as a kind of opening bargaining position with their collective bargaining which is just about to begin around the province, and that this is a highly undesirable way for the Hospital Association to start off negotiations?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I haven’t thought of those comments quite in that context.

By the way, while I’m on my feet, I should point out that there is a group of students here from Heron Valley Junior High School in the great riding of Don Mills.

Mr. Speaker: That is not permitted.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: And a group of ladies from the Lawrence Park Community Church.

Mr. Lewis: You will all be so pleased to know your MPP showers in the morning.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: That’s right. There may be something rotten in socialist Denmark, but not in Don Mills.

I’m sorry, Mr. Speaker. I know that was quite out of order.

I think I have already indicated that as far as the $5 notion is concerned that’s right -- there is no legislative authority for a hospital do to that. Of course there is what is known as differential income on semi-private and private accommodation, which is well known and a long standing practice.

I do not discount the possibility sometime in the years ahead that a different means of funding health care will have to be found. It will spread the load evenly, but forcibly draw to the attention of the public that this is a very expensive system, that it is not free, that the premiums don’t even begin to cover the cost of health care in the province, and that it’s something which we all have to bear.

What was the rest of the member’s question?

Mr. Lewis: The minister has satisfied me.

Mr. Nixon: Don’t you have something else to say while you are on your feet?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I could think of something.

Mr. S. Smith: Supplementary: If 5.9 per cent is the amount of increase the ministry is permitted, and if Mr. Hay is saying that the minister is allowing him four per cent in the hospital sector, can he confirm or deny his figure of four per cent and accordingly, if 4,000 layoffs are not going to occur, how many layoffs does the minister anticipate will occur and what measures is he taking to deal with these particular persons?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: First of all, I have already indicated that the 5.9 per cent figure, which was mentioned in the Treasurer’s September 16 statement to the PMLC, I believe, covers generally the social development field. I went on to say, in answer to a question from the member for Scarborough West, that it is a little premature at this point to indicate what the exact allocations are going to be within the Ministry of Health. I may say that we in the Ministry of Health, as compared to the other ministries, probably have shared disproportionately in that overall appropriation, looking at the next year.

The four per cent is a little bit of conjecture. They have been told repeatedly over the fall months that the rate of increase will be less than the rate of inflation. They know from the Treasurer’s statement that it is 5.9 per cent to the social field within the government. I have heard various rumours from the hospital community; it has been interesting to hear them as I have gone around the province.

It is a little premature. We are working on next year’s budget. I would hope to be able in December -- early December preferably -- to give the hospitals a firm indication of what the percentage will be in the overall hospital appropriation. Obviously the hospital appropriation is a very important one for us, since it is 53 per cent of our budget. And the earlier we can get those figures out so that they can properly plan, the better it will be.

I reiterate that I would anticipate, I would hope, that the bulk of whatever adjustments will be necessary can be carried out through attrition. I don’t want to mislead the House; I don’t discount the possibility that in some areas it may mean layoffs, but I would hope that the bulk of the adjustments can be through attrition.

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. If the Minister of Health anticipates layoffs, can he confer with his colleague, the Minister of Colleges and Universities, so that we don’t take students into the health courses and into the laboratory courses at our community college and have these students spend three years of their lives and all kinds of money and then come out with no jobs? Why don’t they have a little better planning over there?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: As a matter of fact, if the hon. member will check his facts he’ll find, for instance, that the enrolment in nursing courses around the province has been cut -- it is off about 40 per cent from a couple of years ago -- and that enrolment in the medical schools has been frozen for the last couple of years on a voluntary basis on the part of the faculties of medicine.

The whole area of medical manpower planning is a matter of great concern to me so that we don’t lead young people’s expectations to unrealistic levels or, for that matter, that we don’t saddle ourselves with additional financial burdens which are unnecessary.

ASBESTOS HAZARDS

Mr. Lewis: A question of the Minister of Labour, if I may, Mr. Speaker. Now that Dr. Irving Selikoff has brought his figures on the relationship between industrial disease and the exposure to asbestos, up to January 1, 1977, showing an incidence in the field of cancer of the larynx greater than twice that which would be expected in the population as a whole, can the minister make a public statement that she could well understand cancer of the larynx being designated as an industrial disease in this province and that compensation flow therefrom?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I have today learned of Dr. Selikoff’s letter in response to a letter written to him by Dr. McCracken, the executive director of rehabilitation services for the Workmen’s Compensation Board, which was sent to Dr. Selikoff on October 11 inquiring as to any further information that Dr. Selikoff might have. Dr. McCracken was attempting to maintain the flow of information between these two bodies because we feel that this is very important.

I can tell the hon. member for Scarborough West that the information which Dr. Selikoff has provided in his letter of October 24 is being received with great interest and is being subjected to the usual examination by a qualified epidemiologist. When that information is available it will be addressed, along with the information which we gather from other equally widely reputed and equally wise and equally renowned occupational health physicians in other parts of the world in order to assess it and to make the decision regarding the relationship between asbestos and carcinoma of the larynx and then to make the decision about whether, indeed, it should be a compensable disease.

Mr. Lewis: Why must we in this province always wait so long to confirm that which we already know? Since it was Dr. Selikoff’s data on stomach cancer related to asbestos which caused the implementation of stomach cancer as an industrial disease -- is the minister denying that? -- since that was the case, and since the incidence of laryngeal cancer now evidenced by Dr. Selikoff is much higher than that for stomach cancer, which we already regard as an industrial disease in Ontario, why does she resist it so bitterly to the painful end? Why can she not do what is just sensible and scientific and do it? What is wrong with the minister?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, that is precisely what I am doing. I am being sensible, rational and scientific and not motivated by political expedience, as the member for Scarborough West is.

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, on a point of personal privilege --

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to reply to this question, if that is your wish, sir.

Mr. Lewis: On a point of privilege before the reply, I feel I want to say, if I may, to the minister, that this has absolutely nothing to do with political expedience. This has something to do with a man named Aime Bertrand in Sudbury, who is waiting while he is still alive to see if he can get a pension from the WCB, which Selikoff’s figures confirm he deserves. It’s as simple as that.

Hon. B. Stephenson: It’s not that simple. The decision which is made has to stand for a very long period of time and will be used as an example by all other compensation organizations in North America. We are attempting to do it in the most humane, most expedient and the wisest possible way and that, of course, is to take into consideration the information which was developed by a number of very well renowned specialists in occupational health. Dr. Selikoff is not alone. I do not in any way denigrate Dr. Selikoff’s capabilities, but the decision regarding stomach cancer was made on the basis of the epidemiological study of the reports from all of the specialists around the world. It was not directly related to Dr. Selikoff’s reports alone.

Mr. Lewis: Come on. Who did Miller visit, if not Selikoff?

Hon. B. Stephenson: In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, I can tell you that there is one very important sentence in Dr. Selikoff’s letter of October 24, which the hon. leader of the third party has neglected to state, and that is, and I quote: “However, our data do not provide information concerning what proportion of laryngeal cancers might be associated with asbestos exposure. Your case control study will provide much better information in this regard.”

Mr. Lewis: That’s right, so what?

Hon. B. Stephenson: That, Mr. Speaker is the operative section of this letter. The study which is being done in Toronto sponsored by the Workmen’s Compensation Board will provide all of the other agencies in the world with the kind of information which they don’t have at the present. Prospective studies are of much more value in this area than retrospective studies are. Dr. Selikoff’s information is valuable because it provides us with an insight and a hint that indeed there may be some problem.

Mr. Lewis: A hint? A hint?

Hon. B. Stephenson: We must ensure that we know the size of the problem, the proportions of the problem and the way in which it can be best dealt with.

That is the course we are following, Mr. Speaker, the responsible course, which will help the Aime Bertrands and all of the others who are working in this field in Canada.

Mr. Lewis: If he lives long enough.

May I ask one final supplementary? Can I ask the minister to consider another operative section of this letter, namely the one that reads: “There was a clear, statistically significant increase in observed deaths from laryngeal cancer compared to those expected,” and another operative sentence: “Thus there is useful evidence that asbestos workers suffer an increased risk of laryngeal cancer”? May I ask the minister if she does not understand that those are the central points of the letter? The percentage of total laryngeal cancers attributable to asbestos is not the important point, the point is the relationship between one and the other and that has been established. Doesn’t the minister understand that?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I understand it obviously very much better than the member for Scarborough West does. Indeed, there are figures which would suggest that this is so. They have not been corroborated and in any scientifically valid decision they must be corroborated. That is precisely what we are attempting to do.

Mr. Mackenzie: Arrogance personified.

Hon. B. Stephenson: It is not arrogance, it is rational.

Mr. Lewis: It is called benefit of the doubt. Remember that phrase?

[2:30]

Mr. McKessock: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture, but before I put it, it would be unfair not to treat everybody in the gallery the same, so I would like to welcome 110 students and their teachers from the Georgian Bay Secondary School in Meaford.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Order. Two wrongs do not make a right. The hon. member for Don Mills was obviously out of order. The decision not to welcome daily visitors was made on the basis of a recommendation from the Morrow committee and I’ve already got a letter of apology from the hon. Minister of Health.

Mr. Nixon: After he made his announcement.

Mr. Speaker: He didn’t make the announcement in full. Any announcement like that is clearly out of order, based on a select committee report that was accepted and adopted by this Legislature. I would ask members to respect that recommendation.

Mr. McKessock: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m sorry for being out of order.

FINANCIAL PROTECTION FOR FARMERS

Mr. McKessock: I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. In view of the minister’s announcement on Friday morning pertaining to the deferring of the junior farmer mortgage payments in the light of the poor returns to farmers this year, did he say he was deferring the principal portion of the mortgage payment only? Yes or no?

Hon. W. Newman: I’m saying that we could work it out several ways. There will be a special committee set up within my ministry --

Mr. McKessock: Yes or no?

Hon. W. Newman: -- to deal with it on an individual basis, and maybe refinance it over a longer period of time, so that the farmers can adjust to it, depending on their individual circumstances.

Mr. McKessock: Supplementary: Did the minister say it would be the principal payments only?

Hon. W. Newman: Principal and interest could be refinanced together, depending on the circumstances.

Mr. Mancini: Straightforward answer, Bill. Straightforward answer.

Mr. McKessock: Supplementary: In view of the fact that on a $5,000 amortized mortgage payment the principal might only be a tenth of the payment, or $500, and the remaining portion, $4,500, could be interest, does the minister not think that this would be a token portion if he were only to give the interest? I certainly want to see the minister give consideration to interest and principal, which I believe he indicates he will do right now. Is that true?

Hon. W. Newman: I don’t know what the hon. member is talking about when he talks about $4,500 or $5,000, five-year amortized. It could be in interest. I don’t know how he does his calculations, but as far as I’m concerned, we want to do the best we can to help the farmers through a difficult situation. That’s exactly what we’ll be doing with our committee.

Don’t forget we have crop insurance that covers most of the crops in the province of Ontario -- not all, but most of them. One of the reasons for doing this is to help those farmers who have problems in specific areas. It will be dealt with on a specific basis, with the individuals being counselled by our financial people to try and help them over a very difficult time.

JOB CREATION

Mr. Deans: I have a question for the Minister of Labour in her capacity as manpower minister: I wonder if the Minister of Labour has had an opportunity to look at the projections for unemployment in the construction industry during this coming winter, and if she’s been able to determine the effect that this 60 per cent increase which is being projected will have on the steel industry; what the cutbacks in the production of steel will have in the extractive industry and in cutbacks in the extraction of ore; and what all this will do to the consumer purchasing power of the people of Ontario? And I wonder if she can give us an indication of what recommendations she might be making with regard to this drastic reduction both in employment and in purchasing power?

Hon. B. Stephenson: The projected decrease in construction this winter is somewhat disturbing. There is no doubt about that I don’t have any magic figures which tell me precisely what the spinoff effect is going to be in all of the areas which the hon. member has mentioned, but I would mention at least one or two areas in which we have made some recommendations.

One of them, of course, I think, was obviously being followed by the Ontario Municipal Board when it decided to proceed with its Toronto bearings, apparently against the advice of some of the friends of the hon. member, who feel that those hearings should be delayed for yet another two months.

Mr. Deans: What are you talking about?

Hon. B. Stephenson: It is hoped that indeed some of the stimulation which is occasioned by the concern of the province for construction in Toronto might develop into some stimulus for other builders to begin some kind of contracts and construction within that area. It is a little easier, I suppose, for that to happen within the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto than it is in some smaller regions, but indeed the projected figures for unemployment in construction are greater in Toronto and the Toronto-Hamilton area than they are for any other part of the province.

Mr. Deans: That is because more construction goes on there.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Of course. That is a matter of very real concern and one over which we do not have total control, but it is one about which we can express our concern and attempt to provide some encouragement in specific industries in order to try to alleviate the problem.

Mr. Deans: Supplementary: I am not interested in the minister’s concern. What I am interested in is knowing whether as manpower minister she has made any recommendations of any kind with regard to specific proposals of this government to deal with what is projected to be a 60 per cent decrease in employment opportunities in the construction industry; and what effect that will have on related industries in the province of Ontario?

Mr. Speaker: The question has been asked.

Mr. Deans: Surely as manpower minister she has something to offer? She has done nothing for the last three years.

Hon. B. Stephenson: I’m sorry the hon. member is not interested in my concern about this.

Mr. Deans: I don’t care about your concern.

Hon. B. Stephenson: But in answer to his question I would say, yes, we have made some specific recommendations.

Mr. Deans: Supplementary: Has the minister then met with the Treasurer or with the Minister of Government Services (Mr. McCague) to discuss the possibility of increasing the amounts of revenue to be made available for construction directly related to government in the province of Ontario in an effort to offset the 60 per cent increase that is projected?

Hon. B. Stephenson: No, I have not met with those two individuals specifically --

Mr. Deans: Whom do you talk to?

Hon. B. Stephenson: But I certainly have met with the Premier (Mr. Davis).

INCLUSION OF HYDRO WORKERS IN PROVINCE-WIDE BARGAINING

Mr. O’Neil: I have a question of the Minister of Labour and I know she will be sensible, rational and scientific in her answer. In view of the announcement that Mr. S. R. Ellis was appointed as industrial inquiry commissioner on October 31 to inquire into the possible inclusion of Ontario Hydro construction workers in province-wide, single-trade bargaining, can the minister assure the House that he will hold public hearings on this matter, hearings which will have some effect on the Hydro bills paid by everyone in Ontario?

Hon. B. Stephenson: As a result of my commitment at the time of the clause-by-clause examination of Bill 22, I did suggest that this was the route that we would follow. I have appointed Mr. Ellis as the sole commissioner in this area. He has committed himself to providing a report on the subject within the time-frame which was suggested which was three months. Whether that gives him sufficient time to hold wide-ranging public hearings or not, I am not aware.

Mr. Ellis is going to have to work that timetable out for himself. But he will be drawing upon the expertise of both management and labour in the construction field in order to develop background information and probably to assist him in making a decision about whether public hearings would be widely held or whether they will be held only in one or two locations.

Mr. O’Neil: Supplementary: May I ask then that the minister keep the Legislature up to date on the form that these hearings will take and whether or not there will be public hearings?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Yes, I shall.

FLOODING AT NURSING HOME

Mr. Cooke: I have a question of the Minister of Health. I would like to ask the minister if he would look into a situation at the Greater Windsor Nursing Home in my home riding. Specifically, could the minister investigate as to why residents in this home had to sleep this past Saturday night in rooms flooded with six inches of raw sewage and why this recurring flooding problem has not been repaired?

Also could the minister find out why it took 24 hours to get plumbers at the home to repair the problem? Further, could the minister investigate how this home has been able to deteriorate to the filthy state it is presently in, when there had been a pre-sale inspection in February and regular inspections since, the last one of which took place on September 12? I would like the minister to make some kind of a report back to the House when he can gather the information.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The latter part of the hon. member’s statement -- I don’t know if it was a question -- anticipates what I will do. The first we heard of the problem was this morning. We have dispatched a nursing inspector and an environmental inspector to Windsor, to that particular home.

The preliminary information I saw about the home indicated it was sold early this year, preceded, as the member says, by a pre-sale inspection. As per the terms of the revised Act, there was a list of things prepared, which was provided to the then prospective purchasers, that would have to be carried out.

In early October the plans were filed with the ministry for the renovations to bring it into compliance with the revised Nursing Homes Act. Once thorough inspections are carried out by the nursing inspector and the environmental inspector I will certainly try to answer all of the member’s questions.

TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY

Mr. Reid: I have a question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications which might aid the cause of national unity in the country. Will the minister consider renaming the Trans-Canada Highway in Ontario as Highway 1, thus doing away with the hodge-podge of numbers that we have across the province and going along with the action taken by six other provinces of Canada?

Hon. Mr. Snow: I hadn’t considered that suggestion, but I will. I don’t know how you could do it -- we have two different highways which are a part of the Trans-Canada system and I don’t think we can call them both Highway 1, but I’ll certainly be prepared to look at it.

Mr. S. Smith: Name them 1A and 1B.

Mr. Reid: Is the minister aware that all the western provinces, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland have designated it this way? Does he not think that it might bring the country a little together if we had one highway from coast to coast?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I’m not sure that renumbering the highway would make the distance any shorter from the Quebec border to the Manitoba border --

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: One Canada, one highway.

Hon. Mr. Snow: -- so, consequently I don’t know whether it would bring the country any closer together or not in that sense. I will look into the possibility of the numbering as it relates to the other highways.

Mr. Lewis: You could call it the Robarts-Pepin Trail.

WINTARIO GRANTS PERSONNEL

Mr. Grande: Mr. Speaker, my question is of the Minister of Culture and Recreation. Is it true that his ministry is planning to phase out the contract personnel working on Wintario grants, based on a consultant’s report which in essence recommended that the personnel on contract be phased out and in their place, on a full-time basis, people be placed who have university degrees? Is that a fact or not?

Mr. MacDonald: Darcy will veto that. That is adding to the social service.

Hon. Mr. Welch: The answer generally speaking is yes, but not necessarily for the reasons quoted in the report of the consultant. We have been advertising for consultants and even attempting to regularize that particular function within the ministry and the qualifications have been widely advertised.

I think in general terms the answer is yes, but not necessarily for all the reasons that the hon. member recited. Is that fair enough?

Mr. Grande: A supplementary: Would the minister be able to table that consultant’s report in the Legislature?

Hon. Mr. Welch: I’d like to take a look at it.

Mr. MacDonald: Why?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Let me take a look at it and I’d be glad to respond more definitely after I’ve seen the report. There may be other parts of the report that haven’t been acted on, that’s why I’d like to see it first.

Mr. MacDonald: If it’s prepared by public money and it’s a basis of public policy, then it should be tabled.

Mr. S. Smith: Do you mean that you only table it after you’ve acted on it?

ONTARIO SECURITIES COMMISSION

Mr. Breithaupt: I have a question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations with respect to the correspondence that we’ve all received from Malartic Hygrade Gold Mines (Canada) Limited. Can the minister advise us as to the situation with respect to these various claims and particularly with his response to such phrases as “improper activities,” “illegal embargo,” “censorship” and “conspiracy,” that each of the three letters, of which I presume all members have received copies, refers to? Just what is the situation and what are these claims and these problems that are being scattered about, apparently quite openly, as to the operation of the Ontario Securities Commission?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: A series of communications has been flowing for some time now. As each set of allegations comes in they are dealt with by the people who are specifically alleged to have committed the offences as set out in the communications. I can only assure the House that, at this time, the allegations are watched as they come in.

Mr. Lewis: That’s what you call dispassionate.

Mr. McClellan: You believe in impartial judges.

[2:45]

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- a careful analysis is made of the allegations contained therein and we are up to date in our awareness of the problem and our intentions to deal with them. There is nothing there that we feel has warranted any action other than the action we have taken so far. The letters are not ignored. They are read carefully, dealt with carefully and analysed by the people who are affected.

Mr. Breithaupt: Supplementary: Surely, analysis by the people affected is hardly sufficient if, in fact, there are claims which have been made public -- charges of illegal matters, conspiracy and other very serious allegations. Surely, the minister is not content that only those persons who have been referred to are dealing with the letters. Does he have nothing to enlighten the House as to whether further action is being taken, or to explain this whole involvement which appears to be, at least on the surface, a series of very serious allegations?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I am sorry, when I indicated that the people named in the letters had dealt with the accusations what I was saying was that in each case the letters are referred to the people about whom the accusations are made. They are asked to provide explanations and responses which are well developed. The fact is that it has been dealt with by the ministry in detail; an explanation is there.

We are satisfied that our course of action to the present time is appropriate, that it doesn’t warrant any further action at this time. As the letters come in, they are not just slammed into a file but are taken up with the people involved who then report back and update us as regards the accuracy or inaccuracy of those specific charges.

In simple terms, the allegations are dealt with as they are made. We have, obviously, found no substance in those allegations to warrant any action that the writer of the letters thinks might be in order.

Mr. Breithaupt: Is the minister content that this matter is entirely groundless and that things are at an end or can we expect to continue receiving further letters?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I can’t comment as to whether the member can expect to receive further letters. I can simply tell him that on the basis of what we have at the present time, no further action is going to be taken. That depends of course upon what we may glean from the latest correspondence or the correspondence yet to come.

Mr. S. Smith: Supplementary: I am as mystified as anyone else about this series of correspondence. It keeps coming across my desk. If, in fact, the minister is correct that these accusations are without substance, does the minister not agree that there might be grounds for a slander suit or a libel suit by various persons referred to and by the Ontario Securities Commission referred to, since these accusations of improper activities, illegal embargo and so on are pretty serious accusations?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The specific people about whom the allegations have been made are well aware of their rights, the member can be sure. They have, obviously, chosen not to take action for slander or any of the other remedies they may feel they have. My responsibility is only to determine whether there is any substance to the allegations made and if there is, to take appropriate action.

Mr. S. Smith: Just a quick supplementary. There is in the letter of October 21, this sentence; “I wish to present further proof of improper activities of the Ontario Securities Commission.” Would the minister not agree that the Ontario Securities Commission is not an individual who has to know his rights and take action? It is, in one way or another, an arm of the people of Ontario or the government of Ontario and, surely, it’s the minister’s responsibility to decide whether to take action.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: If the Ontario Securities Commission or the Residential Premises Rent Review Board, just to name two, took slander action against people every time they say they are doing something wrong or inaccurate or unfair or illegal, then we would spend double the provincial budget just taking these people to court. In fact, we could spend most of our time dealing with what a couple of members of the NDP say about the rent board. No, the answer is we don’t sue every time someone says something nasty about one of my boards.

NORTH BAY HOSPITAL

Mr. Dukszta: A question to the Minister of Health; Is the minister aware that the Ontario Hospital in North Bay is presently receiving goods from a strikebound wholesale distributor called Sam Butti Wholesale Limited? If the minister is aware, would he be prepared to order the hospital administrator to cease receiving goods from this strikebound company and to look for other distributors in the area?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: No.

Mr. Dukszta: Supplementary: Why not?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: If I recall it correctly, this is based on a tender on lowest price for certain goods for the psychiatric hospital. I don’t think we should get involved through that hospital in a dispute between a supplier and his employees.

Mr. Dukszta: Is the minister aware that he is involving himself in strikebreaking?

DISPLAY OF DAIRY PRODUCTS

Mr. Blundy: To the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations: Is the minister aware that food retailers in Metro Toronto are still displaying dairy products under high intensity lights, even though researchers reported at least two years ago that fluorescent lights can impair the flavour and nutritional value of milk and butter? What plans does the ministry have to correct this matter?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I will be pleased to receive details from the member with regard to any precise locations he has in which we may go and take the appropriate action. The answer is, where we know it is going to happen and where we know it is happening, we take action. Would the member be kind enough to send me over the list and we will look into it right away?

Mr. Blundy: I think almost every supermarket in the area, and certainly in my riding, is displaying milk in this way.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Send the details over.

Mr. Blundy: Mr. Speaker, I will send him a list tomorrow.

Mr. O’Neil: Supplementary: I wonder if I could ask the minister whether he has taken any action against any of these outlets to this point?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I don’t have the information with me but I’ll be pleased to get it.

BRIBERY CASE

Mr. di Santo: I have a question for the Attorney General. Could the Attorney General inform the House why in the case of Melvin Kurtz, the Crown attorney chose not to prosecute the bribers or the briber?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I don’t know the details of that case. Was it Mr. Kurtz? If the member would give me a few more details outside after the question period in order to assist me to identify the case, perhaps I could respond to his question.

Mr. di Santo: Supplementary: In view of the fact that as a result of the probe of Judge Waisberg on crime in the construction industry, Mr. Melvin Kurtz was prosecuted for bribery, my question is why did the Attorney General’s office choose not to prosecute the bribers in this case?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Again, I am not familiar with the details of this prosecution, but I will attempt to respond to the member’s question.

Mr. di Santo: A further brief supplementary: Can the Attorney General then report to the House on this particular case and also how many prosecutions were laid as a result of that inquiry and, if so, when?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I assume that information will not be difficult to come by. If we can ascertain it, we will so advise the House.

PIPE PRODUCTION

Mr. Kerrio: I have a question of the Premier. Is he aware of the fact that the US legislature and the federal government have passed the legislation now for the joint pipeline on the Alaska Highway and is he aware of the fact that we can produce the steel in Ontario and that we have the plant in Welland to produce the pipe? The concern I have relates to the question that was asked about the last pipeline, where the only guarantee is that there will be a general competitive term in the contract. Is the Premier aware that there is no real commitment and that on such a basis the last large order of pipe was delivered from Japan?

Mr. MacDonald: That’s the order of Jack Horner, that good Liberal.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: The member should tell his federal colleagues.

Hon. B. Stephenson: It’s the feds -- not Queen’s Park.

Mr. S. Smith: What are you doing about it?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: You’re sitting on your butt.

Mr. S. Smith: I don’t smoke.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: You ought to try it -- something to calm you down.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, you’re going to ask for somebody else to decease before I get my answer out.

In answer to the hon. member’s question, I do understand that the United States Congress -- not “the legislature” -- has more or less approved this. Of course we’re quite interested in having as much as possible of the pipe and other material produced in the province of Ontario. As I believe I said in answer to a question asked by one of the hon. member’s colleagues last week, certainly from our standpoint we will be making every effort to see that as much as possible of the pipe and other material is purchased in Canada and in particular, of course, the province of Ontario.

As the hon. member well knows, it is not always simple for a provincial jurisdiction to carry on these international negotiations, in spite of the attempts by some. None the less we will, without question, make our points of view known.

Mr. Mancini: What did you go to Japan for?

Hon. Mr. Davis: We went to Japan just in case the government of Canada wasn’t totally looking after Ontario’s interests, the same as we do with everything else.

As a result of our involvement over the years, the economy of this province has done relatively well and will continue to do so. We will continue to look after the interests of the people in this province, which means we will make our very best efforts to see that pipe for the pipeline and other material is purchased in this province, although it is not within our jurisdiction. But certainly we will make every effort.

Mr. Kerrio: Supplementary: In view of the fact that there is no real commitment in the contract and because of the great number of jobs that we should be looking to in the future, would the Premier take it on himself in his high office, and possibly with the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Bennett), to see if we can’t get the federal government to make such a commitment, which is not in the contract? I would ask the Premier to take that first step.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am certainly one of those who is prepared to deal with issues that aren’t always totally spelled out in a contract, unlike some members of the member’s party. I also must say to him, I can’t table any contract because it’s not available to us. But we will be making, as I said -- and I really am repeating myself -- every effort to see that Canadian producers, and particularly Ontario producers, get as much of this contract as is possible.

Mr. Makarchuk: Supplementary: Is the Premier prepared to table in this House all the correspondence which will be involved in his representations to other levels of government?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I might table all mine if the member will table all his --

Mr. Makarchuk: It’s a deal.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Being suspicious of some of his correspondence, I’m not sure I really should have made that offer. I would only say that I certainly would give very careful consideration to tabling any correspondence I have on this matter.

It’s also quite obvious that while the member may be dependent totally on correspondence in the mails, I can’t table for him any telephone conversations I might have or any conversations the minister may have or any personal discussions.

Mr. Breaugh: Just give us the tapes.

Hon. Mr. Davis: In answer to the member’s question, to the extent that any correspondence might be relevant, certainly I would be delighted to share it with the hon. members of the House. But please don’t preclude me from doing my best by means other than correspondence.

Mr. Peterson: Supplementary?

Mr. Speaker: New question. The hon. member for Welland-Thorold with a new question.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, in fairness, there have been only two supplementaries.

Mr. Speaker: Three.

Mr. Peterson: Two -- one here and one over there.

An hon. member: It’s a very important question, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Peterson: It deserves a little more attention in view of the fuzzy answers that were given here. I beg your indulgence, Mr. Speaker.

I would ask the Premier this: In view of the very serious way in which we regard these negotiations, understanding the limitations that are placed upon him, I would ask the Premier to make a statement to this House, either himself or through the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Bennett), as to what has transpired so far, and what he is planning to do in these negotiations, because they could be very critical to the industrial future of the province.

[3:00]

Mr. Speaker: The question has been asked.

Mr. Peterson: Would the Premier do that in the very near future?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would be delighted to share as much as I can with the member for London Centre. I know of his very genuine interest in this subject and I would be delighted to share it with him.

I would also point out to him that really, I think, to describe them as negotiations is perhaps not the proper terminology as it relates to the province of Ontario. It’s a question of stating to the government of Canada, the minister involved and his ministry, that we are very anxious to have as much material for the pipeline purchased in our province as possible. I really think, so that there will be no one operating under any thoughts other than those that are accurate, the member really ought not to describe it as negotiations.

MINOR HOCKEY PLAYERS

Mr. Swart: A question of the Attorney General: He is aware, is he not, that a student at the hockey school at the Bill Burgoyne arena last Saturday was removed from the ice simply because she was a girl, a seven-year-old girl, after having been admitted as a boy? Does he not think this situation is getting out of hand? Is he prepared to make a statement, so he can single-handedly see that the Human Rights Code is observed as he did to remove violence from the hockey on ice?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: As I indicated on Friday, I harbour certain prejudices as a father of three daughters. Some of these personal prejudices involve the lack of opportunity for our young women to participate more actively in organized sport. I feel very strongly about that. But so far as this matter is concerned, it is a matter that I assume is within the purview of the Human Rights Code. As the member knows, this is not administered by the Ministry of the Attorney General.

Mr. Swart: Supplementary: Would the minister consider sending a general directive to the recreational groups and sports groups outlining the necessity of conforming with the Human Rights Code? Would he suggest to the Minister of Culture and Recreation that perhaps the awarding of Wintario grants could he determined on the basis of conformity with the Human Rights Code?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. minister has already indicated that the Human Rights Code is not within his jurisdiction.

Mr. Swart: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The only thing that is out of order is the member.

Mr. Swart: Is the second part of my question not in order as a supplementary? It is unanswered.

Mr. Speaker: New question.

PROVINCIAL GRANTS

Mr. B. Newman: I have a question of the Premier. As the Treasurer has admitted that the provincial grants system is unfair, and as Windsor has suffered more than any other municipality in the province of Ontario because of the inaccurate equalization factor, what action is the Premier going to take to right a long-time wrong from which Windsor has suffered where it has lost approximately $20 million in grants, which it would have rightly received had a proper equalization factor been used?

Hon. Mr. Davis: The member for Windsor-Walkerville is well aware of the complexities, and to a certain extent the inequities, of the assessments that exist in the province. I guess what I hear him saying is that he and his party would, of course, support --

Mr. S. Smith: No, that is not what he said.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- the introduction of the solution to the problem.

Mr. S. Smith: He asked for fair play. Fair play is what he asked for.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Oh no, of course not, you guys just don’t have the intestinal fortitude.

I would only say to the member for Windsor-Walkerville --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Will the members for Rainy River (Mr. Reid) and Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) please be quiet while the Premier answers a legitimate question from the member for Windsor-Walkerville?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I really think on that point of order you should, in fairness, ask those two members to decease, as you recently asked some of the rest of us. I really wouldn’t wish that on either of them -- well, there’s the odd day, but not too often.

Mr. Mackenzie: When is Mr. Speaker going to bring the Premier to order?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am doing my best to answer this very difficult question.

Mr. Warner: You are wasting the time of the people.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I can’t answer it if the members are not prepared to listen; if they will listen I will try to answer it. I would say to the member for Windsor-Walkerville that the government recognizes that there are certain inequities, Windsor being one of them; I think Sarnia may be another. The member for Sarnia is pointing vigorously at Hansard to note that. It may be that even Brampton is not getting its fair share, I’m not sure.

We’re working at finding solutions to these problems. I think the Treasurer met with some members from Windsor just a few days ago and we will continue to find solutions to this very difficult and complicated matter.

Mr. S. Smith: What about fair play?

Mr. B. Newman: Is the Premier aware that each year delayed costs the city of Windsor’s taxpayers another $8.5 million? Is he prepared to make an unconditional grant to the municipality in lieu of that loss?

Hon. Mr. Davis: So that it will save the House a little time -- the other members from Windsor are anxious to be on the record too, I sense -- I say to the member for Windsor-Walkerville and to the other members from Windsor, that we’re aware of the difficulty. Are we prepared to make an unconditional grant? The answer to that would have to be no.

An hon. member: At this time?

Hon. Mr. Davis: At this time. I thought I answered it for you.

Mr. Cooke: I would like to ask the Premier if I understood his first answer correctly. Is he saying that the government is committed to working out a solution with the city of Windsor for the year 1978 and will there be a solution with some equity built into it for 1978? Or is he going to continue to put off the problem?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I’m sure the hon. member is well aware that working out a solution for Windsor also involves many other municipalities and taxpayers across the province of Ontario. In that there are many other members in this House who do not come from Sarnia or Windsor, who I’m sure have an interest in this, and knowing that whatever is given or altered in one area may mean a slight diminution in other areas and that we want total equity in whatever we do, to say that we will solve this problem in 1978, might be a shade premature.

PETITION

MINIMUM DRINKING AGE

Mr. Peterson: I beg leave to table a petition with this House from 343 members of First St. Andrew’s United Church in London, Ontario, Canada. If I may just read what it involves: “In view of the increasing number of accidents caused by young drivers under the influence of alcohol, we the undersigned members of First St. Andrew’s United Church of London, Ontario, hereby ask you to urge the government of Ontario to bring legislation to 1. raise the minimum drinking age from 18 to 20; and 2. curtail the advertising of alcoholic beverages, especially on television.”

MOTIONS

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES

Hon. Mr. Welch moved that the supplementary estimates for the Ministry of Community and Social Services presented today be referred to the standing committee on social development to be considered in the time allocated to the Ministry of Community and Social Services.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, just a brief comment on the motion if you’ll permit it, particularly while the Chairman of Management Board is here. I understand that those supplementary estimates are supposed to reconcile a statement made by the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Norton).

Mr. Breithaupt: That comes next, Robert. There’s a four-page statement coming up.

Mr. Nixon: How the heck do I know there’s a four-page statement coming up?

I want to know if we can be assured by the government that there is a reconciliation with the amounts that have been put in the former estimates.

Mr. Speaker: It is my understanding that is indeed the case.

Mr. Nixon: Good.

Motion agreed to.

CHILDREN’S SERVICES PROGRAM

Hon. Mr. Auld moved that the following amounts in the votes and items of the 1977-78 estimates of the Ministries of the Attorney General, Correctional Services and Health, being the amounts made available to the Ministry of Community and Social Services in connection with the children’s services program, be referred to the standing committee considering the estimates of the Ministry of Community and Social Services.

Hon. Mr. Auld: If the hon. members would agree, I’ll simply read the total. It is set out, and I understand that copies of this have gone to the other parties and caucuses.

Total for the Ministry of the Attorney General, $2,722,000; total for the Ministry of Correctional Services, $35,619,100; total for the Ministry of Health, $62,085,800; a grand total of $100,426,900.

I have a statement of explanation to go with it.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, we’re prepared to dispense with the reading of the figures so long as they appear in detail in the votes and proceedings so that we’ll have a record for the benefit of the House,

Mr. Speaker: Is that agreed? They will be. It’s a statement more than a motion, I suppose.

The Chairman of Management Board has an explanation.

Mrs. Campbell: Yes, I am aware of it, but you are putting the motion. I would ask that we have the explanation for discussion before the motion is put.

Mr. Nixon: On a point of order, is there a motion, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: There is a motion, all right, but as outlined in the one I read.

Mr. Nixon: That has already been accepted.

Mr. Speaker: No, there are two separate motions. One was with regard to time, and the other motion is that on the debate of the children’s services program in conjunction with the 1977-78 estimates, they be referred to the standing committee considering the estimates of the Ministry of Community and Social Services.

Mr. Breithaupt: That was put and carried.

Mr. Speaker: No, it has yet to be carried. The Chairman of Management Board has an explanation.

Hon. Mr. Auld: As a result of the number of questions that were raised in the Legislature last week concerning the debate of the estimates of the Ministry of Community and Social Services, I would like to submit the following information and proposed solutions:

Bill 23, which received third reading on July 11, 1977, transferred the responsibility of services related to children from the Attorney General, the Minister of Correctional Services and the Minister of Health, to the Minister of Community and Social Services, effective July 1, 1977. The related funding for these transferred services appeared in the 1977-78 estimates for the thee ministries which were tabled prior to the transfers taking place.

Although Bill 23 provided the transfer of all powers and duties that could be transferred, there was no vehicle available to transfer the funds. The Supply Act, 1977, will provide the authority for the transfer of the funds for children’s services for the three ministries to the Minister of Community and Social Services. But of course, the Supply Act cannot be passed until all the estimates have been voted. As well, there is no available means to revoke the amounts placed in the other three ministries’ estimates.

[3:15]

The administrative procedure involved in the transfer of the funds will be authorized by way of Management Board certificate in accordance with the Supply Act, as in previous practice.

Therefore, in order that the estimates of the Ministry of Community and Social Services can be continued, including the estimates for the children’s services program, I am introducing a motion that will allow the various amounts included in the estimates of the Ministries of the Attorney General, Correctional Services, and Health related to the transfer of responsibilities of children’s services, to be referred to the standing committee considering the estimates of the Ministry of Community and Social Services.

This will allow for a full discussion on the children’s services program during the debate of the estimates of the Ministry of Community and Social Services. The respective funds would not be voted as part of the estimates of the Ministry of Community and Social Services but would be voted as part of the estimates of the three individual ministries. As previously stated, the funds would subsequently be transferred legally to the Ministry of Community and Social Services by way of the Supply Act, 1977.

In addition, I introduced a supplementary estimate earlier today, on the message of Her Honour, the Lieutenant Governor in Council, in the amount of $3,665,500 to provide for the additional amount of funds required by the Ministry of Community and Social Services to administer and operate the total combined functions associated with the children’s services program.

A supplementary estimate, by definition, increases an original appropriation or establishes a new appropriation, but does not reduce or transfer appropriations. Therefore, this means could not be used to transfer the related funds from the three ministries to the Ministry of Community and Social Services. Only the additional requirements of the ministry, over and above the amounts provided by the other three ministries, are included in the supplementary estimates.

These proposed actions have been discussed with and concurred in by the senior legislative counsel and the assistant clerk of this Legislature. I also understand that the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Norton) will provide the standing committee with a complete reconciliation of the amounts provided for the children’s services program so that the debate on his estimates can be continued in a complete and orderly way.

I trust that this will clear up and will resolve the issues raised by hon. members recently in the Legislature, and in committee, concerning the 1977-78 estimates of the Ministry of Community and Social Services.

Mrs. Campbell: In responding to the motion, I must confess I have great difficulty. I have been trying to understand the procedures in this particular situation and I have sought all the advice that I could in the time allowed to me. What does bother me is this: As I understand it, when the estimates are tabled they are accompanied by a message from the Lieutenant Governor and they do not, in any way, relate to amounts. They are simply estimates in estimate books.

According to the information which I have had, and as I understand it, the estimates are subject to review and/or amendment prior to going to the committees providing those amendments are before the House.

The difficulty with this situation -- and I’m not going to belabour it because I think that I probably stand alone in my concerns, but I feel they should be on record -- is that we now have a procedure established by which we will be discussing -- not, I understand, today, but at some future time -- the estimates of the Ministry of Community and Social Services or the supplementaries, subject to receiving from the minister at some time the reconciliations which I understood we would have before the meeting was to commence today. We don’t have them yet.

As I understand it, Management Board cannot transfer of its own initiative. I have just been handed a copy of an earlier Supply Act and I haven’t had the opportunity to discuss it, but do I understand then that by motion at the time of the introduction of the supply bill at the conclusion of the estimates, at that point we may vary and transfer, when we can’t do any of these things before the committee? This is what is causing me concern.

The function has been transferred to Community and Social Services. The votes will be in the other three ministries, save and except for those which were already in Community and Social Services. By what procedure do we then ensure the transfer out, because according to my information Management Board cannot delete, the committee can’t delete, the transfer can’t be done? I really want only to be sure that we can do what is being proposed, as I see it quite irregularly, so that we can be clear that these moneys will, indeed, be available to that function in that ministry?

How do we accomplish that if no one in the intervening period is able to effect a transfer or is able, in fact, to delete a vote? I still don’t understand it. I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, if I am being dull in this, but I do want to understand it before I proceed to deal with these estimates.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, I regard the solution that is being put forward today by the Chairman of the Management Board as an acceptable solution. I think it does set straight what I can only characterize as incomparable bungling in the management of the organizational transfer but it seems at last, in my view, to be set straight and it’s a procedure that I am comfortable to live with.

As I understand it, the moneys in each of the three ministries other than Community and Social Services will be voted on in each of the estimates of the other three ministries. We will vote in committee on the supplementary estimates. We will discuss all of the items in social development with respect to Community and Social Services. There will be a Management Board certificate issued under the Supply Act to legitimize and authorize the transfer of funds from the three old ministries to the Ministry of Community and Social Services once supply has been voted, and I think that that deals with the inadequacies of the previous procedures and that we can proceed.

I want to make it clear, however, that I am not willing to resume the debates on Community and Social Services until we are provided with a complete reconciliation statement which deals with the transfers from the Attorney General’s ministry, Correctional Services and Health on a program and line basis, because, as I indicated on Friday, we have received four different sets of figures from the Ministry of Correctional Services, discrepancies as between the estimates book figures and the Community and Social Services resource and program book summaries.

As recently as a quarter to three, I was provided with another set of figures with respect to the actual amounts of the supplementaries. I simply want to have a clear and coherent reconciliation statement in plenty of time in advance of the next sitting of the committee so that we don’t have to waste the committee’s remaining four and a half hours on trying to figure out where the dollars are but can, in fact, address the real substantial issues of children’s program and children’s policy.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I would like to assure the hon. members opposite that the complete reconciliation statement will be available to them. It may in fact be here now. I have not personally received it yet but it was prepared and was in the process of being reproduced for the members of the committee. I expected it to arrive here by 3 o’clock this afternoon. I can certainly assure members, since I understand it is the decision of the committee not to sit until tomorrow afternoon, that it will be delivered to them this afternoon as soon as it is received by me. Should they have any questions in the intervening period between now and the sitting tomorrow, I will make my staff available to explain any further questions they might have.

Mr. Breithaupt: I wanted to confirm the comments of the hon. minister with respect to sittings of the committee this afternoon. We had agreed that if this information was here in sufficient time and if the reconciliation had been satisfactorily explained, particularly to the two critics involved, the member for St. George and the member for Bellwoods, that this could then be proceeded with, probably tomorrow afternoon.

The one point I wanted to raise in the statement of the Chairman of Management Board follows along on the sequence of events the member for Bellwoods had proceeded through; that point was one which he did not raise, but which I understand is also included in the sequence, to the effect that in effect the moneys which are being transferred under the responsibility of the Ministry of Community and Social Services are in fact blocked to the use of the other ministries from which they are being transferred. We will, therefore, vote those moneys technically in the estimates of the other three ministries, Attorney General, Correctional Services and Health, but in fact the responsibility and the control of those funds becomes a function of Community and Social Services, and will be discussed all at one time once proper reconciliation is received to the satisfaction of the two opposition critics.

I think if the Chairman of Management Board can confirm that sequence, then probably we have resolved the matter.

Hon. Mr. Auld: That is correct, and in fact that has been the case since the passage of Bill 23 in July. That bill, now an Act, transferred the responsibility for and the authorization for spending funds for certain activities. Consequently, even if we hadn’t proceeded any further today, the ministers of the three ministries from which the funds are being transferred have not had the authority to spend, nor have they I assume spent, any money on those functions.

What has happened, for the benefit of all members of the House, is that since the passage of that bill the Minister of Community and Social Services has had the responsibility and has carried it out and has charged back by journal entry those expenses, because the only ministry that currently can pay them is the old one, but the only ministry that can do it is the new one. In the normal course of events, we would have had our estimates completed and the relevant clause in the Supply Act, as it has been in the Acts that are passed each year. This is from 1975 but it is the same as this one will be. I will just quote it for the information of all members and so that it is in Hansard:

“Section 1(2): Where in the fiscal year ending March 31, 1976” -- in this case -- “powers and duties are assigned and transferred from one minister of the Crown to another minister of the Crown, the appropriate sums in the votes and items of the estimates upon which the schedule is based” -- I wish we could put a few more commas in these -- “that are approved to defray the charges and expenses of the public service in the exercise and performance of such powers and duties may be assigned and transferred from time to time as required by certificate of the Management Board of Cabinet to the ministry administered by the ministry to whom the powers and duties are so assigned and transferred.”

[3:30]

In the normal course of events when we have transferred, as we do every year it seems to me, some responsibilities from one place to another, it has been after we have had supply. In this case, it’s quite a distance before and the responsibility has been carried out quite properly. We have now quite properly, by supplementary estimates, put forward the total sum. This is because the supplementary estimates cover the additional money for the children’s services which is not found in any of those three ministries.

The motion permits the committee to hear the discussion of those amounts, even though they aren’t in the estimates. When supply is given, then the certificate of Management Board will be issued.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Leluk moved first reading of Bill 95, An Act to amend the Assessment Act

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Leluk: Mr. Speaker, the bill provides an exemption from municipal taxation for additions and improvements to real property that are designed to aid persons who are physically handicapped.

CONDOMINIUM PROPERTY MANAGEMENT FIRMS ACT

Mr. Leluk moved first reading of Bill 96, An Act to register Condominium Property Management Firms.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Leluk: Mr. Speaker, this bill provides for the registration, bonding and inspection of condominium property management firms.

VISITOR

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I’d like very briefly to introduce to you and members of the House a young gentleman in the Speaker’s gallery, Mr. George Allain, who is 18 years of age. The reason he is in the gallery is that the International Optimists’ Club every year has designated National Youth Appreciation Week, and this happens to be the week, starting today.

Traditionally they have designated an honorary prime minister and governor general. The Ontario district of Optimists’ International has this year, in an effort to recognize that there are other levels of government, designated an honorary premier of the day. This young man has been given that designation and is here in that official or unofficial capacity.

It’s also very coincidental that the young man who is assuming this responsibility -- and there is the odd day I wouldn’t mind him doing it, not many though -- also, by coincidence, happens to be a student at a certain high school in a certain community that is well known to the Premier of this province that happens to be in the city of Brampton. I would hope that someday, and who knows -- well I was going to get political.

Our guest, or your guest, is an honour student. He is a very excellent athlete; is very involved in community activities, particularly in the recreational field. My first experience with him was during a period of slight tension with the school situation in Peel some few months ago.

It’s an honour for me, Mr. Speaker, to introduce him to the members of the House and on behalf of all of us, I am sure, say thank you to Optimists’ International for its belief and confidence in our young people, that it is prepared to set aside this week and give it the kind of focus that I think is important.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (CONCLUDED)

House in committee of supply.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Chairman, just before we resume these estimates and for the sake of understanding, I thought that perhaps with only two hours and some minutes to go it would be reasonable to assume that these estimates could be completed by 6 o’clock so that we can have the Attorney General on hand and ready to start promptly at 8 o’clock with his estimates?

Mr. Stong: Mr. Chairman, I think it is a reasonable assumption that we should be finished by 6 o’clock. There is only one vote left to go, although there are two very important items in that vote to which we will address ourselves. But I think it is fair to assume two and a half hours will do it.

Mr. Warner: That’s fine.

Mr Chairman: Is that agreeable to the committee?

Agreed.

On vote 1604 Ontario Provincial Police, management and support services program; item 1, office of the commissioner:

Mr. Stong: All of the other items in vote 1604 have been dealt with and approved, except item 1. Upon our conclusion last Friday, I had raised a question with respect to the $9 million that was included in the estimates. I referred to the September 30 financial report. The minister indicated that the money had been spent, but contrary to that the Chairman of Management Board (Mr. Auld) indicated that the money had not been spent. As I understood it, it formed the basis of a contingency fund and was subject to an authorization of commitment and, in fact, would be subject to a Management Board order at the end of February. The Chairman of Management Board indicated February as the example, I am wondering if there is sufficient money in these estimates to cover those situations that will develop until the end of February and whether the $9 million amount of which I speak, and which was reported, is designated for the month of March, being from March until the end of the fiscal year for the Legislature.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Chairman, we have just heard the Chairman of Management Board deal with this matter in the House, and we had some discussion at that time. I must admit that I am probably not as clear as I should be in the matter of how these votes are handled when additional funds are required. I do, however, have a statement in regard to the question that the hon. member for York Centre raised at the end of our sittings on Friday morning.

Mr. Stong asked the question regarding a spending increase of $9 million for this ministry during 1977-78. He asked if this had, in fact, been spent and what it has been spent on and how it was authorized.

The actual total is $9,891,600 and the request has been for Management Board commitment only. The Management Board order has not been approved to date. The breakdown of the request is attached. Part of the money has been spent from present appropriations. This is normal practice until a Management Board order has been approved.

I understand Management Board orders are approved quarterly and that we are operating from other sums in our votes, and that as long as we are operating within those sums and get the permission of the House to spend this before we need this $9 million that we are covered. In other words there’s a bulk sum there, and as long as we don’t need this there’s a certain flexibility among the others. But at the same time, the procedure, I think, has been explained to the House earlier this afternoon by the Chairman of Management Board, and I’m afraid I can’t very well enlarge on what he has said.

Mr. Stong: I wonder if the minister could give me an idea, dealing with this specific ministry, how much of that $9,800,000 sum has been spent up to now? Although I assume it forms part of a contingency fund, how much has been spent prior to Management Board approval? Could the minister give me a breakdown of that figure?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Chairman, my information is that it’s a continuing process of money being spent and that we don’t have the breakdown as of this time.

Mr. Stong: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the Solicitor General could undertake to give me that breakdown before the end of these estimates?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I don’t think I can, Mr. Chairman, before the end of the estimates, unless we go on somewhat after the full 6 o’clock time. I imagine there’s a fair amount of bookkeeping involved in trying to take a particular date and figure out how much has been spent on this vote to date -- say as of 4 o’clock or any particular time. I think we can do it, but I think it would take a little time to do that.

Mr. Stong: Mr. Chairman, I would be satisfied then to have that as soon as convenient to the minister.

Mr. Lupusella: Mr. Chairman, I would be pleased if the Solicitor General would send the breakdown information about the total amount of money which is involved, so that I may get along with this proposal.

Item 1 agreed to.

Vote 1604 agreed to.

On vote 1605, Ontario Provincial Police, operations program; item 1, special services:

Mr. Stong: Mr. Chairman, through you to the minister, I am concerned with several aspects of the first item, special services, as outlined in the supporting material. I’d like to direct a few questions to the minister if I may on some of the headlined activities of the special services branch. I understand it’s under the assistant commissioner. It deals with such things as the anti-rackets branch.

I’m wondering if the minister could give the House some indication what personnel are involved in anti-rackets, dealing with white-collar crime, and more specifically the more sophisticated fraud schemes arising out of business. What is the ministry doing with respect to keeping on top of these sophisticated fraud schemes?

For instance how many accountants are employed by the ministry and on what basis? How many engineers, if there’s a fraudulent scheme involving an engineering enterprise? How many types of professional, and what categories of professional individuals are involved in white-collar crime? I would also like to have some idea of the involvement of this ministry with bank management personnel in solving this type of crime.

Likewise I direct the minister’s attention to the criminal investigation branch under this item, which is dealing, again, with expertise in investigation of major crimes. What is the ministry doing and what types of major crimes are involved or envisaged? Is it simply fraud or what other type of crime is involved?

I’m also concerned, under the intelligence branch heading, about what the ministry is involved with in regard to organized crime in Ontario? What is being done? How many personnel are employed in studying organized crime? What kind of hours are spent and what efforts are made in detection and follow-up in this area by this particular intelligence branch?

[3:45]

I am concerned about the type of personnel that is employed under this heading and what efforts are being made by them to control this situation.

Under the special investigations branch heading is included the matter of drugs and drug control. Does this particular area of item 1 include the employment of RCMP personnel? Are there any RCMP officers on the payroll of the Ontario government with respect to drug law enforcement; that is, drug detection and dealing? Could the Solicitor General give us a breakdown on that area? Or are the police forces of Ontario alone involved in drug detection and control? If so, how much of the police force is directed towards that particular area of special investigation?

I’d like to begin with those questions, if I might.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Those questions cover a great deal of the operations of the force -- and important operations. I have a great deal of information here but I will try to shorten it and make it as concise as I can.

The anti-rackets branch is responsible for the investigation of white-collar crime, including diversified rackets and fraudulent schemes, and of the manufacture and distribution in Ontario of counterfeit and forged instruments such as payroll cheques, money orders, bonds, credit cards and currency.

Files on questionable companies and schemes are continually reviewed to correlate the volume of information coming to our attention, to watch the involvement of province-wide schemes and to investigate and prosecute when there is sufficient evidence to show a pattern of fraudulent activity.

Similarly, records are compiled to show the frequency and volume of counterfeit uttering in the various regions of the province.

The present complement is 30, consisting of one staff superintendent, one chief inspector, 15 detective sergeants, seven acting detective sergeants, two sergeants, one corporal, one secretary, one clerk-stenographer category 3 and one clerk-stenographer category 2.

The member asked specifically about the training of some of these people. My information is that quite frequently in these matters they require outside help in connection with the services of accountants and people of that nature; when they need that kind of service, for the most part it is contracted out. But at the same time there are some pretty knowledgeable people by reason of experience in the force itself.

Ninety-seven assignments were brought forward into 1976, 494 new investigations were commenced, and 170 carried into 1977. Some investigations were very complex and time-consuming. In a large number of investigations where there was insufficient evidence to prove criminal intent, adjustments were effected to the satisfaction of the complainants amounting to more than $1 million. In other words, they may not have had enough evidence to make convictions and yet a service was still performed as far as the public was concerned under the heading of adjustments.

Cases involving 96 persons charged in previous years with 693 charges were disposed of this year. A further 896 charges against 291 persons were preferred this year. These charges covered a total of 64,131 actual offences. We’re getting into the matter of statistics again when I name the number of persons charged and the number of offences committed.

The total loss to victims in the cases investigated during the year was $5 million in round figures. One hundred and five persons were convicted on 763 charges; 263 persons are still before the courts on 694 charges; 49 persons were sentenced to jail; 20 were given suspended sentence; 28 were fined a total of $578,000; and eight received absolute discharges. Restitution of $80,798 was ordered by the courts. There were 112 dismissals and 221 withdrawals. A total of 331 search warrants were executed.

I don’t expect the hon. members to follow all of those figures, but it does show there has been considerable activity in this field. We go on with the amount of paper that is seized in these cases, and in the investigation of these cases there are problems of time in reviewing all the documents that are involved, even to the matter of storing and getting them ready for trial.

The total amount of counterfeit currency -- passing to counterfeit now -- currency other than seized, throughout Ontario was again very high, being $253,280.50 -- I don’t know how they get the 50 cents in there unless they’re into counterfeiting a few coins -- for the 12-month period. I can give the member a lot of this information if he wants it in detail. Counterfeit money seized and uttered in Canada is composed of about 97 per cent American currency, with the remainder being Canadian. In all probability, this is due to the new multi-colour Canadian currency, which to date has not been duplicated. There is a lot of interesting information in here which I’ll be glad to share with my friend if he wishes it.

Prosecutions in the branch during the year again covered a great variety of criminal offences and included charges of conspiracy to defraud, attempted fraud, fraud, defraud the public, theft, false pretences, obstruct justice, perjury, make false declarations, possession of valuable securities obtained by fraud, uttering forged documents, impersonation, make counterfeit money, possession of counterfeit money, uttering counterfeit, theft from mails, possession of instruments of forgery, arson and false affidavits. So that covers a wide gamut of offences.

We dealt, of course, with some of the OHIP matters of the Ministry of Health, and that is continuing, as I understand it; some matters of Ontario Place Corporation for our own government. Then you passed to criminal investigations. The Ontario Provincial Police force is required by statute to maintain a criminal investigation branch for the purpose of assisting municipal police forces. This branch, which has been in existence since the inception of the force, provides investigative expertise in the investigation of major crimes to all police throughout the province.

Functions include: investigation of major crimes, such as murder, kidnapping, robbery et cetera within the jurisdiction of the force; assist municipal police in the investigation of major crimes in the province; assist Ontario government ministries in the investigation of criminal matters within their ministries; assistance to the office of the chief coroner in the investigation of questionable deaths; maintain liaison and render assistance to the RCMP, Quebec police force, FBI and other border forces regarding serious criminal matters; provide expertise in the area of hostage/kidnap situations and extradition proceedings; maintain files on all investigations and inquiries made by the criminal investigation branch.

The criminal investigation branch complement is composed of the following: One director, 27 detective inspectors and three clerical staff. They haven’t given me what category the clerical staff fall into there. During 1976, members of the criminal investigation branch were detailed to a total of 373 assignments, including 38 murder investigations. Then we go on and say a little bit about the kind of training these people receive and where, and then some other mentions of some matters that they had been involved in.

I think you passed then to the matter of the special investigation branch, and it is my understanding that there are no RCMP officers on the payroll of our force. There is, of course, much liaison work done by way of joint force operations but they are not attached to our force in any way, nor do we pay for them. They may be working in the same office together, or out of the same premises, but the members of the force involved are each paid by their respective forces, so I understand there are no RCMP staff on our payroll.

The special investigations branch is comprised of three sections which, although they have separate areas of responsibility, all have a relationship in that they deal with an area of mortality, drugs, gambling and liquor. The complement of the branch is comprised of one branch director, 10 supervisors, 46 provincial constables, one secretary and one clerk-stenographer.

I have a list of some of the training they go through and where they take it. The drug enforcement section with a complement of one inspector, two detective sergeants, two corporals and 31 provincial constables, was established to administer the forces’ drug enforcement program and to provide assistance in investigations requiring expertise. The 31 constables in the section are deployed at various locations throughout the province in joint force operations with the RCMP, which may also periodically involve local municipal police departments. In Metropolitan Toronto they work together very closely.

In 1976, members of the section were involved in 3,508 investigations which resulted in 1,247 charges being preferred. These figures do not include RCMP figures as there were many investigations by the RCMP which did not involve section personnel. I have a list of some of the matters with which they were involved and I’ll be glad to share this information with the member if he so wishes.

Mr. Stong: I wonder if the minister could give me an idea of how the $6.5 million is being apportioned in this particular vote, special services. Could he give me a breakdown under each heading, such as anti-rackets, the auto theft branch, the criminal investigations branch and the intelligence branch, as well as the security and special investigations? Could he give me an idea of how much is allocated to each of those branches?

I understand there is difficulty getting charges laid and enforcement made under the Business Practices Act. It’s been on the books now for some two years and there’s very little activity with respect to enforcement of that Act. I wonder if you could give me some idea of the difficulty surrounding the enforcement of that Act and why there have not been more charges laid with respect to practices under that Act. I wonder if you would direct your attention to it and inform the House with respect to the number of personnel involved in watching and detecting organized crime in Ontario and what the success has been in that area.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: On the administration to special services, I do have a breakdown here but I think you’ll probably be satisfied with the totals. If not, we can share this information. There is $113,000 for the administration end; for anti-rackets, $871,000; auto theft, $213,000; special services criminal investigation, $957,000; special services intelligence, $880,000; and special services special investigation, $1,508,000.

You asked about the number of personnel that we have specifically dealing with organized crime. There are about 125. When we give you that figure, I think there is some problem in saying they deal exclusively with that, because there’s a certain flexibility in the movement of personnel. The figure the commissioner gives me is 125.

[4:00]

Under the Business Practices Act, as my hon. friend knows it’s the responsibility of Consumer and Commercial Relations. That doesn’t help him, though, in giving him an answer to his question.

I was not aware there was any problem between the police and the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations. I suppose if there is it is a matter of getting the necessary evidence. I think we do our best to support them any time they call upon our services.

I wonder if I could clarify that for my friend. Is he suggesting that Consumer and Commercial Relations has said that we were not co-operative? Just exactly what is the question, because I’m not aware of any problem, and evidently we are not aware of it either?

Mr. Stong: Mr. Chairman, through you, I was given to understand this was the case by a sergeant, whose name I have forgotten, who was in court last week and I happened to meet him as he was trying to get the proper wording of a charge under the Business Practices Act. I understand that it’s a situation that has developed in Hamilton. It’s a landmark case, they’re waiting for the decision on this particular case.

I was given to understand that there were only two or three officers who were charged with the responsibility of investigating under that Act and preferring charges, and that although the Act has been in force for three years now, since 1974 I think it was, there have not been very many charges laid or prosecuted. I’m just wondering: Is it because of the lack of personnel or lack of expertise, lack of court facilities or lack of know-how in how to interpret and enforce that Act on the part of the police departments that there have not been more charges laid? Perhaps you could give us some assistance.

I might say that I’m not suggesting a lack of co-operation; I think it may be the lack of personnel, if in fact there is a problem; and I was given to understand there was a problem in enforcing that Act.

I’m wondering what is being done by way of training personnel. I would imagine it is a very sophisticated and technical Act to enforce and requires expertise and know-how in the different aspects of the business world. I’m wondering what the police department is doing in acquiring such personnel to enforce this Act.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: The Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations does, of course, have its own investigators. It does much of the investigation, which as you have said is highly technical in itself.

The note that has been passed to me is along the line that if it was drawn to our attention it was probably because of some breach of the Criminal Code, in which case we would take it from there and carry on. But as far as the examining of a prospectus and things of that nature, that work is done in the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations. I don’t know of any complaint reaching my ears where we have not given them the assistance to lay charges for any breach of the Criminal Code, but I believe they would lay their own charges under a breach of their own Businesses Practices Act or the Securities Act or things of that nature.

Mr. Lupusella: In this particular vote, 1605, we are really dealing with an astronomical amount of money. As a reference, I would like to suggest to the Solicitor General that in the next estimates we should have background information as to how this amount of money is spent.

In his opening statement, he spoke about organized crime. That’s the area in which I’d like to get more information, because it seems that the Solicitor General and this government are quite happy about how the issue of organized crime is dealt with in the province of Ontario. I’m not happy about the word that organized crime is under control. We now find out under this vote that we are dealing with this total amount of money. I would like to ask the Solicitor General whether, on top of this money, he is also taking into account the 726 RCMP officers who are presently operating, just in Metro Toronto. I am not sure whether or not the Solicitor General has the information on how many RCMP officers are involved around the province of Ontario in fighting organized crime.

We are dealing with this enormous amount of money just to keep control of the situation. Also, we see that the federal government is employing 726 RCMP officers just in Metro Toronto, not considering other officers around the province of Ontario. Yet the word is that organized crime is under control.

First of all, I never have received an answer from the Solicitor General -- and I think my colleague, the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh), was trying to dig out this particular information last year during the estimates -- as to what organized crime means in the province of Ontario. How do you define organized crime?

If I recall correctly, on November 3, 1977, my colleague the member for Scarborough West (Mr. Lewis) asked that particular question of the Solicitor General in relation to the RCMP officers involved in Metro Toronto and around the province of Ontario. From the answer which was given by the Solicitor General to Mr. Lewis’s question, it seems that the total number, just in Toronto, is 609 plus a support staff of 117, being a total of 726. The Solicitor General explained that those officers were needed in Metro Toronto because of the increase in drug activity, commercial crime, customs and excise infractions, immigration and passport abuses and organized crime. That is a completely different world, far different to other activities in which the officers are involved.

So first of all, I would like to ask the Solicitor General what he means by the words organized crime. How is organized crime eradicated here in the province of Ontario; and in particular in Metro Toronto? Also, I would like to ask the Solicitor General what kind of leadership he has given, not in relation to organized crime but in relation to the police force, the OPP and the RCMP, to find out what is going on in this field.

Actually, if the Solicitor General and other representatives of the police force have been opposing the issue, then a royal commission inquiry should be called in to investigate organized crime. I am inclined to ask the Solicitor General whether or not he would present briefing material to the Legislature to find out how the government is fighting organized crime. Of course we are not interested in names, but at least we would have an idea how organized crime is operating in the province of Ontario in order that the Legislature might estimate whether or not organized crime in Metro Toronto is really under control, or if it is something this government should take a look at.

At the moment, despite all the information which has been given by the media and by the CBC, I do not, personally speaking, have any knowledge whether or not this organized crime is under control. I am sure the Solicitor General is in touch with the OPP, the police force and the RCMP to have an up-dated report about what is going on in relation to this particular item. We are dealing with a lot of money.

In his official opening statement, quoting from page 7, he said: “The only thing which the Solicitor General has been saying is that as part of our responsibility my ministry has been continually alert to the problem of organized crime in Ontario and has directed effective efforts to contain this type of activity.”

Perhaps he’s alert, but there was the question which my leader raised on November 3, 1977, about the enormous increase of RCMP officers here in Metro Toronto and around the province of Ontario. I am just talking in hypothetical terms but I have to think that maybe organized crime is under control because of the federal government. I don’t know with whom the provincial government has been getting in touch, as a result of the question of extra help from the RCMP. Maybe in that respect organized crime is under control.

We are dealing with an enormous amount of money which can be very well utilized. If there is a problem, I think that organized crime exists and we don’t know how organized crime is operating here in the province of Ontario.

The only thing which the Solicitor General has been giving to us is statistical data. It seems when I went through the estimates last year, and when my colleague the member for Oshawa was requesting an answer to the particular question what is organized crime, the Solicitor General was reluctant to give a particular answer to that.

I would like to know what organized crime is, how it is operating, by which branch of our society it is being eradicated and what the police force is doing to counteract the proliferation of organized crime.

There is no sense in the Solicitor General just providing statistical data. We want the statistical data to have an idea of what the OPP and the police force are doing in the province of Ontario, but organized crime, as I stated previously, is something which is completely different from the activities in which the police force and the OPP are involved.

As to it being under control, the fact that the federal Solicitor General, Mr. Fox, came to Toronto and stated that the province of Ontario didn’t do enough to fight organized crime is something which is raising suspicions in my mind about the whole activities of this government to take into great consideration this particular aspect of our society.

I am sure the Solicitor General has all the information about it and I think he’s supposed to spell out to this Legislature through briefing material on organized crime what is going on and what the police force and the OPP, in co-operation with the RCMP, are doing in relation to this particular problem which is affecting our society.

[4:15]

I continue quoting from the Solicitor General’s statement: “An excellent example is joint force operations where two or more police forces aid each other in a concerted effort to deal with the particular organized crime problem that has been identified. The success of the RCMP, the OPP and the local police forces, through joint forces operations with continuing assistance from the Ontario Police Commission, demonstrates the ability of the various police units to co-operate.”

When I made my opening statement in relation to comments Mr. Fox made here in Metro Toronto that the province of Ontario didn’t do enough to control organized crime, the Solicitor General simply told me: “Why don’t you ask him? For us the phenomenon is under control.”

I don’t know why he made such a statement. The Solicitor General should be deeply involved in that situation. He should provide some kind of leadership to fight back at organized crime if it exists in the province of Ontario. It seems officials of this government are not inclined to call a royal commission inquiry; members of the Legislature should have some background information to analyse and evaluate the seriousness of this problem affecting our society in the province of Ontario.

Of course the total amount of money spent, is spent for a good cause. But we also want to know how the money is spent and what we have achieved by the financial expenditure which has taken place in the last few years to fight organized crime.

I don’t think the public has the assurance organized crime is really under control, despite statements made in the past few months by officials of the police force. I thought the Solicitor General would have provided more information after making such a statement, that organized crime is really under control. I don’t have the statistical data; I don’t have the information. I don’t know what organized crime means or what the police force is doing in relation to this particular factor. I think the Solicitor General is supposed to expose, little by little, this particular problem, because the public is affected by the whole matter.

We need more sense of leadership. It is easy to find the total amount of money which we are talking about in these estimates, because there is a course on how to spend the money. We would like an assurance from this government that organized crime is under control and indication of the branches of our society from which organized crime has been really eradicated. Mr. Chairman, I would like to have an answer on this matter from the Solicitor General.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Chairman, I expect there will be more questions on this, and I am particularly looking at the member for Rainy River (Mr. Reid), I would be disappointed if he didn’t have a few words to say about organized crime. My friend from Dovercourt has not asked a specific question, other than what we were doing about putting organized crime under control; since that is a pretty broad subject, I think, Mr. Chairman, it might be wise to wait until all those who wish to speak on organized crime deal with it. Then I will try to deal with it.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, I don’t see an item specifically labelled organized crime in the vote before us. However, I do want to say something associated, I suppose, with the control of crime under vote 1605, and I will be brief. It involves the OPP detachment presently headquartered on Colborne Street in Brantford, Ontario, which has responsibility for a large rural area around Brantford.

The minister may know their detachment headquarters is a refurbished home, and the facilities are considered to be inadequate by everyone who has to use them. I won’t bother listing the inadequacies, because the minister must surely have a report in that connection; but on behalf of the citizens in the area, and particularly of the fine detachment which uses those facilities, I wanted to be sure that the minister was aware that the local member -- myself -- also feels they are inadequate.

I understand, of course, that the Ministry of Government Services provides these facilities, but surely it does so only when the minister makes a recommendation in that connection. I did not want to allow these lengthy estimates to go by without being sure that the minister was aware of that need.

I know his mind is concerned with organized crime, but fortunately we don’t feel that we are plagued with that kind of an emanation in our area. It may be because of the efficiency of this very detachment that I’m talking about. I would say, Mr. Chairman, that the minister has the prime responsibility to see that the facilities are kept up to date and this is one area where I would urge that he take some immediate action.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Chairman, since the matter has been raised by my colleague from Brant-Oxford-Norfolk, I would take that opportunity as well to refer to the facilities which the OPP uses in the city of Kitchener. I would suggest, even though I have not seen this Brantford detachment office, that whatever it’s like, it must be two or three times better than the facilities that the detachment has to use to service my community.

It becomes, I realize, a matter of great concern to the Solicitor General that the Ontario Provincial Police are not housed and served no doubt as well as he and his officials would prefer. I recognize that it is a serious commitment of funds to upgrade facilities, but I do draw to the attention of the minister -- indeed I’m sure he is aware of it -- the difficulties which our particular communities of Kitchener and Waterloo face in attempting to have the Ontario Provincial Police deal with their responsibilities out of the facilities in our community.

Waterloo region and the area of Brant, I certainly trust, are at the top of the list of facilities that are needed. I recognize that there has been construction of various police installations, particularly along and in connection with the highways as a more convenient operations point since much of the work deals with highway traffic matters, but I would not want this opportunity as well to pass, now that the matter has been raised by my colleague from Brant-Oxford-Norfolk, then to remind the Solicitor General again of the circumstances and the surroundings in which the detachment in Kitchener has to work.

Mr. Warner: Mr. Chairman, if I understand correctly, we’re on vote 1605, item 1, and while the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk may not note that organized crime is involved in this vote, I note by the information provided by the ministry that the intelligence branch is indeed funded under special services. The stated objective of the intelligence branch is the investigation of organized crime subjects and their associates, and those investigations are made in relation to the activities of other groups actively engaged in major criminal activity in the province, and such investigations are conducted in conjunction with other law enforcement agencies on a provincial, national and international level.

The branch gathers, analyses and exchanges intelligence information through a network in which it has established itself as a vital link. So I put to the minister what I would say is a very clear question from my colleague from Dovercourt: From your description and the amount of money that you’re spending on it, it sounds as though you must have some idea as to what kind of organized crime it is that we’re talking about.

What kind of organized crime exists, for example, in Metropolitan Toronto area? How deeply rooted is it in our community? Can you, for example, clear up for me how big a holding organized crime has in apartment buildings in Metro Toronto? Is that the kind of information which the intelligence branch is collecting? I don’t know the answer to that. I assume that the Solicitor General does.

We hear rumours all the time. We have people come and talk to us. I get the impression that organized crime, as it applies to Metro Toronto, is heavily involved in the owning of apartment buildings, laundries, and bakeries. But we never get those answers.

Perhaps the minister would go over the reasons for not having a public inquiry into all of this, because what we get is just a series of questions and they become more anxious with time.

We don’t know how deeply rooted organized crime is in our community. We don’t know how serious a problem it is. We would like to know if we have reached a point in time where it is serious enough that we should drag it out into the open and do something with it -- put it to rest once and for all.

We don’t know whether as the Solicitor General has indicated in the paper, through connections with other police forces, both national and international, our police have all of this under control. That is why we are asking the questions. We would like to know specifically what kind of involvement organized crime has in Ontario. Is it gambling? Is it drugs? Is it apartment buildings? Is it bakeries? What is it? How deep is it?

Why on earth, finally, can’t we get this out in the open? Other jurisdictions have gone into open public hearings and they seem to be starting to put some of these people away. Heaven only knows, there isn’t a member in this House who wouldn’t support some good strong action to put away those people who are involved in organized crime in our community.

We can’t grope around in the dark forever. We have to have some answers from the government as to how deeply involved this business is and what it is going to do about it. I don’t think it is good enough for us to have estimates every year where we get the same answers back to us when we ask these questions, and just be told: “That’s fine. Just sit there. Organized crime is well under hand.” We need some facts to back up that statement.

If the Solicitor General tells us that it is well under hand, that he’s got it under control and so on, let him give us some facts to back that up. And let him give us some substantive reason as to why we shouldn’t have a full public inquiry into this business and get it out into the open.

Perhaps the minister could address himself to some of those specific questions that I have asked as to the extent -- at least in Metro Toronto if he doesn’t know of other jurisdictions; but at least in Metro Toronto how deeply involved is organized crime in our city? And what kinds of businesses are they into? Does he know that they have strong connections or that they own apartment buildings, as I suspect they do, bakeries and laundries and other businesses?

Mr. Reid: Mr. Chairman, it is interesting to see that members on both sides of the House have similar thoughts in regard to organized crime. I would like to ask the minister some specific questions as well. I realize the difficulty that the minister has in dealing with this topic. I appreciate the fact that there has to be a certain amount of secrecy, I suppose, for want of a better word, in regard to the OPP’s intelligence unit in connection with the surveillance of organized crime.

The problem I have as a member of this House, however, is that for two or three years I have been talking about this matter, I have been pushed off with the response: “We have it under control. We know who the people are involved. It’s not as great a problem as you think. We can’t really give you any details because we don’t want to blow the investigations that are currently under way.”

That’s been going on for some time and, as my colleague has pointed out, we really don’t have any concept, at least as individual members of this House and certainly the public at large, as to just how deep the tentacles of organized crime go in the community of the province of Ontario.

[4:30]

I trust we won’t get into any argument about the definition of organized crime. The Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) in his statement of February 1, 1977, defined it as continuing illegal activity.

I understand there was a significant move a year or two ago, or perhaps even longer, when the motorcycle gangs took a large part of the drug trade away from other sections of organized crime which had been dealing with that particular business. We realize that when we talk about organized crime it’s not something as well organized in a sense of say the government of Ontario and so on; but there are various branches, various levels. As a matter of fact if they did operate like the government of Ontario we wouldn’t have organized crime, because they’d be out of business, there wouldn’t be any profit. Their own incompetence would do away with them.

About a year ago my secretary, knowing of my interest in this matter, gave me a book called the Canadian Connection which dealt primarily with the organized thug trade, mostly in the province of Quebec and the city of Montreal. But in that book there were many references to connections with Toronto, Hamilton and southern Ontario, by people involved in that particular aspect of organized crime.

As well there has been a well-researched article in Quest magazine. I happened to speak to some of the people who were involved with that and they indicated that the problem was much deeper and much larger than in fact the article indicated. We had the CBC, exposé I suppose is the word to use, in which there was apparently a lot of innuendo. Many people were smeared with guilt by association. But there seemed to be a steady pattern in all these books and articles and television documentaries that indicates that this problem is severe and that it reaches into almost every facet of life in the province.

My colleague was asking whether these people were involved in the ownership of apartment blocks or bakeries or pizza places, or in the trade labour unions. We had Justice Waisberg’s report some time ago, which seemed to indicate organized crime was involved with some of the labour unions. I think it’s really time we dealt with these matters and made the public aware.

This may be naive, but it’s naiveté based on ignorance because of lack of answers forthcoming from the government and those responsible for this particular responsibility.

The police are always complaining they don’t get enough support from the public at large. Here’s a case where the public doesn’t know what to do about it. If they have some information or some knowledge they might be prepared to come forward at a public hearing; on the other hand, of course, they may not.

I recall, we can’t say exactly “the disclosures,” that the former member from High Park (Mr. Shulman) made in the Legislature. With his usual unerring accuracy he was wrong on two or three occasions, which seemed, as usual, to wipe out any credibility he might have had on the things he was in fact right on; but there seemed to be enough there to indicate a very severe problem. I asked in January, through our research office, if any statistics were available on the number of convictions that were registered in the courts in the province of Ontario relating to organized crime.

As I understand this information was to be obtained from the Solicitor General and the Attorney General, and we were told at that time that neither the Attorney General nor the Solicitor General’s office kept track of convictions under the heading of being related to organized crime. However, on February 1, again of 1977, in the Attorney General’s statement, the gist of which was that there was no need this time for a public inquiry, he says, and I quote: “The senior police officials also stated that they had no difficulty in identifying major crime figures, but the problem was the gathering of sufficient evidence to arrest and convict such individuals. However, they also pointed out that the efforts of the task force had led to the arrest and conviction of at least 16 known members of organized crime in the Toronto area alone.”

There’s a number of questions related to this and I’ll make them specific.

Number one is, does the minister have specific statistics as to the number of convictions related to organized crime in the province of Ontario? Can he indicate the extent and in what particular areas organized crime is deeply involved?

In light of his statements and answers to me in the last year or so, and the Attorney General’s statement that they in fact know who are the people involved in organized crime but the problem is in gathering evidence, in this day and age, Mr. Chairman -- I hate to suggest this -- but do perhaps the OPP and the RCMP require new or modified laws in order to give them the ability to gather the evidence to convict people involved in the organized crime field?

Those are three or four specifics, Mr. Chairman, but I would just like to add a further one along the lines that have been laid out. Why have the Solicitor General and the Attorney General not seen fit to hold a public inquiry into this matter? Mr. Cohen, I believe, is the name of the counsel for the crime commission in Quebec. He was quoted in some of the local newspapers back in January, stating that Ontario should in fact also hold such an inquiry; that it would be beneficial.

The only real answer we’ve had is that the senior law official’s advice to both yourself and the Attorney General is that it would serve no purpose at this stage. I would be more inclined to accept that advice if I really knew the extent to which we were speaking.

I’d like to ask the Solicitor General one further question. In his estimate, and the estimate of the intelligence unit of the OPP, has in fact organized crime at all levels grown in the province of Ontario in the last five to 10 years, and has it grown significantly?

Mr. Samis: Mr. Chairman, my remarks will be rather brief. Following quite logically, actually, those of the member for Rainy River, I recall a mayor of a city in Canada who made a very brazen public statement: “Organized crime does not exist in this city.” He was totally opposed to the idea of a crime inquiry.

But that crime inquiry was set up in the city of Montreal, and it did study organized crime in the city of Montreal.

Some people would say, “Well, what did it accomplish?” Some people would say, “Nothing”; others would say look at the record. Certain people did end up in prison, not for the actual crime that they were allegedly charged with committing, but people like Cotroni were brought to public light; along with Dasti, the Bronfmans. And some of the loan-sharking going on in Montreal, some of the gambling operations, some of the prostitution operations, some of the drug operations were exposed. Somebody might argue, “Well the police knew about that anyway, that was nothing new.”

I think it’s extremely important in the field of organized crime that the public have some idea of what’s going on and not have to rely totally on magazines and the odd enterprising journalist like Jean-Pierre Charbonneau and his book.

I would suggest that the minister consider what the crime inquiry in Quebec has done in terms of public knowledge, public information, and a sense of public participation. You may say to a certain extent that when it was televised the way it was done it became dramatic and theatrical, and probably even somewhat of a circus.

The fact is that the people of Quebec did find out who were the chief perpetrators, organizers and master minds of organized crime. I recall some of the newspapers in Quebec, for example, had charts galore of the interlocking relationships between the businesses, the investments, the families and the gangs in Montreal. I think there’s a very worthwhile purpose if public knowledge and public perception is increased and the public demand to government, to the police force is that much greater. I would really love to hear the Solicitor General answer the direct questions put to him by my colleagues from Scarborough-Ellesmere and from Rainy River; I would love to hear him make the same declaration as the mayor of Montreal and then challenge him to have the same inquiry that disputed and disproved everything that the mayor of Montreal said. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Stong: This particular item was opened up to my colleague from Kitchener and my colleague from Brant-Oxford-Norfolk -- the matter of facilities. I would like to address the minister’s attention to two items: First, I was advised that the facilities for the OPP in Whitney were in worse condition than those described by my friend from Kitchener. I was given to understand that Whitney is serviced by four police officers on three shifts, which gives one police officer a shift off, or a day off; that the nearest police station is about 200 miles away and the communication is so lacking and so inadequate that the police officer has to leave the building to use the radio in his ear to summon help. I wonder if you could confirm that situation. It would seem that in Whitney not only is a police officer required to patrol the highways but also the OPP in that area is charged with the responsibility of criminal investigation as well, thereby jeopardizing the safety of the officers as well as creating inadequate supervision or service for the people in that area. I’m wondering if you could perhaps assist the House with respect to the situation as it exists in that area. Likewise, on the organized crime questions, I had asked earlier on this item with respect to the number of police officers involved in the detection and policing of organized crime from the OPP standpoint. I was advised there is a variable of 125 police officers, which I accept.

I’m also wondering -- and I asked at that time and I have no answer for it, although it follows along with what other members have spoken on, particularly the member for Rainy River. I appreciate that many of the matters of which we speak are confidential and ought not to be disclosed to the public for the reasons of security. However, because there is a variable figure of 125 police officers involved in organized crime, I wonder if the Solicitor General could give us statistics about what type of investigations those 125 officers have been involved in, and what kind of charges have been laid. I’m thinking also in terms of prostitution, and what segments of our business community have been scrutinized by this force of 125 police officers. I wonder if you could incorporate answers to those questions in the answers to the questions more specifically asked by other members.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: First of all to deal with the matter of accommodation. There are many detachments across the province for whom we would like to provide better accommodation. Part of this has been caused in that over the last three or four years, contrary to this year, we have had increased numbers of police officers serving throughout these various detachments. I know one up in Muskoka area, Huntsville, where I visited the other day; certainly they’re on shift work as far as using the lockers and things of this nature is concerned. We could go across the province and point out many places which are not as we would wish them. We put our requests in. The Ministry of Government Services is responsible for completing those requests. They supply the funds and give us the various buildings. As you know, they have some constraints on at the present time.

[4:45]

There may be one or two incidents where police services are suffering because of a lack of adequate housing and even facilities, as you mentioned -- perhaps in Whitney where you indicate, although I don’t know that that the radio communication is not what it should be. Certainly, the force itself is putting the pressure on me and I, in turn, am putting the pressure on the Minister of Government Services (Mr. McCague) to give us what I consider very important -- that is, a supply of better accommodation.

Specifically, my information in regard to Brantford and Kitchener -- Kitchener, of course, has a regional police force and the OPP there are simply doing highway patrol -- is that the need in Brantford far outweighs the need in Kitchener. So I’m sorry that it’s not the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk who has heard that reply rather than the member for Kitchener. You were having a slight argument with him about who has the highest priority; I’m afraid the member for Kitchener loses that argument.

Mr. Breithaupt: I’ll accept being second, Mr. Minister.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: All right, that’s fair enough. I don’t want to get anybody’s hopes too high but my note is that we are negotiating for land in Brantford today. I don’t think that necessarily means we’ll be negotiating in Kitchener tomorrow.

At any rate, we are aware of the Brantford situation and we do evidently have some funds for acquiring the land. Subsequently of course, we have to get approval for building the buildings. However, I’ve made note of Kitchener-Waterloo region and Whitney as well.

That comes around to this whole matter of organized crime. I did give a talk -- it was a hurried talk -- in the budget debate last April when I announced that we were receiving some additional $1¼ million to deal with this matter. I went into many of the matters that have been asked about today by many of the members. Not that I expect my speeches to go on record or be reviewed by the member for Dovercourt or any of these other places as great historical documents, but you say that I haven’t dealt with them; I certainly did mention many of the things and gave some of the answers that you’ve asked for today. I gave them at that time.

I’m not indicating to you that I am satisfied with the condition or the control of organized crime in this province. As I’ve said on many occasions, if any crime exists, whether it’s so-called organized crime, robbery or assaults of any nature, then the police are not satisfied with it nor am I satisfied with it. As long as we have any kind of crime I don’t think we as members of this House or the police can say it is under control. The fighting of crime of all sorts, organized or otherwise, is a continuing battle and I expect it will be a continuing battle. I don’t want to leave the impression that I am complacent about it and say that organized crime is under control.

You ask, how deep do the tentacles of organized crime go? I ask you, how long is a piece of string? If we knew how deep they went I suppose we would have all the evidence we needed to get all the convictions we would like to get. But I would also ask you how deep do they go in the province of Quebec or how deep do they go in any of the states in the United States where they say have had the kind of inquiry that some members urge this government to institute here.

I suggest that other than to parade a list of people whom we know and whom are already known in the other jurisdictions, little can or would be accomplished by this other than some kind of spectacle -- and I don’t want to be critical of Quebec but as one of the members admitted here today, the way it turned out to be in Quebec it was a bit of a circus.

As I’ve said many times, we have many people in this province whom we suspect of organized crime. You have asked for a definition of organized crime. I gave that definition last April. In my own words it is, “continuing activity of one or more people to commit breaches of the Criminal Code.” It’s much broader than some people would consider. I’m not singling out any one race or nationality because it affects all races -- it doesn’t depend on the matter of race. All people, all nationalities in part engage in this matter of organized crime.

Mr. Reid: That’s a very democratic outfit.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: It’s true. We could point to people or groups who, some suspect, are more involved than others, but that just isn’t the case. You even get Scottish people dealing in organized crime occasionally. I’m not going to tack it down in that way but will keep to the broader definition of organized crime.

Some of you are already taking offence at that reference. I see my deputy sitting back when I say that.

In any event, I don’t know how deep the tentacles of organized crime go. We’re flushing it out wherever we can, wherever we have any evidence or any indication that it exists. I’m suggesting to you organized crime in this province is not one, two, three the way it was in Quebec where they had a host of unsolved murders obviously connected with gangland slayings of one sort.

Mr. Samis: You’re drawing lots of parallels.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: We don’t have that situation here. I’m not waiting for murders to bring it forth.

Mr. Samis: Just bomb incidents.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Yes, we’ve had some bombings we’ve suspected are attached to organized crime and they are being investigated.

I would remind you again, a few convictions came out of the Quebec inquiries but those convictions were obtained through the Ontario courts and from evidence we had obtained prior to the inquiries. Out of the Quebec inquiry, all you had were a few convictions for contempt of court, and as I said before, that’s not the way I like to see justice done. I like justice to be done by good police work, by gathering evidence and laying formal charges. We have had some success in bringing to justice some of those people the papers and others would recognize as being attached to organized crime. There are many more we feel are operating here and whom we have under surveillance.

You ask what more could be done. The changes in electronic surveillance the Criminal Code permitted a while back have been a help. However, that can be a very costly and time-consuming way of gathering evidence and the more police do it that way, the more they realize nothing can substitute for the good old fact-finding kind of evidence, getting out there where the crime exists and getting factual evidence as opposed to recorded evidence of some sort or another. The amount of recording they do sometimes to get one little piece of evidence is pretty enormous and it’s very costly and time-consuming.

I don’t know whether we should be making any representations, but on the matter of what can be done, relating it to the situation in Ottawa at the present time, when warrants are obtained for a search, a search may be conducted without the knowledge of the person involved but, as you know, you must report that afterwards. I think that’s right and proper. The risk to do otherwise would probably be too great. But once you have reported the person upon whom the warrant has been issued, the case is blown and you can’t carry on the same investigation. In other words, you get a warrant to search, but you don’t find what you’re looking for. The fact you are making the search is then brought to light and that ends the operation at that time.

The risk in allowing these searches to go on without disclosure is too great, but that is the kind of delicate path we have to travel when we’re considering what can or cannot be done in the interests of bringing some of these people to justice, at the same time, protecting the rights all of us want to continue to enjoy, and in fact should enjoy.

Let me be a little more specific. The force occupies approximately 90 per cent of the buildings -- No, that was not what I was looking for, that was accommodation. I will give you that, too, if you want it.

Mr. Breaugh: That is almost as bad as his giving his speech to the wrong audience.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I will give you the speech because you were asking about it. Maybe you would like it, but it has to do with the matter of accommodation and where some of our problems were. But I think in the interest of brevity, I will move over to what I wanted, organized crime.

When we speak of organized crime, we do not refer to the Mafia or the Cosa Nostra type of families which exist in 28 major cities in the United States. Organized crime, in our terms, refers to all aspects of major organized criminals; in other words, crime that is organized. The main concerns of crime in Ontario today, according to the Ontario Provincial Police intelligence and other major police force intelligence agencies, are the following. By the way, you were asking me to list some of them and I listed these in my chat back in April.

Loan sharking -- I think is one of the most serious -- along with gambling, fraud, drugs, infiltration of legitimate businesses and pornography. The order in which the aforementioned appear does not reflect the order of importance.

Loan sharking -- we all acknowledge that loan sharking is one of the major moneymaking schemes of the criminal element. Spinoff crimes from loan sharking have been, and still are, responsible for many other crimes, such as bombings, beatings, business take-overs, bankruptcies, thefts, drugs, murders and so on.

Gambling -- this source of revenue for criminals is quite prevalent in the Toronto, Ottawa and Niagara Falls area. I am using the words “quite prevalent” so that I am in no way being complacent about it. The OPP and major police forces are continually bringing in people before the courts on charges relating to book-making, et cetera. One may rest assured that organized crime is behind all major gambling within the province.

Frauds -- many types of frauds have been exposed recently. This could include welfare, unemployment insurance, OHIP, large scale real estate and so on. Frauds on elderly people, whether it be the so-called bank inspector fraud or the aluminum siding fraud, are of main concern to this branch. A fraud pertaining to OHIP was recently uncovered. This involved people visiting Italy, returning to Canada with large amounts of medical bills supposedly paid by them while in Italy and submitted to OHIP.

Drugs -- the drug situation in Ontario is no different than in other areas in Canada. Ontario, like the rest of Canada, could be considered a victim country for hard thugs, such as heroin, cocaine, et cetera. These are being brought through Canada for distribution to the United States. Controlled drugs such as methamphetamine, or speed, are unfortunately mostly manufactured in Ontario and distributed throughout North America. The largest percentage of this drug imported into the United States is manufactured in Ontario. Several clandestine labs have been discovered in Ontario during the last year, which indicates a multi-million dollar business. We find members of outlaw motorcycle clubs involved in almost all cases.

Infiltration of legitimate business -- organized crime involved in legitimate business in Canada is considerable, and Ontario is no exception. These businesses could include hotels, motels, night clubs, restaurants, bakeries, garbage companies, manufacturing companies, distributor outlets and many more.

What happens in most, if not all cases, is that after penetrating a legitimate enterprise, it is operated in an illegal manner. Competitors are intimidated. Stolen merchandise is purchased at cut-rate prices for resale. Employees are paid less than union wages, and so on. Organized crime subjects involved in this area keep themselves well insulated from the law. The legitimate business interests impart respectability and social standing within the community. Investment in legitimate businesses offers the best area to convert “dirty” money into “clean” money.

Pornography -- the distribution of pornographic materials, such as books, films, et cetera, is forever on the increase. This is probably due to the permissive society we live in whereby everything from advertising to movies at the local theatre is sex-oriented. Most of this material is manufactured in the United States and smuggled into Ontario.

This is by no stretch of the imagination a complete description of organized crime activities in Ontario and Canada, but perhaps it is sufficient to point out the seriousness of the problem.

[5:00]

It has been said that organized crime is the most sinister form of crime. Some of those involved have become rich and powerful by encouraging the needy to gamble; by luring the troubled and misguided to destroy themselves with drugs; by extorting the profits of honest business people; by collecting usury from those in financial difficulties; by injuring, or even murdering, those who oppose them; by bribing those who are sworn to destroy them.

Organized crime is not merely a few preying upon a few. In a very real sense it is capable of subverting not only Canadian institutions, but the very decency and integrity that are the most cherished attributes of a free society. I think when I read that to you, you can’t say that either I or the police take organized crime lightly.

I have said on two or three occasions in this House, and certainly outside the House, that if the police of this province advised the Attorney General or myself, or both of us, that a public investigation would help them in their inquiries -- would help them to produce the evidence that they cannot get otherwise -- then we will certainly take it under serious consideration. My concern would be that it would be a kind of Star Chamber court which I think most of us here would have great trepidation in entering. But I think if the situation was so bad that the police were recommending it, then there might be reason for taking that extreme measure.

I don’t feel that we are at that at this point, nor do the police who are advising me; and that is not just the commissioner of the OPP but also the major metropolitan forces as well as the local commissioner of the RCMP. All of them at the present time advise against an inquiry.

Any recommendations for an inquiry have come from newspaper writers and people of that nature. I recognize their legitimate concern in wanting the public to know what is involved in organized crime. At the same time I think some of them have a motive to bring undue publicity to this matter, in that it will make a few great headlines for the length of time this inquiry lasts. It might be nice to oblige them in that respect, but our concern, and the concern of the police, is that this would do more harm to the quiet and successful work the police of this province have been doing, than the benefit we would gain by such an inquiry.

Mr. Reid: I appreciate the remarks the Solicitor General has made, but I wonder if he could specifically answer a couple of questions. First, is there any evidence or do you have any information as to organized crime being involved in labour racketeering? Second, would you answer the question that I asked you before -- in the opinion of the OPP intelligence unit, has organized crime been on the increase in the province of Ontario? By that I mean: One, are there more people involved in it? Two, are they into more areas of concern than they were before? And three, has the sheer volume of dollars that they are milking the public of gone up substantially in the last few years?

I am not trying to be provocative about this, but there is something that I have read about when Robert Kennedy was the Attorney General in the United States. He built his reputation to some extent on attacking or getting at organized crime. He built his reputation somewhat as the Attorney General in the province of Ontario has built his, in making headlines but not really doing much of substance.

In one of the statements of the former US Attorney General, he said that organized crime could not flourish in any community without the active knowledge of corrupt politicians and/or corrupt police. That’s a very provocative statement. I appreciate it has a lot of potential for attacks on people, on our politicians -- which we, of course, in this chamber are -- and on our various police forces. But it was an interesting comment and it is one that sticks in my mind.

I wonder if the Solicitor General could also comment on that -- if he feels that organized crime in fact can exist in an atmosphere, not necessarily where the police or the politicians are winking at it, but where the public at large seems to look upon it, particularly some aspects, such as gambling which the minister mentioned as an example. A lot of people do not really look upon the numbers games or betting two bucks on the horses, or whatever, as organized crime. In fact, they tend to look upon these people as providing a much-needed social service.

I would be interested in the Solicitor General’s remarks about the ability of organized crime to flourish under the circumstances of corrupt politicians and corrupt policemen.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I am sorry, I didn’t make proper note of all of the questions the member for Rainy River asked me.

First of all, to deal with the matter of the quotation by Robert Kennedy, I think he had three factors: Corrupt politicians; corrupt police; and corrupt courts. I am pleased to make my affirmation that we have none of those here in Ontario.

Having admitted that we have organized crime, you may suggest then that there is some inconsistency with the statement of Kennedy and myself when I say that we have none of those factors here. I think the word may be “flourish” -- that organized crime flourishes under those situations. I honestly don’t believe that organized crime is flourishing in this province. It is certainly doing its best because where there is easy money involved that is where they come in. I talked about pornography and loan sharking and prostitution and that is where there is easy money. And that is certainly where they are ready to pounce.

But because our police have made it difficult for them, I suggest to you that organized crime does not flourish in our provincial setting, but we must be always vigilant to make sure that it doesn’t. Certainly if we have corrupt politicians or corrupt police or corrupt courts that is exactly what they are looking for and it too would be a sad day for this province if that happens.

Labour racketeering -- the Waisberg inquiry went into the possibility of organized crime in labour and could not come up with any conclusive evidence. Then the answer is probably the answer that the commissioner gave to me -- that it is difficult to say whether -- no, that is the next matter, the increase of crime. All I have to say in regard to labour organization is that it may be there but the Waisberg inquiry could not come up with any kind of evidence. That is an example of an inquiry that really sort of suggested things, but didn’t produce the evidence that was necessary to get convictions. It didn’t come up with enough evidence in the way of organized crime to get any convictions from it.

In the matter of whether organized crime is increasing or not, the commissioner tells me that it is difficult to measure this, to say, “Yes, we are,” or, “No, we aren’t.” In my mind, and I am just speaking my own personal thoughts here, perhaps organized crime is a little more intense than it was five years ago. but I think probably not as bad as it might have been one or two years ago. That is because we are putting more emphasis on it. We have joint force operations now -- we have always had them, but we have more of them now, and they are better manned. We may be critical of the RCMP putting more people into the province, but drugs is very much involved and drugs as I have related is an international matter. I know you are concerned with the traffic back and forth across the river at that point in the Rainy River area. So I am pleased to have the help of the RCMP when it comes to organized crime and the matter of drugs.

We have had more concentration on organized crime in the last two or three years, not only by the OPP, but by the Metropolitan Toronto force and by other municipal forces and of course by the RCMP as well.

Because of the emphasis in the last two or three years, organized crime is less in existence today than it was two or three years ago. Yet, when I ask the commissioner in a whisper for his comments on it, he says it’s difficult to say because there is no good measurement. That must be my official answer -- difficult to say because there is no good measurement.

Mr. Reid: I wonder if I could ask --

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: You have another question. That may be the one I haven’t gotten down to.

Mr. Reid: I just have one question which would wrap up my thoughts on the subject. The logical conclusion is that the estimate is up by $1 million; my question is this: Do you feel that you have enough money by way of funds, and therefore personnel, to deal with this problem which, while we can’t seem to quantify it, seems to be a major problem in Ontario? I want to assure the Solicitor General that if, in fact, he needs more money and more personnel, I for one will be ready and willing to vote more funds for this particular vote to see that this matter is taken care of.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: That’s an embarrassing question to ask me in front of all the senior police personnel here today. My answer is I would like more funds to look after the OPP of this province and other policing commitments.

We talked about the need for better accommodation. I have a very expensive updating of our communications system that I would like to put before the cabinet and eventually get approval for. We know we talked in this House about the possibility of letting certain staff go. Thank goodness, we decided against that. We have some restrictions on our recruiting of new officers. Many of the municipal forces across the province would like more. I’d like to be able to do more for the Indian constables, and recruit more of them. Certainly the northern detachments would like more personnel. But I’m a part of the government and, as a part of the government, I realize our overall commitment to trying to balance our budget. Sometimes, as Provincial Secretary for Justice, naturally I would like to see more money spent in the justice field.

The Justice field, if you look at the overall expenditures of this government, takes a very small proportion. I think about four per cent of the expenditures of the government are spent in the Justice field. So, we in Justice did not get the rapid expansion of our budgets a few years ago, as Social Services did. Now, when there are restraints applied on an across-the-board basis we feel that maybe we are hit a little harder than some of the other fields.

But, those of you in the House who are looking at the Social Services field, I don’t think would say that we should cut back in what we’re doing in the Social Services field for hospitalization or for retarded children or whatever it may be, so that the police can have more money.

Representing the Justice field and representing the Solicitor General, I am saying that I am not satisfied with the funds we are getting. But when I look at the problems of the government in balancing our budget, I say I think we’ve got our fair proportion.

Mr. Lupusella: A royal commission inquiry into organized crime is out of the question unless the Solicitor General receives future information from the police force that indicates that such a royal commission inquiry is required. As I asked in my previous speech, is there any way that the Solicitor General can undertake that particular task by requesting from the police force that a preliminary report into organized crime be prepared in order that in six, seven, or eight months’ time this preliminary report will be tabled in the Legislature?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I’m getting reports on a weekly basis. When I say that I don’t mean any formalized reports, but every time I speak to the commissioner, and that’s quite frequently, or any of the other heads of police forces across the province, we talk about these things. You ask if I’m going to get any specific reports; I say I am getting reports on an almost weekly basis from somebody in regard to the state of organized crime in the province.

[5:15]

I don’t know what I can tell you about anything more, other than to mention names of people charged and convictions that have been obtained. I have certainly not minimized the effect of organized crime here in the province. I don’t know what they know about organized crime in Quebec where they had an inquiry that we don’t know here.

Mr. Samis: The public in Quebec know a lot more than we do.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I am not so sure they do. All they have is a list of people who are suspected in dealing in underworld activities of one sort or another. I don’t know whether that has made Quebec any less healthy for organized crime and any safer for the good citizens; this is the question. I say the convictions for organized crime have been obtained here in this province, not in the province of Quebec where the inquiry was held. The evidence was gathered here and the courts here obtained the convictions.

I don’t know what we can tell you that you don’t already know about it. You ask if I will give you a report in six months’ time. I am always happy to tell what I can to the House, but short of giving you a rundown on the evidence that is presently being obtained and the investigations that are under way -- which I am sure you don’t want me to do nor would it be in the interests of what we are all seeking -- I don’t know what more I can do.

Mr. Lupusella: We are not interested in the names. We are not interested in the evidence. What I am requesting of the Solicitor General is an overall review of the activities of organized crime in the province of Ontario, especially in relation to any particular sector in which organized crime is eradicated and the percentage of people who have been charged with particular crimes committed in that field.

What I am requesting is a preliminary report on the overall situation of organized crime -- organized crime in capital letters, not just about robberies or other things, which, of course, the Solicitor General might give us from time to time.

Organized crime is something which is there. I am sure that the Solicitor General and the different branches of his ministry are trying to discover really what is going on in the underground world of organized crime. Of course, we don’t have the information and the Solicitor General, in a very thoughtful way, is coming out with this overall situation report about organized crime. By his tabling a report in the Legislature in six or seven months, then I am sure the members will be able to gain a general assessment of how serious the problem is in the province of Ontario and in Metropolitan Toronto. Then the public, at least, is going to find out what is really going on in their community.

Of course, the Solicitor General is getting weekly information from the police force related to organized crime. Actually we hear something about organized crime either from the newspaper, or at the end of the fiscal year when we are dealing with the estimates. But I am talking about a general, overall review of organized crime, with a full report about those particular activities taking place in different sectors of our society; it is something which we require in order that members of the Legislature can assess the seriousness of the problem in the province of Ontario.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: My friend is again being general and he wants me to be specific. If he will tell me, first of all what kind of crimes he wants reported, if he will give me a summary of the kind of information he wants rather than just sit back there and say “give me a report on organized crime in the province,” then I will try and do just that. But first of all he’s got to tell me what kind of crimes he wants included in this; a list of what kind of convictions. If I knew certain people were engaged in organized crime then the police would know about it and they would be following that up with that kind of evidence.

I tell you it’s very dangerous to try to give you names. I could give you a list of names where charges have been laid and some convictions have been obtained. But some of those are presently under appeal. If you will give me a guideline as to what you want, then I will study that guideline and try to get those reports from the police.

But remember this. Prostitution, for example is one of the serious things that organized crime is engaged in, but not every conviction for prostitution is organized crime. That goes all the way through the statistics that I might give you. If you will give me the guidelines as to what you want instead of talking in generalized terms as you’ve done throughout these estimates, and tell me specifically, “this is the kind of information I want, this is the definition of organized crime that I want to include,” if you’ll be helpful to me in that way, I’ll try to be helpful in return and give you the kind of report you’re suggesting.

Mr. Lupusella: If I had the guidelines I would not request that information from the Solicitor General. One point I want to emphasize is that I felt really disturbed about the CBC program on organized crime. I think the public felt disturbed as well to know there are certain activities going on in the province of Ontario and around Canada in relation to organized crime.

Of course I’m not interested in names. That is something which the court of law and the Attorney General and the Solicitor General and the police force are supposed to be interested in. There is this kind of general sense that organized crime is going on in the province of Ontario.

I gave the example of the CBC program. I was shocked about that program. I think the public was shocked as well. We don’t know what is going on and it is this kind of assessment for the province of Ontario, that will be beneficial to the public and it will be beneficial to the members of this Legislature to assess the seriousness of the problem.

Mr. Stong: There are three questions that I’d like to ask the minister as a result of statements he has made.

Firstly, with respect to the CBC program, did that program bring any new information to the police, the OPP or the Metropolitan Toronto police that they were unaware of prior to watching it on television? Have any specific investigations been initiated or conducted as a result of information that was brought to the attention of the public arising out of that program?

I wonder if the minister can also advise the House -- you’ve indicated or designated certain areas where organized crime is being investigated, such as bookmaking, fraud, and other areas like that -- how many investigations have been frustrated, or charges not laid or how many court cases were lost because of the refusal of witnesses to testify or to co-operate with the police out of fear of retaliation of some sort?

I’m wondering as well if he could advise with respect to the administration of justice and the amount of money that’s ploughed into the administration of justice, what percentage of the fines that are levied in the province of Ontario are returned into, or ploughed into, the financing of the administration of justice?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: My information with regard to the CBC -- and the commissioner was just confirming it on a little broader basis -- was that no, there were no new names brought forward in the CBC program that we here in the Ontario jurisdiction didn’t know were operating, or allegedly operating, in Ontario. The additional information the commissioner has given me is as a member of the Canadian police chiefs’ association and in talking with other chiefs, it appears the program brought forth no names new to them either.

That is maybe the kind of publicity the member for Dovercourt would like me to give to this matter of organized crime. But that program, although it may have stirred up a fair amount of interest among the public, accomplished little. It dealt with this matter of innuendoes about which we’ve got to be very careful and it made some innuendoes. I understand there were no names brought forward and no additional investigations carried on, by reason of that program.

Mr. Stong: Did that program interfere with any of the investigations being conducted?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: The commissioner tells me no, it was mostly past history, so I can’t say it did any damage other than perhaps to the characters of some people who may or may not be involved.

I have no figures on the number frustrated because of refusal of the witnesses to testify. I don't know whether that would be easy to compile or not. I’ll make some inquiries in connection with it. I think it’s a good question, particularly when we’re dealing with organized crime. I understand one of the reasons they have trouble getting the evidence they need is the fear of reprisals. The commissioner doesn’t know of those figures being presently available, but I will try to get them because I think they could be very useful to us.

Mr. Stong: I wonder if you would share them with me as well.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I would be glad to.

Mr. Stong: Thank you. With respect to the amount of money levied by fines in Ontario, how much is ploughed back into the administration of justice? Perhaps we should increase the fines if there is a fair amount.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: They go back, as I understand it, to the consolidated revenue fund through the Attorney General and I don’t have that information. The Attorney General’s estimates are coming up, as you know, maybe later this evening if you’re through with me, and that’s a question he may be able to answer for you.

The Treasurer, I guess, is really the person who would have that information because I don’t think they go to the Attorney General’s ministry as such, but back into the consolidated revenue fund. But he may have a pretty good idea, since it’s administration of the courts.

Mr. Kerrio: Help Darcy balance the budget.

Mr. Stong: I take it then, that the minister is not in a position to advise me as to what percentage of that goes back into the administration of justice at this time. Is there any way that he could find out?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I don’t think any of it goes back. Some of the municipalities get fines for speeding and that sort of thing -- breaches of their municipal bylaws which go back into their coffers. On a provincial basis all you would have to do is take any particular part of the administration of justice see what the revenue from fines is and get your percentages that way. But we don’t look at it in that sense.

Mr. Warner: In an effort to be finished with the minister, as he puts it, I’d like to state, before I begin, that I have found this minister to be one of the most co-operative ministers in the Legislature.

(Applause.)

Mr. Warner: And the Minister of Revenue should applaud. He is one of the most sincere and well-meaning people, who tries to run the affairs over there in a very straightforward way.

Mr. Stong: Having said that.

Mr. Warner: But I’ll tell you, Mr. Chairman, I am very disturbed with the answers I got to my questions. For a long time this whole business of organized crime and the questions related to it as raised by opposition members has been somehow sacrosanct. It’s always appeared we should trust what the government has to say about the issue because everyone knows all of us are trying to eradicate crime of all sorts, whether it’s organized or not. Raising questions suddenly clouds the whole thing. Suddenly it casts a shadow upon the opposition members. I find that very disturbing.

[5:30]

For a long time we were told to trust that there wasn’t any organized crime in Ontario; it just didn’t exist. That was a government line for a long time: “It doesn’t exist. It’s not there.” We move on a bit and the government finally admits, “Yes, it is there but trust that we have it under control.” Today I’m told: “Yes, it’s in those sort of broad areas but trust that if I gave you any more details on it, it would hamper our work.”

I submit that it is a responsibility of the government of the day to inform the citizens as to what they can expect in terms of peace and security and what they can expect in terms of their daily lives. The Solicitor General used the example of prostitution. He said some of the convictions in prostitution were related to organized crime while others weren’t. Very simply, perhaps he could in- dictate how extensive it is. Are we talking in terms that out of every five convictions the police are assured that one, two or three of them are connected with organized crime; that a portion of the money which those women are receiving is going back to organized crime? We want to know the extent of it.

When I ask the question about the control of apartment buildings in Metro Toronto, I’m not asking the Solicitor General to name those particular buildings but simply to indicate the police estimate that out of X units in Metro Toronto, a percentage of them are controlled or partially controlled by organized crime; that the police estimate that out of X bakeries in the city, so many of them are controlled; that we have some idea of what kind of money we’re talking about that finds its way into the hands of organized crime.

Surely by raising those questions we are doing nothing more than trying to assist the public by trying to give the public the kind of information which surely they deserve. I take those questions to be nothing more than that. The government surely has to move away from this position of implying some sort of shadow over all of us that we’re not dealing with things in good faith or that we’re seeking headlines or whatever. It simply isn’t fair. We need some of those answers.

The public surely is entitled to know the extent of organized crime in our community and the amount of money we’re spending on it. The public now knows how much money the police are spending; that’s what these estimates are all about. We’re spending millions and millions of dollars and not knowing what we’re getting back. We don’t know what we’re getting back for that expenditure. We don’t know how many members of organized crime are being locked up, how many are under surveillance or how extensive their business is.

Finally, I would like a little more definition from the minister. I cannot quite so blithely dismiss, as he does, although I wish to believe it, the business that was raised by the member for Rainy River. Obviously every one of us would like to believe there is no corruption whatsoever throughout our entire political system, our courts and our police. But how can anyone just blithely toss that out without giving us any sort of definition, without indicating whether or not those three avenues are under any sort of surveillance? How do we know that the police are not given to any corruption? How do we know that there’s no corruption in our court system?

The CBC program would indicate to us that organized crime is flourishing better now than it ever did. If so, there must be a reason for it. But the Solicitor General is telling us, whatever the reason is, that it is not embodied in either the court system, the police system or the political system. If that’s the statement he’s going to make, I think he should have some hard evidence to back that up, instead of just making a statement, which again we’re all being asked to trust, that we should trust the statement that’s thrown out. Well, that’s not good enough.

It’s not because of any doubt in your integrity; not in the least. It’s simply a concern that we have to have all of the facts, not just a few statements, because we’ve gone along for far too long trusting. We trusted for ages that there was no organized crime in Ontario, only to discover that that wasn’t so. Now we discover, through the CBC, thank goodness, and a few other places, that organized crime is not only alive but it’s doing quite well in Ontario and seems to be flourishing all the more. If you’re going to fight it with the millions of dollars we grant then, please, tell us how the money is being used.

I think the member for Dovercourt had an excellent suggestion of coming in with a report a few months from now with some real details as to what percentage of the apartment market is controlled and how much money that’s loaned out through agencies to individuals is actually organized crime money -- all of those details which we desperately need and the people of Ontario are entitled to.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: How could I give those details? If the police had them we’d be glad to give them, but you want to know how much money is lent out. Think of how practical that suggestion is. How in the world will we know how much money is lent out in organized crime unless we have convicted everybody who is engaged in organized crime in this province and have an examination of their books, so we can say, “Yes, we have convicted all the people who are engaged in organized crime. We know everybody who’s there. Here’s a list, here’s their books and here’s how much money?”

That is the kind of statistics you want me to produce. You can’t produce statistics on suspicion or on incomplete knowledge. As I say, we can give you statistics on the number of convictions in any kind of crime that you want, pretty well -- those statistics have been brought under question -- but you’re asking me for facts on things that aren’t necessarily all known. That’s why I said to the member for Dovercourt -- and I want to be co-operative -- if he can give me the kind of report that he wants, as one of the opposition critics, I’ll be glad to try to give him that information, but to just make statements in the air, as you’ve just made, that we should know what percentage of dollars is involved in such and such -- if we knew that information they’d all be in jail.

It’s like asking me to tell you how many murders are going to take place in Toronto tomorrow. We don’t know those figures, and we can’t tell you that until after convictions have been registered. You say I’m putting the opposition under a shadow, maybe you’re putting the Solicitor General and the government under a shadow in suggesting all of these things.

If you will give me the kind of details you want -- you’ve just made one suggestion and I hope your other suggestions would be a little more practical -- we’ll try and give you that information. Remember, I can’t do it on the basis of suspicion. Simply because we’ve got 10 people under surveillance on suspicion of being involved in organized crime, I can do very little about that until we get convictions. If we knew what apartment building or what bakeries or anything else were actively in this business then I would hope that we would have moved in on them by that time and that they would be statistics of convictions rather than statistics of suspicions.

Dealing with the matter of courts, politicians and police, I said that those conditions did not exist which would allow organized crime to flourish. I’m not saying that we don’t have the odd bad politician or the odd bad police officer or the odd bad judge who gets into difficulty from time to time, but generally speaking, the police, the politicians and the courts of this land are not a part of organized crime. We have, as I say, the odd isolated incident, but the conditions don’t exist in those three bodies that in any way allow organized crime to flourish or even happen in this province.

Ms. Bryden: I’d like to ask the minister if he has studied the report which was prepared by some Toronto aldermen on the places of amusement and the adult entertainment industry in the city of Toronto, particularly the problems with the so-called sin strip on Yonge Street?

I understand the writers of this report felt there probably was a connection between organized crime and what was going on in the sin-strip but they did not have the powers or the opportunity within their terms of reference to establish whether there was a connection and, therefore, they asked for a royal commission on organized crime as the only way of finding this out. This is a very serious problem in the biggest city in the province. When that city in a report which was adopted by council asks for a royal commission, it should carry a good deal of weight with the government.

The other thing the report recommended very strongly is enabling legislation from the province to permit them to cope with the situation on Yonge Street in a much better way. I wonder if the minister has studied that report as to the kind of enabling legislation they would like and whether he is prepared to support the introduction of enabling legislation which would come, I understand, through the Attorney General’s ministry.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: In reply to the last question first; yes, if there’s anything that the provincial government can do to make it easier for the police of Metropolitan Toronto to control the situation on Yonge Street, I’ll be glad to support it. However, as you know and as I know, morality is a matter of the criminal law. We always come back to this point. When we suggest some changes that may be made to the criminal law, such as loitering charges, then we run afoul of the civil liberties people.

I’m prepared to support whatever we can do within our own field to help to clean up Yonge Street. The majority of the problems there deal with the criminal law and we’ve been running afoul, in suggesting changes there, with some of the other principles that we’re all concerned about.

When you talk of the Sparrow report, I saw it and read it. At that time they were asking for changes, again at the provincial level, when as subsequent events showed they had all the power they needed to clean up Yonge Street. They’ve done a pretty good job, since that tragic incident, of cleaning up Yonge Street. In Metro they have one of the best, if not necessarily the best, police forces in North America. It needs public support and it needs the support of the politicians to do some of this cleanup. But when the Metro police were instructed to go to work on Yonge Street they did. It was public opinion that allowed them to make the changes and do what they have done.

I don’t know if there’s anything very much in the Sparrow report where we can help at the present time, but if there is I’d be certainly glad to support it

Ms. Bryden: The minister said the city of Toronto had discovered they had sufficient legislation to clean up Yonge Street. They have since found they cannot control the location of the sex shops which were previously there until they get enabling legislation because of the non-conforming use under the zoning laws.

The neighbourhoods committee last week asked the Minister of Housing (Mr. Rhodes) to bring in such an amendment. I understand the Minister of Housing has written them and said that until the province produced a white paper on the problem he would not consider enabling legislation. There’s one area where enabling legislation is needed and where the province appears to be dragging its feet. We’ve had no word as to when this white paper may come out.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I think there’s more involved than that would suggest, Mr. Chairman.

Item 1 agreed to.

On item 2, law enforcement -- uniform:

Mr. G. E. Smith: I’d like to speak on this item and ask the Solicitor General one or two questions. This deals with uniformed law enforcement, as I understand. I would like to say from personal experience that I know about the efficiency of the officers in the Muskoka area and also in the Barrie detachment.

[5:45]

I would like to ask the Solicitor General a question as to summer patrols on the water and traffic patrols on highways. I note that the vote is up almost $1 million. I would hope that some of the extra funding would provide additional staff to deal, at least on a seasonal basis, with traffic patrol and, more particularly, water traffic patrol. As the minister is aware, the RCMP has been gradually phasing out of the water patrol and this has been turned over to the Ontario Provincial Police.

I have mentioned this before in previous estimates when they have been debated, recommending that there should be more money spent for equipment. I am aware that there have been additional boats and equipment purchased, it is available, and I would hope that you, Mr. Minister, could give me and the members of the Legislature and the people in the area that I represent some assurance that additional personnel will be made available.

As the minister is no doubt aware, the boat traffic has increased, not only the pleasure boat traffic but more and more there are people buying large cruisers and using them as their summer homes rather than cottages. The lake traffic is increasing, not only from transient tourists, American tourists coming through, but also the local people, the residents of Canada and the residents of Ontario are using the waterways, the Trent-Severn in particular, and Georgian Bay. I am wondering if you could give us some assurance that this extra money will be made available for some additional staff to complement the existing staff in the area?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Chairman, I regret to say that we don’t have any of our additional money planned to go into that marine surveillance. I do, however, hope to have a chat with the commissioner of the RCMP shortly on some of our overlapping responsibilities. I regret that the RCMP has vacated as much as it has the problem of looking after our waterways. I used to consider that that was one of theirs, but they seem to be happy to leave that one to us.

At the present time we do have 12 launches and 61 skiffs. During 1976 we logged 9,369 hours and had 219 trained personnel man these watercraft during the boating season. So we do have an extensive water service being carried on by the OPP. Regretfully, we cannot catch all of those who speed on the rivers and lakes. I think we have a reasonable coverage for safety reasons. If there are any of those kinds of emergencies, I think we are there in most places fairly quickly, but it leaves something to be desired. When we get a little more money I hope we will be able to put more into it, but in the meantime I hope to get the RCMP doing a little more in that field.

Mr. G. E. Smith: Mr. Minister, I am pleased that you are going to co-ordinate with the RCMP. Again, may I say that my criticism is not as to the work that the water patrol are doing; the officers who are manning the physical units are doing an excellent job, it is just that we don’t have enough of them on the waters.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I could refer to one particular matter with respect to this item. I regret that the time is quite brief, because it seems really unfortunate that we should not have the opportunity to talk at length about the involvement that we have in the Ontario Provincial Police, which I believe, in the uniformed law enforcement area, is probably one of the finest forces in the world.

There is one point, though, that was raised by a constituent of mine, particularly with respect to enforcement, that I would like to share with the Solicitor General. The matter that he raised dealt with the general dealing with motor vehicles, particularly large trucks, that appear to be able to exceed the speed limits, perhaps as a result of their CB radios and also, of course, as a result of the difficulty of having all of the highways fully patrolled all at the same time.

This gentleman suggested to me one particular item which may be of interest to the Solicitor General, and that is the use of unmanned television cameras on various overpasses, which might be a useful factor in controlling traffic flow. I realize this might be considered by some to be perhaps an invasion of their privacy, and it might be, of course, objectionable for that reason. However, I do bring this particular point to the attention of the Solicitor General because it would appear that this would be a form of deterrent.

These portable units, which perhaps could be affixed in some manner in a secure way to various highway overpasses, might have some effect in slowing down some of the exceptional traffic which causes difficulties. There have been problems with respect to some of the heavier transport trucks. This might be something which would be of use to bring down overall costs, that is in effect to have a form of patrol which would be of use and of assistance to the uniformed personnel.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I know that speeding trucks and speeders of all kinds continue to be a concern to the police. Recently we lowered the speed limits, some 10 miles-per-hour generally speaking, and I understand the public have come to adopt about five miles of the 10-mile reduction. In other words, instead of travelling 10 miles slower, the average speed now is only five miles slower; it requires more enforcement, there is no question on that. Yet this past year, or since the speeds have been lowered, we have issued some 50 per cent, or thereabouts, more speeding tickets than were issued in previous years. We have 50 per cent more tickets issued, or thereabouts, and the speeders have come down some five per cent.

Large trucks continue to be a problem to us, for various reasons. I know there are some very sophisticated equipment to take pictures of traffic movements and even show the licence plate. However, you know our problem. We have to stop the driver and identify the driver, we can’t just do it on the plate alone; but maybe the existence of a few cameras of that nature might have a good effect, so I will take it up further with the commissioners.

Item 2 agreed to.

Items 3 and 4 agreed to.

On item 5, registration:

Mr. Stong: On this particular item dealing with private investigators and security guards, I understand that the private investigators and security guards were in to see the minister recently with respect to their recommendations on the legislation that’s involved in this. I am wondering if he agrees with them and their observations and what they would like to see incorporated into that area of the law? They had some good suggestions. I am wondering how many of those the minister is prepared to incorporate into the Act?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: We have had rather a continuing discussion with them. They were in to see me some time ago and some individuals have been in as well. I understand just recently they spoke to Mr. Ritchie, who is our legal counsel in the ministry. I haven’t had a report from Mr. Ritchie as to what they may have discussed with him at that time.

Generally speaking, I know that many of the suggestions they have made, both to me and to Mr. Ritchie on previous occasions, are already in our draft legislation which will come forward when we have an opportunity to introduce it; but I don’t know how much of their recent suggestions are incorporated.

Mr. Stong: Having spoken with one of the spokesmen of that group, I was given to understand their most recent meeting with the ministry, which was last week, probably was not too fruitful and was not really what they had expected. I am not sure they didn’t get a good hearing but they felt their suggestions were not being received. I suppose that’s the report you are not familiar with, and I wonder if you would familiarize yourself with that? It seems to me, without going into the specifics in these estimates, that they do have some very good suggestions and they are very concerned about it. I would like to have some undertaking that they at least will be consulted on a regular basis before the legislation is amended or introduced.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Chairman, I am glad to give that undertaking.

Item 5 agreed to.

On item 6, Ontario Provincial Police auxiliary:

Mr. Breithaupt: I recognize we just have a few moments left, but I certainly feel that some comment should be made with respect to the operation of the OPP auxiliary. The estimates of this ministry are almost $147 million, and I think we should recognize that in this particular sub-vote we are spending less than one out of every $1,000 in your ministry in an area where I believe you are getting the best value for any money which your entire ministry spends.

I think the operation of these various auxiliary units, particularly I might say in my own Kitchener-Waterloo area, has been an exceptional credit to this program. These volunteers have been of great use in assisting police forces, not only the OPP but also on occasion the municipal forces with respect to various public events. They are active, involved men and women, and I think that they should be given the credit they deserve and certainly the support of the members of this House.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I thank the member for those kind words. I endorse everything he has said. The auxiliary force is an excellent force. It does give good service and certainly it is a volunteer service, as we know.

The only complaint I have received is a complaint about the operations in the Kitchener operation.

Item 6 agreed to.

On item 7, community services:

Mr. Stong: Mr. Chairman, on this particular item there is one area that I am concerned with; and I find it to be one of the most important aspects of police work. I referred to public relations in my opening address and we also discussed it earlier. This branch is very important as far as I am concerned and I am wondering how many personnel are employed in this branch since it does involve itself with the public relations.

If I may make a suggestion, through you Mr. Chairman, to the minister, an excellent area where Ontario Provincial Police officers could be employed during the summer is in our provincial parks disseminating information and perhaps showing movies; perhaps putting on demonstrations for holidayers, particularly the children, the young people. Children just love to see a police car, see the red light on and hear the siren. This is an excellent area in which to foster that type of public relations that is so sorely needed.

I am just wondering if this area is part of your program, and how many of personnel are employed in this undertaking.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Chairman, I understand there is no concentration in the parks as such, but the safety programs and attendance of the vehicles and personnel is spread across the whole province during the whole year. The suggestion that the member has made of some specific activities in the parks, particularly ones where young people tend to gather, I think is a good one.

You asked for complement; this provides a complement in 1977-78, of 16; which is only an increase of three, three over 13 is a pretty fair percentage.

When you rose in your place to say that you regarded this a pretty important part of the OPP work, I overheard the commissioner to say, “So do I.”

Item 7 agreed to.

Vote 1605 agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: This concludes the estimates of the Solicitor General. It now being 6 o’clock, I will leave the chair to return at 8 o’clock.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Thank you all for your co-operation.

The House recessed at 6 p.m.