32nd Parliament, 1st Session




The House resumed at 8:01 p.m.


Resuming the debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 6, An Act to revise the Business Corporations Act.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I will only speak briefly on the second reading of Bill 6, An Act to revise the Business Corporations Act. I want to refer to a specific matter I believe should be taken into consideration in the amendments that are presented to the House, which deals with a situation I have already referred to in the Agriculture and Food estimates. It has to do with certain business corporations in the province -- at least one -- being established for the sole purpose of converting a farmer's cooperative corporation to a joint stock operation, in other words, taking over the assets of the co-operative.

On July 20 of this year a promoter founded Caribbee Farm Products and Services Limited for the sole purpose of converting Norfolk Co-operative Company Limited to an investor-owned business corporation and to take over the assets of that corporation. I want to speak briefly about it, because I believe the amendments before us could be expanded so that this situation could be prevented. I would say it should be the aim of everyone of us in this House, certainly everyone with a farm-based constituency, to see to it that the co-operatives are not put under the kind of pressure this sort of a converting organization is attempting.

I will not take the time of the House to explain in detail the procedure, but it is being applied specifically against Norfolk Co-operative Company Limited, which has business this year of close to $50 million. It is a very large co-operative corporation and, as such, comes under the aegis of the Co-operative Corporations Act of this Legislature, not the one we are talking about now. But the corporation that has formed to take it over would come under the direction of the Business Corporations Act and, in my view, we should put in a section to prohibit these corporations from moving into the co-operative field.

As members know, there is a limit to the share value for co-operatives. This means a successful co-operative will have the value of its assets increased far beyond that of the actual controlled share value. So if an ordinary corporation moves in and gets members of the co-operative to take part in the ordinary business corporation, it can take over the control of the co-operative and, by vote of the corporation, change it over so that the assets accrue to the takeover corporation.

There are no laws being broken; it simply is a loophole that has been discovered by businessmen, who see these co-operatives with their very large cash flows and extremely important and large assets just sitting there to be plucked like ripe fruit under the statutes the way we in this Legislature have left them. Our laws have been very successful over the years in encouraging co-operatives. I simply want to bring to the attention of the parliamentary assistant -- and I hope he will discuss it with his minister at an early opportunity -- that we must take steps to see that this cannot happen.

If it is successful in the case of Norfolk county there is no doubt the same corporation will attempt to move in and take over the assets of other co-operatives. I am told on good authority the principals in Caribbee Farm Products have already at least applied for membership in the Elgin farmers' co-operative. No laws are being broken, I say again. But it is up to us to safeguard the purpose and aim of the farmers' co-operatives, which in many respects have been the cornerstone of modern agriculture going back probably 30, perhaps 40 years.

It is up to us in this House to give them the sort of support they need so that their energies are not spent in defending themselves against the kind of corporate cannibalism that we see in the ordinary corporation field and so that the farm co-operatives can concentrate on what they do best -- and they do it very well indeed -- and serve the farm community.

I believe that Bill 6, when it goes to committee, might very well be strengthened by amendments brought forward by the ministry itself in order to assist the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Henderson) in protecting the farm co-operatives. I believe that all members of the House would be prepared to co-operate in such an initiative. It would be ridiculous to postpone this until such time as the assets of any co-operative, let alone one in my constituency, might be taken over in the procedure I have very briefly described.

I feel it worthwhile when this bill is before us to bring it to the attention of the parliamentary assistant and the other members of the House, because I know none of us want this problem to grow to the point where it would require retroactive legislation in order to maintain the strength and growth of the co-operative movement in this province.

The Acting Speaker Mr. Cousens): Does any other honourable member wish to participate in this debate?

Mr. Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, as I acknowledged at the beginning, we were agreeable that this would go to committee. I have taken the opportunity to make notes on the questions raised by the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) and the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick), and I hope we will be able to answer those questions and resolve those concerns at that stage.

I would reiterate that the reason for this revised act was to bring it in line with those federal and other provincial acts that are in existence. I would point out as well that 31, I believe it is, new areas are covered within the legislation. I think it is a good bill, but some improvements may be necessary.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Motion agreed to.

Ordered for the standing committee on administration of justice.

House in committee of the whole.


Consideration of Bill 68, An Act for the establishment and conduct of a Project in the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto to improve methods of processing Complaints by members of the Public against Police Officers on the Metropolitan Police Force.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Mr. Chairman, I ask, in accordance with precedent, that the parliamentary assistant be allowed to sit in the front row so the staff can be available to him.

Mr. Chairman: Agreed.

8:10 p.m.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: I wonder if the parliamentary assistant might explain the absence of the minister. I have no objection to the parliamentary assistant being here or to his abilities and so on, but this is one of the major bills of the session and one would have expected -- certainly we on this side would have expected -- the minister would be defending government policy.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Nixon, I have a problem in terms of the standing orders with points of order of that nature, but if the parliamentary assistant would be so kind as to oblige.

Mr. MacQuarrie: It would be a pleasure indeed, Mr. Chairman. For the information of the member for Brandt-Oxford-Norfolk, the minister is tied up temporarily this evening and is unable to be here at the commencement of proceedings. With the consent of the House, I am going to carry on until such time as he arrives. Quite likely he will then take over if it is in order. Otherwise I propose to continue. This, as members know, is one of the more progressive pieces of legislation introduced in the House for some time.

Mr. Chairman: The parliamentary assistant has indicated the Solicitor General (Mr. McMurtry) should be here shortly, as I understand it. On another point of order, the member for Etobicoke.

Mr. Philip: Mr. Chairman, on the point of order raised by the member for Brandt-Oxford-Norfolk: The minister was not here in committee for most of the hearings. It was only his parliamentary assistant who was there. The minister was noticeably absent whenever any of the arguments were made with the exception of those by the Canadian Civil Liberties Association contrary to section 5 of the bill, which is the guts of the bill and comes early in the debate we will be having.

Now he does not even give us the courtesy of being present for the debate on section 5 which will come up momentarily. This is not only discourteous to members of the Legislature on this important bill but it is also discourteous to all the groups which came before the committee to voice their opposition to the bill in its present form -- particularly in opposition to section 5 which obviously does not have the support of the community in Metropolitan Toronto.

Mr. Chairman: We have had expressions from various members -- I was going to make a ruling but if the Minister without Portfolio would also like to --

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Mr. Chairman, I merely wanted to point out that the actions we are taking at the present time are in conformity with the act. Much as the member for Etobicoke would wish to politic tonight -- I do not know for what reason -- the parliamentary assistant is perfectly capable of handling this bill. If the minister appears when he is finished with his commitment, he can certainly take over if you then agree. I am not sure you will.

Mr. Chairman: The Minister without Portfolio need not be so provocative to begin with, not that I am slapping your wrist.

The member for "Knicker" Belt -- I repeat that: Nickel Belt, Nickel Belt.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Chairman, I wish the name of your riding was one I could slip my tongue around the wrong way too.

As a member of the committee which heard the delegations on this bill, I feel very strongly that the Solicitor General is not playing straight with the Legislature. Considering the opposition that came before the committee to the bill in its present form, it is my view that the Solicitor General has decided he would just as soon not face the heat in the Legislature this evening.


Mr. Laughren: I want to tell you something, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: Yes, Mr. Laughren.

Mr. Laughren: I am glad you are listening. When the Solicitor General got up, as he did this afternoon, and took his cheap political shot at legitimate questioning from the opposition, I think I could have said to you then that he would not be in the Legislature this evening to face the heat on this bill. I think it was entirely predictable from that point on. In my view, Mr. Chairman, as a Legislature, we should not proceed with any further debate on this bill until the Solicitor General is in his place.

Mr. Chairman: We are getting into a great debate even before the bill is before us. I am having some difficulty because, under standing orders, it is my understanding that the parliamentary assistant can carry the legislation. But certainly I am willing to hear one or two further arguments from all sides. Thinking in terms of rotation, the Minister without Portfolio.

Hon. Mr. Sterling: Mr. Chairman, I would like one of the members objecting to the Solicitor General's absence to point to the standing orders that rule the conduct of this committee and say where we are straying from the procedures of this House.

Mr. Nixon: We said it was an insult to the people who have appeared before this committee. We did not say it was an insult to us.

Hon. Mr. Sterling: Okay, we have heard that. Let us rule on it and carry on.

Mr. Nixon: It is improper.

Hon. Mr. Sterling: What is improper about it?

Mr. Chairman: Order.

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Chairman, if I may speak to the point of order, again as a member of the committee: At the outset I would like to associate myself with the remarks of my House leader and my two colleagues from the New Democratic Party. Apparently the government wishes to be very flippant about this bill, but we on this side feel the bill has some great deficiencies, which I note the government is still trying to amend and which the minister is not even here to defend tonight.

I wish to associate myself with the remarks of the member for Nickel Belt that the minister took his cheap shot this afternoon and tonight he is not even here to defend the cheap shot he took. We are going to be forced again, as we were all through the committee, to listen to the comments of a parliamentary assistant rather than the minister on this very important pilot project.

I think it is really insulting to the members of the Legislature -- considering the government orders the business of the House and ordered this piece of business as early as last week -- that the minister cannot even be in his place tonight to defend some very controversial parts of this legislation.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Chairman, on this point of order, I can appreciate the concern of some of the honourable members. I want to assure them that when this order was considered and decided for tonight, the Solicitor General was consulted and agreed to be here. There is no question he is going to be here during this bill and there is no question debate on this will take a considerable length of time. But, as all honourable members understand, we all have speaking commitments from time to time that have been made many months ahead --

Mr. Kerrio: You have to have priorities.

Hon. Mr. Wells: The Solicitor General sought and gained the agreement of the group he was addressing tonight to address them before dinner and he is on his way back from Bolton at this time.

In the order of business for today we were to clean up any bills that were left on the Order Paper from this afternoon. Debate was continued. I told the Solicitor General it would probably take about half an hour to finish off the Business Corporations Act. I suspect he will be here within 10 or 15 minutes. I suggest you are playing a form of politics that we all play in this House, but we all accept the fact that it is perfectly legal for --

8:20 p.m.

Mr. Kerrio: I would like to speak to the point of order, Mr. Chairman.

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

Hon. Mr. Wells: The kind of shots that fly back and forth in this House do no good to the name of this chamber, but they come just as much from that side as they do from this side. Let us not forget that. Let us not get carried away in trying to play little games tonight.


Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Chairman, I have the floor.

Mr. Chairman: Order. The minister has the floor. Would the member for Niagara Falls Mr. Kerrio) and the member for Etobicoke (Mr. Philip) please sit down.

Hon. Mr. Wells: We have a very important bill which is going to be occupying the time of many of the members here. I would merely ask them, with a little indulgence, to allow the bill to proceed under the gentleman who was piloting the bill through much of the committee stage. I will give this House the assurance that the Solicitor General will be here in a very few minutes and then we will continue with the bill.

Mr. Chairman: Honourable members, I have been extremely fair under the circumstances in listening to various points from all sides. In view of the situation I am now going to proceed with the parliamentary assistant in terms of any opening statement he has in regard to Bill 68. I am not going to recognize --

Mr. Kerrio: The realities of March 19th are showing through.

Mr. Gillies: Oh they are not.

Mr. Chairman: Order please, the parliamentary assistant has the floor. The member for Etobicoke on a point of order.

Mr. Kerrio: You are setting a precedent.

Mr. Philip: The procedure is to rotate the parties and the parliamentary assistant is following another Conservative member.


Mr. Chairman: Order. The parliamentary assistant has the floor. Is there a point of order?

Mr. Philip: The point of order was that we normally rotate in this Legislature. The parliamentary assistant is of the same party as the minister and I thought you might like to follow the normal traditions.

Mr. Chairman: As I indicated, we had rotation in terms of listening to a full discussion. After listening to the House leader, I terminated at that point. I have made a ruling under the standing orders. I think I have no other procedure to follow now except to recognize the parliamentary assistant and continue with the bill.

Mr. MacQuarrie: I might say at the outset I am sorry to have caused such consternation among the ranks of those members opposite.

The bill, although it is a very important progressive bill as most of you recognize, simply makes a good situation better.

Mr. Kerrio: It is a regressive bill.

Mr. Chairman: Order please. This is not the way to start a debate.

Mr. Kerrio: Why don't you sit down.

Mr. Mitchell: Oh come on Floyd, be quiet.

Mr. MacQuarrie: It is sometimes hard to tell whether you are sitting down or standing up.

Mr. Chairman: Would the parliamentary assistant continue with the bill, please?

Mr. Kerrio: He's being provocative.

Hon. Mr. Sterling: You're being rude.

Mr. Laughren: That's parliamentary; being provocative is not.

Mr. MacQuarrie: Mr. Chairman, essentially this bill creates an independent civilian authority to supervise complaints which may originate against the Metropolitan Toronto Police Force. It is a pilot project in force for three years. It has been prepared with a great deal of consideration. I realize there are aspects that trouble those members opposite and I am sure the member for Etobicoke will speak --

Mr. Martel: A point of order --

Mr. Chairman: A point of order from the member for Sudbury East.

Mr. Martel: I understand, Mr. Chairman, we are going clause by clause, and I would like to know a couple of things. Which clause is my friend making reference to? If he is going to give us a history of the bill, I think he is out of order and you should call the order of the matters before us in the way they appear in the bill. If he is just going to prattle on for a half hour without speaking to the bill or a particular section of the bill, clause by clause, then you should sit him down.

Mr. Chairman: Thank you for that interesting point of order. As the member for Sudbury East appreciates, there are many times during introduction of bills in the committee of the whole House that we have allowed the opportunity for some opening statements and then continued around to all parties.

Mr. Martel: This is not a new bill. We are talking about clause-by-clause study of a bill. Let us get to clause-by-clause study, and if not, sit him down.

Ms. Fish: Oh, now we are going to get you.

Mr. Martel: Why don't you learn the first rule of the House?


Mr. Martel: If you have something to contribute, get up.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please, order. Will the member for St. George (Ms. Fish) please restrain herself. I am sure the parliamentary assistant will take the opportunity to make some comments about section 1 of the bill.

Mr. MacQuarrie: Mr. Chairman, I was under the impression I had been asked for an opening statement, and I hope to educate some of those opposite to one of the finer pieces of legislation to come before them. In the meantime --

Mr. Chairman: Would the parliamentary assistant try to restrain himself from being so provocative.


Mr. Chairman: Is there any discussion about section 1 of Bill 68?

Mr. MacQuarrie: If you wish, Mr. Chairman, let us go to clause-by-clause.

Mr. Chairman: That is what we are trying to do.

On section 1:

Mr. MacQuarrie: There is no discussion on section 1 from the government side.

Mr. Chairman: No discussion. Is there any discussion on section 1?

Mr. Nixon: I would like to say something about it. Actually, Mr. Chairman, it is obvious we cannot deal with the bill in any productive way without the minister here. I want to say to you again --


Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Mr. Nixon has the floor, and I'm sure he is discussing section 1 of the bill.

Mr. Nixon: I have no personal problem either with the parliamentary assistant or with the fine lady in the back row, but it would solve all our problems if I simply did what has to be done under these circumstances, and move the adjournment of the debate.

9:15 p.m.

Mr. Chairman: To refresh everyone's mind, we are voting on a motion by Mr. Nixon to adjourn the debate. To correct the record, the clerks at the table and I investigated the standing orders and we think that possibly under section 85(a) a motion that the chairman leave the chair would have been more appropriate, but I think it is fair to say that the intent was there.

The committee divided on Mr. Nixon's motion to adjourn the debate, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes 0; nays 82.

Mr. Chairman: To return to the legislation at hand, Bill 68, Mr. Nixon had the floor in the discussion of section 1.

On section 1:


Mr. Chairman: Order, please. I am having some difficulty hearing the member for Sudbury East.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Chairman, I am waiting for the minister to give me his undivided attention.

Mr. Chairman: Would the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Grossman) and the parliamentary assistant refrain from discussion so we may hear the member for Sudbury East?

Mr. Martel: On section 1 I just wanted to tell the minister that I am absolutely delighted he has found the time to come around. Everyone was waiting for him; we now can get on with the business.

Mr. Chairman: Any further discussion on section 1? I see no discussion.

Sections 1 to 4, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 5:

Mr. Chairman: The member for Etobicoke.

An hon. member: No, the member for --

Mr. Philip: Mr. Chairman, I move that section 5 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor --


Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Does the member for Essex South (Mr. Mancini) have a point of order?

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Chairman, surely the official opposition should be recognized first.


Mr. Mancini: Why? Because he was up first and he is ready to do his job. The member for Huron-Bruce (Mr. Elston) is ready to put forth his amendment.

Mr. Chairman: Well, I have a difficulty here. When one is sitting on the floor -- I mean this sincerely -- one's point of vision is spread out like this. Quite frankly I did not see him stand up.


Mr. Chairman: Well, if we are going to follow standing orders in the best possible way I am going to have some difficulty when someone stands up first and I recognize him and then someone makes a great howl that I did not notice him.

9:20 p.m.

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Chairman, you didn't even look. He was up on his feet and he was ready to place his amendment.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Etobicoke.

Mr. Philip: I move that section 5 --

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: You have not dealt with my original point of order. The member for Huron-Bruce was on his feet and he was ready to place his amendment. I was carefully watching the chair. You did not look for the member for Huron-Bruce, which you should have done, knowing he is the critic on this bill.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Chairman, I do not know the standing order that is referred to by the member for Essex South. I think the rules of precedent are that if the Chairman recognizes a speaker, the speaker speaks.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. In my humble opinion, for the meagre years I have been in the House, I have heard many Speakers and many Chairmen indicate in terms of standing and recognition. I have often heard the member for Sudbury East say, "You have to get on your feet fast." I am having some difficulty with it.

Mr. Martel: That's right.

Mr. Chairman: That is right. The point of the matter is it is tough to be looking everywhere. On that basis, I am going to recognize the member for Etobicoke, the person I first saw stand up.

Mr. Nixon: You have to be looking.

Mr. Chairman: But he is the first one I saw stand up. Is this another point of order, the member for Ottawa East (Mr. Roy)?

Mr. Roy: A point of order, Mr. Chairman: I have the greatest sympathy with your dilemma. I am sure that, looking as you were from the floor, it is quite possible you saw the member for Etobicoke. But the point is this, there is a long-standing tradition that the chair looks to the opposition first.

My colleague the member for Huron-Bruce was standing, Mr. Chairman. You did not see him. I say to you, in spite of the fact you saw the member for Etobicoke first, tradition states you should recognize the member for the official opposition, the official critic. That is the way out.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. We are trying to get along as best as is possible. The difficulty we have is the official opposition is probably recognized first but, on the other hand, it is whoever the Chairman recognizes first. It is a slight dilemma. It is difficult to see the member for Huron-Bruce. It is a very practical, physical problem of sitting right here and seeing out of my left ear that he stood up.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Chairman, I do not doubt that. That is why you did not see him.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, may I be of some assistance?

Mr. Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Nixon: Standing order 19(b) says: "When two or more members rise to speak, the Speaker shall call upon the member who, in his opinion, rose first in his place; no debate is permitted on the Speaker's decision, but a motion may be made that any member who has risen 'be now heard,' or 'do now speak.'" Mr. Chairman, I move that the member for Huron-Bruce do now speak.

Mr. Chairman: That is going to be difficult to do, I think, because the member did not have the floor. I recognized the member for Etobicoke to have the floor.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Chairman, the motion is totally out of order. If the Chairman has recognized --

Mr. Mancini: Are you speaking in favour of the motion?

Mr. Martel: The motion is out of order.

Some hon. members: No, it is not.

Mr. Martel: If you want to challenge the Chairman's ruling, be my guest. What the rule says is he will recognize. There were not two on their feet; he recognized one and if you want to challenge his ruling, be my guest.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Could we have some order?

Mr. Martel: If not, the only way out is if you challenge --

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Order.


Mr. Martel: Then challenge his ruling.

Mr. Chairman: There has been a motion on the floor. It is my opinion, without further consultation, that it is out of order.

An hon. member: Why?

Mr. Chairman: Because I had recognized the member for Etobicoke to speak first. I did not recognize two people jumping up to speak.

Mr. Nixon: On the point of order, Mr. Chairman: I just want to read it again: "When two or more members rise to speak, the Speaker shall call upon the member who, in his opinion, rose first in his place; no debate is permitted on the Speaker's decision, but a motion may be made that any member who has risen 'be now heard,' or 'do now speak.'" I have made the motion. Why don't you put it --

Mr. Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Nixon: -- and we will let those birds over there decide, because obviously the official opposition ought to have first crack at the amendments, and any reasonable person will accept that.

Mr. Chairman: The difficulty is this: "When two or more members rise to speak" --


Mr. Chairman: I know, but the member for Sudbury East has something profound to say.

Mr. Martel: Might I ask the Chairman, at the same time he is looking at this matter, whether it is in order for someone to rise on a point of order and then move a motion? I don't think that is allowed either.

Mr. Mancini: That's the same as the standing orders --

Mr. Martel: I don't think that is allowed, either. That is what my friend, the House leader for the Liberal Party, is attempting to do, and he is out of order. He is out of order on two counts: First, it is not a debatable thing and he is attempting to debate it, and second, he is trying to move a motion on a point of order and you can't move a motion, as I understand it, by rising on a point of order.

Mr. Bradley: You already gave him the floor.

Mr. Nixon: No, I made a motion.

Mr. Martel: He's trying to move a motion.

Mr. Chairman: Order. In recognition of some rotation on this debate, I will recognize the member for Oriole.

Mr. Williams: Mr. Chairman, I was going to rise to make an objective observation that would perhaps assist you in making an objective decision on this matter. I would have made that objective observation, but I have been somewhat reserved in doing so after having heard the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk suggest that "the birds over there" will assist us out of this dilemma. Notwithstanding having heard that rather derogatory remark, I would lend this objective observation. It is my understanding that convention dictates that the chair should first recognize the critic for the official opposition in these matters.

Mr. Chairman: In terms of convention, we are also torn in that the chair recognizes the person who stands up first.

Mr. Foulds: The official opposition often has nothing to say.

Mr. Chairman: That is right.

Mr. Nixon: On a point of order: I bring it to your attention, sir, that under rule 19(b) I have made a motion that the member for Huron-Bruce be now heard. I suggest to you there is nothing out of order. I don't see that you have any alternative but to put the motion to the House, and if it is not carried, then of course your original decision would have to prevail.

Mr. Foulds: On a point of order: Surely a motion cannot be made after the member has spoken, and that is, in fact, what the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk is trying to do.


Mr. Chairman: Order, order. We are going to try to get this sorted out yet.

Indeed, it says, "When two or more members rise to speak"; it doesn't say when the Chairman or the Speaker recognizes two or more members. It would be difficult to imagine how you can see two members at the same time, and I must confess a lot of people rose. I did see the member for Etobicoke rise first.

Mr. Mancini: Did you look in this direction?

Mr. Chairman: I am indicating to the member for Essex South that I did see a lot of members rise. I did see a lot of members rise. I saw the member for Etobicoke rise first. I think, in fairness, a motion has been put under standing order 19(b). Could we have the motion again, please?

Mr. Nixon: I move, Mr. Chairman, that the honourable member for Huron-Bruce be now heard.

Mr. Martel: You have already made a ruling, Mr. Chairman. You have ruled on at least five occasions that you have recognized the member for Etobicoke. What I am saying is, if the Liberals want to challenge that ruling, that is what they should do. You have made a ruling. Why are you changing the ruling? If they don't like the ruling, they can challenge it, and then they can move their motion.

9:30 p.m.

Mr. Chairman: I want to point out to the member for Sudbury East that many times in this chamber I have heard him speak so eloquently on following procedures in the standing orders. If the chair is to do that, follow the procedures in the standing orders, section 19(b), I am going to have to recognize the motion. I have no alternative.


Mr. Martel: Mr. Chairman, you have made a ruling that you recognized the member for Etobicoke because you did not see another member standing. If they do not want to accept that ruling, they have the prerogative of challenging it and getting it defeated. Then if they want to move their motion --

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. In fairness of rotation, we will listen to the Minister of Industry and Tourism.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, in the interest of carrying on the people's business this evening on this very important piece of legislation, may I suggest that you either immediately determine that you have not recognized that two members have risen to speak at one time but simply one, or that you immediately decide that you shall hear and call the motion put by the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk, and that that be done immediately without any further debate, so we can get on with this vote.

Mr. Chairman: There is no doubt I saw many people rise. I did see the member for Etobicoke rise first, but other members rose. A motion has been put under section 19(b) of the standing orders.

All those in favour of Mr. Nixon's motion that the member for Huron-Bruce be now heard will please say "aye."

All those against will please say "nay."

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Elston moves that section 5(1) be amended to read: "The Police Complaints Board shall establish and maintain for the purpose of this act an investigative unit known as the Public Complaints Investigation Bureau."


Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Would the member for Huron-Bruce, after this great debate, provide some copies for us all? Is this the original?

Mr. Elston: I had understood that copies were being delivered to all the critics.

Mr. Chairman: I have mine. Does the Solicitor General have a copy? Are you prepared to proceed momentarily?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I do not have a copy of it but let's go on with it.

Mr. Chairman: Would the member for Huron-Bruce like to comment on the section he has amended?

Mr. Elston: Yes, Mr. Chairman.


Mr. Chairman: Order. The member for Essex South (Mr. Mancini), please: the member for Huron-Bruce has the floor.

Mr. Elston: Mr. Chairman, I know you recognize we have something to say up here. When this was going through committee stage I attended the sittings of this committee and I was able to take from the --

Mr. Chairman: We are having some difficulty listening to the member for Huron-Bruce, and part of the difficulty is from the ministers on my right.

Now, would you please continue?

Mr. Elston: Thank you. Section 5(1), Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Laughren: Is the member proud of this?

Mr. Elston: I am indeed proud of this.

Mr. Chairman: Would you mind speaking to the chair and avoiding the interjections?

Mr. Elston: It is pretty hard to avoid the interjections when sometimes people do not even recognize you exist in this Legislature.

Mr. Chairman: Well, try. I am listening.

Mr. Elston: Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to speak to this amendment. Although some people would have you think I was not in the committee at all, I was there and I heard representations made by many of the people who appeared before us day after day when we started holding the hearings.

When we considered this situation we spoke in favour of an amendment to this bill in committee. I believe this bill and the people it will most often affect will be best served by having an investigative procedure independent of the people who will be investigated. It seems to me this piece of legislation will be best served if there is a great deal of co-operation in having the complaints investigated. I can see from the representations made by those groups of people who will be most affected by this legislation they will co-operate more specifically in carrying out this pilot project if they are assured their complaints will be heard and will be dealt with independently of the people their complaints are against.

That, in effect, is the reason for the amendment. We feel it is definitely required that this committee of the whole House go through the whole process of assuring themselves we have the best possible procedure available for dealing with the complaints process. I think the difficulty in dealing with this piece of legislation is that from the point of view of a person who has sat in that committee, the feeling has always been and will remain that the people whom this bill affects have not been consulted; the matter has not been dealt with in a public forum or debated fully.

By moving this piece of legislation to the committee we felt the project would be better assured of success. There we would have the opportunity to hear public representations -- not those which were covert -- and we could be sure that people had the opportunity to make suggestions which the members of this Legislature could consider at great length. This would be preferable to making representation to some people somewhere at some time that no one was ever sure of.

We went to great lengths during the committee stage to find out whether or not the public at large had the opportunity to provide input to this legislation. We were assured there was an opportunity. But when it came right down to providing us with information in the committee as to who had the opportunity to provide that input no evidence was available to us to allow us to conclude that the public at large had been consulted to any degree.

That is one of the difficulties with this piece of legislation. It is one of the reasons it will be undermined if there is not a full and accurate debate of all the particulars included in it.

9:40 p.m.

Section 5(1) and the following section 5(2) are the essence of this bill. They require a great deal of consideration from the House as a whole, not from a small group of people who are drafting the legislation, and not from a small group of individuals who sit in a committee hearing. There should be a full and valuable input so that all the members of this Legislature can be responsible for the legislation we are putting forward to be used in Metropolitan Toronto. I believe this legislation will be used not only in Metropolitan Toronto but later, possibly with some refinements, throughout the province.

I do not think it is fair, by any stretch of the imagination, to go into this legislation without providing the House with an opportunity to debate the very essence of this bill. That is why I am proposing this amendment. We ought to consider whether the independent nature of an investigation is what should be dealt with.

While we are looking at this section, we also ought to remember we have been asked by Metropolitan Toronto council and others to consider the very essential element of their social structure to provide them with the means to deal with various important problems coming before them. We have been asked to deal with it in one manner. On the other hand, we have also been asked by a group of municipalities outside Metro Toronto to consider invoking a project that would encompass an independent review of police complaints.

It is incumbent upon us as a whole House to consider that very important aspect of this question at this time. We should not merely gloss over it, leaving the responsibility to some person who drafted the legislation in the Solicitor General's ministry or heaping it upon a small group of individual members who served on the justice committee.

I think it is a responsible legislative procedure to allow the whole House to have an opportunity to provide input into this very critical aspect of the bill. In this way we can ensure in our own minds, as a Legislature and as individuals, we have given full force to studying the means by which this important project can be carried out in Metro Toronto. That is why I think this aspect of the bill should be debated again and should be opened to a public forum at this time.

Mr. Philip: Mr. Chairman, I can understand why the Liberal Party was so upset when the former chairman recognized me to move my amendment to section 5. They recognize they were not present in the committee when essentially the same amendment was introduced.

Mr. Elston: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: I think the member for Etobicoke is in error when he indicates I was not present. I was present throughout those committee sittings, and I ask that he retract that.

The Deputy Chairman: Carry on, Mr. Philip. You have the floor to discuss the amendment.

Mr. Philip: Yes, I have, Mr. Chairman. On the point of order, though --

The Deputy Chairman: Are you standing on the point of order or on the amendment?

Mr. Philip: On the point of order of the member for Huron-Bruce. He is quite correct; he was present, but only one of the three Liberal members was there to vote in favour of my amendment, which was essentially the same as what he has moved.

The Deputy Chairman: The honourable member --

Mr. Philip: Not only do they not have the guts to accept the fact they were not there, but they have to copy another party's amendment and introduce it as their own. I say that is the height of sleaziness on the part of the Liberal Party.

The Deputy Chairman: I ask the honourable member to address the section. We have an amendment on the floor; proceed with that.

Mr. Kerrio: All together now: "Aw."

The Deputy Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Philip: I can understand why the Liberals are upset. They were caught, it has been pointed out to them and now they do not like it.

Mr. Kerrio: You are still reacting. Why don't you --

The Deputy Chairman: Order.

Mr. Mancini: They still can't accept that they have 21 seats; that's the problem.

Mr. Kerrio: I hate to see a grown man cry.

Mr. Mancini: You guys started the problem by getting the money for 30. They actually think they have 30 members.

The Deputy Chairman: If you are addressing the amendment, you have the floor for that purpose.

Mr. Philip: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Deputy Chairman: You do have the floor.

Mr. Philip: It is very hard, Mr. Chairman, with certain members from the Liberal Party who were not even in the committee then who are spending all of their time talking at the moment.

Since this amendment is essentially a copy -- a poor copy at that -- but none the less a copy of the amendment I was about to propose to this committee, and which I proposed in the justice committee when so few Liberals were present, we will, of course, be in support of it. Essentially, the principle of the amendment deals with the guts of this bill.

Anyone who sat through the debates and heard the arguments of the various deputations who came before the committee knows this is where the bill divides this House. This is where this House decides whether it will be responsive to community input and divides those who are responsible to community input from those who would flagrantly impose their wills on the public.

The now chairman of the Police Commission, Philip Givens, stated when he was a member of Parliament in the House of Commons debates in 1969, that, "Perhaps it is because the large city is such a recent phenomenon of civilization that we do not yet know how to cope effectively with the range of problems which have arisen. It is a phenomenon which is now posing urgent challenges that cannot be ignored." That is the debate on this amendment.

It is fundamentally all about how we cope effectively with the range of problems that are faced by a large city such as Metropolitan Toronto in a quickly changing civilization.

The more I think about it, this amendment is really about the age-old debate between those who look at the world and their fellow man in a pessimistic way and those who have more faith in a more open system.

This is essentially an optimistic amendment. At the bottom of it lies the belief expressed by several community groups who appeared before us. The Metropolitan Toronto police force and the chief responsible for that force are at the level of maturity or a level of performance so, unlike cities like Philadelphia, it is possible to be more sensitive to community needs in this city than has been the case in the US cities.

The Conservatives will argue that a method, analogous to the one proposed by my amendment, has been tried in Philadelphia and has failed. Indeed, if I am not mistaken, it is the chief of police in that city who was tried and failed.

If I am not mistaken, at this very moment he is spending time in a place where police usually only have occasion to visit. To suggest, even by implication, that we are somehow in a situation similar to Philadelphia is by implication a spurious attack on our police and on our police chief.

The facts are that when the police association president was asked whether or not he and his officers would co-operate with whatever body resulted from this legislation, he indicated that would be the case, or that he would not actively oppose it in the manner in which the various American associations have done.

In a similar manner, the chief of police gave us every indication he would co-operate with whatever legislation came out of this House. Thus we are not faced with the kind of obstruction and disregard for the law that has been shown by police in such areas as Philadelphia.

There is no polarization such as exists in those cities. The Solicitor General has constantly argued that this bill, in its present form without the amendment, is consistent with every major report or study that has been done in Canada and elsewhere.

He repeated this argument before the standing committee on administration of justice on September 22.

9:50 p.m.

I quote from the Morand commission report on page 184. In that report it says:

"A system must be developed for prompt, impartial, vigorous and independent investigation of such complaints, incorporating appropriate safeguards for the rights of police officers. Such a system must be highly visible and manned by personnel who command the respect of the force and the public." It further states: "The design of such a system is beyond the scope of this report."

Further, on page 188 it states: "I recommend that a citizen complaint procedure have as its central aspect an independent investigation."

The Maloney commission came to a conclusion that the investigative branch should be manned exclusively by trained personnel. This amendment, of course, does not suggest that untrained investigators should be put in charge of the investigations.

On the contrary, my colleagues and I have stressed that the investigations must be done by properly trained persons, persons fully familiar with police investigation methods, and we have suggested that those would be either police officers recruited for the job as independent investigators or people who have been put through police training programs.

No one, to my knowledge, has ever suggested that we should have community workers or other people not trained in police investigation doing such investigation. Those who raise the point either do so out of ignorance or are attempting to set up paper tigers that they can shoot down.

By the same token, it is wrong to imply that the Maloney report is somehow mirrored directly in this bill. Maloney saw the investigative branch as consisting of officers appointed for a three-year period, special officers who would conduct the investigation from the beginning, and not the system that is proposed in this bill.

Thus, in terms of investigation, while Maloney did not advocate what is asked for in this amendment, similarly he did not advocate the kind of investigation system that is proposed in this bill. Indeed, if we look at page 212 of the Maloney report, it states that personnel should be appointed to the investigative branch for a three-year period only. Thus they would be independent of any other branch of the police.

That, essentially, is the thrust of this amendment. One cannot argue that Maloney came down on one side or the other if one looks at the essential theme and thrust of his arguments.

The Pitman report is another report to which the minister and his colleagues like to refer. Let us deal with his recommendation 4-16, which reads as follows:

"That Metro council recommend to the Ontario government that the legislation necessary to carry out the recommendations of the report on the Royal Commission into Metropolitan Toronto Police Practices be passed and put into effect as soon as possible."

It goes on to refer to "a citizen complaint procedure, having as its central aspect an independent investigation and review of police conduct ... " Those words "independent investigation" are the key words that must be taken in that recommendation to Metro council in the Pitman report.

What we are faced with is that essentially the reports that the minister likes to refer to as somehow being replicated in his bill without this amendment are not replicated. If we read those reports, if we understand the main thrust of the reports, we can argue one way or the other that they do not come down soundly on the side of the minister.

What we must see in all of those reports is a historical attempt to develop a system that is fair and that will be accepted by both the police and the communities that they serve. They are not cut in stone. The proposals must be viewed as a developmental process of recommendations.

What the amendments do, the amendment that is proposed by myself and the similar one by my Liberal colleague, is essentially involve the logical conclusion of the various reports that have come before.

In a similar way, we have been led to believe that no other studies in the United States or Great Britain support the position taken by this amendment and by my amendment. The fact is that they do not support the minister either.

If we examine each of the reports, we can see that they have gone through the same developmental process that has happened in Canada. In report after report is the statement that there are problems with the system of police investigating themselves.

What we see in those reports are attempts, albeit unsuccessful in many cases, to come to grips with that problem of lack of confidence in the police investigating themselves or in the complaints procedures being used.

The argument has been made that the Chicago system has come closer than most other systems to the direction we are recommending, but it has failed. In the evaluation done on the Chicago system, it concluded that the weakness there is that it has not gone far enough in the directions we are recommending in this motion.

The report of the Chicago law enforcement study group talks about the problem of an identity crisis among the investigating officers. It suggests such things as having the investigator issued with an identification card with a photograph on it rather than the traditional police badge. This indicates there is a problem with the role in which the officer sees himself and the role in which the public sees an officer investigating another officer.

There are three arguments that are found in the report and recommendations of the National Capital Civil Liberties Union study entitled The Police Complaint System: Institutional Coverup. I refer to page 19 of that report. Essentially, the first two arguments in particular deal with the problem that this amendment attempts to face. The report says:

"Every profession suffers from an inherent tendency towards self-protection. The lawyer or doctor sitting in judgement of another lawyer or doctor is too prone to envision himself as having made the same error as the accused before him. Thus, the investigator or the judge of the facts identifies too much with the one accused of misconduct, and seeks ways to exonerate the accused or to mitigate the disciplinary action called for.

"Second, the very task of the police, dealing as they do with frequent tension and confrontations, requires a certain fortitude in approaching the job. The officer needs to have the respect of the community. Unfortunately, these factors are translated into the police profession's ethic that a tough cop is a good police officer. The tough-cop syndrome too often crosses the line from fortitude in the face of real danger to abusiveness in the face of no danger. The tendency of police officials themselves, captives of the tough-cop ethic, is to defend and seek exoneration of officers accused of misconduct against citizens."

Some of us might say that was an overstatement. But if one talks to people in the community there are a large number who believe that second reason. Because it is a public perception, we must guard against it. That is the intent of the motion we have before us.

Much has been made about the fact that the British have not opted for an independent system of investigation. The facts are that, after the recently experienced poverty riots brought about largely by the Conservative government's economic policies, there is a great deal of rethinking in Britain on this matter.

One would not expect the lron Lady to change any more than one would expect the member for Oriole (Mr. Williams) to come out in favour of a more open and democratic way of handling this. But I appeal to the more moderate members of the Conservative Party at least to consider the arguments we are making in favour of this amendment and the similar amendment I first proposed in the standing committee on administration of justice.

10 p.m.

There is an interesting article in the Criminal Law Review of 1976 which is entitled "Complaints Against Police: the North American Experience," by Alan Grant. I will read only a slight section from it, because I think it deals with and relates directly to the amendment before us. It says:

"Changes in attitudes and changes in system are best achieved by involving as many as possible of the people concerned in the process of change. That means that representatives of many perspectives will have to be consulted and asked for a contribution towards the solution."

The fact is that the Solicitor General failed either to consult or even to be present when a majority of community groups came to make their views known to our committee. He was conveniently present when those who agreed with his particular views and supported the bill as it is were there, but he was absent when other citizens, the people out there, came forward. These were groups asking that the amendment, similar to the one before us, be adopted.

The Solicitor General was not content to disagree with these groups. He had to slur them by suggesting either that they did not represent the views of the minorities or that they did not understand the full implications of the bill. One can check Hansard and see that he slurred them in this manner.

He then claimed he had consulted with hundreds of persons in the visible minority community. We asked almost every day for a list of those supporters. The list was not forthcoming, nor were the supporters of this bill in its present form without the amendment that is now being proposed.

I will not read into the record the numerous arguments made by the various groups that did come before the committee. One group the minister was present to listen to, however, was the Canadian Civil Liberties Association. In a sense, the arguments in that brief reflect most of what the other groups were saying.

The arguments put forward by the Canadian Civil Liberties Association that relate directly to this amendment are as follows:

"So long as the front-line investigations are handled by officials who have departmental or even general police interests to protect, the system will be severely flawed. Many aggrieved people simply will not confide their complaints about the police to other police officers.

"The Canadian Civil Liberties Association has had this experience time and again, particularly with minority, racial and ethnic constituencies. In fact, CCLA conducted a number of surveys among arrested people in the city of Toronto during the 1970s. Invariably, only a minuscule minority of those who claimed to have been abused by the police were prepared to take retaliatory action. The overwhelming number declared flatly that such action 'would do no good.' In this regard, it is pertinent also to note the comments of the McDonald commission into RCMP wrongdoing:

'"Although difficult to ascertain with any great precision, it is probable that many complainants would not have complained had our commission not existed. We infer this from the fact that many persons who wrote to us after the cutoff date, when advised that we would not investigate but that they could come forward with their allegations directly to the Solicitor General or the commissioner of the RCMP, expressed the view that such action would inevitably prove to be useless.'

"Since so much depends on the willingness of aggrieved people to take the initiative, any failure to provide for independent investigation could render many complaints stillborn at the outset. To this extent, the experimental project contemplated by Bill 68 will be unable to perform the intended objective. The one thing it cannot measure is the number of aggrieved people who will never file complaints because of dissatisfaction with the investigative machinery."

The various groups who came before us stated that very position. Those who represented the very large visible minority groups, people such as Alderman Ying Hope, indicated that their people would not come forward if they felt that the initial investigation was being done by the police themselves.

Perhaps even more empathetic than the way it was put by the Canadian Civil Liberties Association was the way the Jamaican Canadian Association stated how they felt about this section of the bill and the need for an amendment such as the one before you:

"The Jamaican Canadian Association members and the supportive groups and all Caribbean peoples appreciate the opportunities and privileges afforded us that enable us to live in Ontario and the beautiful city of Metropolitan Toronto. The JCA applaud the efforts of everyone who is trying to maintain and keep Toronto -- including the police -- as a beautiful place to live, work, grow and play.

"However, as a sensitive organization with people who are very concerned, we recognize that police men and women are real people. Therefore, the police being real people, we recognize that they are subject to all human frailties, follies, flaws, errors, illnesses, etcetera, as the rest of us people are. Hence, the JCA believe that to entrust such a great and extraordinary responsibility upon the shoulders of the already taxed police of investigating themselves, when other human beings complain against them regarding injustices suffered, is ludicrous.

"This added responsibility of allowing police to investigate themselves is a cop-out affair, and this process being pushed by the government and its ministers demonstrates their ability to listen attentively to and deal with the concerns, fears and frustrations of minorities in Metropolitan Toronto and Ontario; hence, the government's reason for setting the police up and hiding behind them. Honourable members of this committee, if you want all your citizens of Metropolitan Toronto, irrespective of colour, class, creed or ethnic origin, to respect, support and help the police, then you must see to it that the barriers are not built around the police that most citizens and residents of Metropolitan Toronto find objectionable."

Mr. Chairman, instead of listening to these people, the government had its political bed partners, Godfrey and Flynn, come before us and try to create the image that somehow the elected representatives of Metropolitan Toronto support the bill in its present form and, therefore, are against the amendment that is before you in this committee of the whole. When I asked Mr. Godfrey the following question, "Would you name one community-based group that is in support of the bill as it now stands, if a majority of people out there really are in support?" He answered: "Yes. The Metropolitan Toronto council, representing 2.2 million people. I am sure, as a representative of Metropolitan Toronto, you would not deny the opinion of a duly elected representative from the municipal level."

That statement was challenged in a letter to the committee by Alderman Pat Sheppard, and he said: "I write to you as an individual member of the metropolitan council to indicate my amazement and distress that the Metro chairman, Mr. Paul Godfrey, has represented to your committee a position of the Metro council on Bill 68. You should know that Metro council has not debated or taken a position on Bill 68 or the previous forms of the bill."

Mayor Flynn, who attended with Mr. Godfrey, was not content that a gross misrepresentation had been made to the committee. Indeed, he had the audacity to state to the newspapers the next day, in reference to the statement by Alderman Sheppard: '"That's a lie,' Etobicoke Mayor Dennis Flynn said in an interview at city hall. As Metro deputy chairman, Mr. Flynn appeared before the committee with Mr. Godfrey." He goes on to say, "Mr. Godfrey was talking about the general concept of a civilian review board and not an endorsement of the bill itself."

10:10 p.m.

Indeed, the only misrepresentation that was before the committee was the misrepresentation that somehow the community supported the bill without the amendment that is before this committee.

Only today, Chairman Godfrey, instead of acting like a man and owning up to the fact that he had misrepresented the position of Metro to the committee, wrote a letter to the chairman and members of the committee. I only received it this afternoon.

I want to deal with the letter only briefly, because it tries, however unsuccessfully, to challenge my contention, and the contention of all members on this side of the House who support this amendment, that somehow there is something out there other than the Big Blue Machine that supports the bill as the minister has it. And that is not the case.

In his letter he repeats my question and gives his answer: "There is no question that this legislation is before you because of the initiatives taken by the Metropolitan Toronto Board of Commissioners of Police and the metropolitan council."

That was not the question that I asked him. The question was whether there was support for the bill as it now existed. What we were talking about very clearly was section 5 without the amendment that is before this committee. In fact, he says, "It is modeled after the recommendations made by Arthur Maloney, who was asked in May 1975 by the police commission to inquire into the process."

He goes on to say in his letter: "It is important to take note of the important point of the Maloney report" -- and he deals with that. Of course, what he does not state is that there are other parts of the Maloney report that are not contained in Bill 68, and therefore that in itself is a misrepresentation.

He goes on to say: "The board of police commissioners adopted Maloney's report and requested the establishment of a municipal-provincial committee to examine into the legislation necessary to implement."

He goes on to say: "Then Mayor Cosgrove of Scarborough expressed general agreement. Alderman Sewell of Toronto advised that he strongly supported the report." I have dealt with this earlier. In fact, the report can come down on either side, depending on which parts of the report and which themes in the report one wishes to emphasize.

He goes on to say: "I feel safe in assuring your committee that if members of council had any objections they would not hesitate to put them forward." Of course, we have seen members of Metro council come before us, and indeed they have made known their view that they are not in support of this.

Indeed, I understand that Mr. Sewell is no longer of the opinion that is stated in Mr. Godfrey's letter, and that indeed Mayor Gus Harris of Scarborough is not in strong support of the bill without the amendment that we are asking for.

He says: "No action was taken by the province despite the statement in the House that the matter was under review."

He goes on to deal with Justice Donald Morand and specifically with the section on page 267: "A citizen complaint procedure, having as its central aspect an independent investigation in review of police conduct and an independent tribunal for hearing the complaints, should be implemented by provincial legislation forthwith."

The word that I draw your attention to once again, Mr. Chairman, is the word "independent." That is what we on this side of the House are emphasizing. That is the word that the members on the other side of the House would very much like to ignore. The fact is that Morand and Maloney say that it is a workable model they are proposing but not that it is the only workable model.

He goes on then to say: "As recently as February 17, 1981, the council unanimously adopted the following motion: 'That the metropolitan council again urge the province of Ontario to endorse the concept of a public complaints commissioner and appoint such individual at the earliest opportunity.'"

Nobody is objecting to that. All members on this side of the House have said they want a public complaints commissioner. What was under dispute and what was being debated at that time in the committee and should not be fudged by Chairman Godfrey is whether or not there would be independent investigation. It was section 5 that was under debate at that time, not the whole bill. That was the question that was clearly directed towards him. He says:

"I have constantly represented that it is the position of metropolitan council that the basis of the Maloney recommendations be adopted in the Legislature, as I stated publicly when legislation was introduced in December 1979 and again in 1980. No member of the council has challenged that position in council or elsewhere, to my knowledge, until it was blatantly evident that only the most blatant and delaying tactics would prevent the early implementation of the system that the metropolitan council has been requesting for many years."

The fact is that there are 12 members from the city of Toronto on Metro and that the city of Toronto appeared in the person of the mayor of the city of Toronto and clearly showed its disapproval for this bill, and particularly for section 5 as it now stands without the amendment.

He further states, "It would be a more than unusual occurrence if Metropolitan Toronto council, having been involved either itself or through the police commission in the initiation of every single study in the commission quoted above, should suddenly change its mind."

It is interesting that Godfrey on the one hand always tells the council over and over again that it has no powers over the police commission, that it is governed by the Police Act; but when he finds it convenient then he likes to lump them together for his own purposes in misleading this House.

He says he trusts that "this brief chronology has been of some assistance." The only assistance has been to fudge the matter even more. If Mr. Godfrey and his ventriloquist, the Solicitor General, had the guts he would have said, "I have misled the justice committee. I know that there has never been a vote." He even had an opportunity to redeem himself last week.

As a result of Godfrey's position, Alderman Sheppard put Bill 68 on the agenda of the Metropolitan Toronto legislation and licensing committee last Tuesday. It is interesting that no quorum was counted. We know that Godfrey could have got that quorum there if he had wanted to deal with that; he could have had that committee express its viewpoint. He was afraid of what would happen in that committee, and indeed he was afraid of what would happen if it had gone to Metro council for a full debate. That is why he did not have a democratic vote; that is why he saw to it that the committee did not have a quorum and could not deal with that matter.

The only misrepresentation was that there was community support for this bill without the amendment to section 5. Only today we have seen the last attempts by this government through the Big Blue Machine to discredit the fact that we are asking over and over again, "Where is your support?" You have none other than the Big Blue Machine, which is out there drumming up Godfrey and a few Tories to come forward and somehow lend the impression that there is support. There is no one in the minority communities, no substantial group of any kind that is coming forward in support of section 5 without the amendment we are proposing.

What we are dealing with is crucial to the integrity of this bill. What we are dealing with is the setting up of a system that will or will not have the support of the two groups that must co-operate in order to make this bill work. Unless the bill has the support of the community, unless the community has confidence in it, it will not work. Unless the bill has the support of the police it will not work. What we are proposing here is an amendment that will bring about a fair system, a system that is fair to the police, a system that is fair to the community, a system that will be respected.

10:20 p.m.

If the government really believed in the position it is taking it would not have come in with a later amendment that even does away with a motion I introduced, which was passed in the committee with the help of the member for Cochrane North (Mr. Piché) and one or two other Conservatives, to have an evaluation of the program before the three-year experimental deadline.

But they could not even do that. They have an amendment which states that they do not want an open evaluation. They are afraid of the public coming before Metro and they are afraid of the public coming before the justice committee in three years, and that shows how little confidence they have in section 5 without the amendment. In fact, they know that section 5 without the amendment will not work. There is no one in the community who supports it. None of the community groups we know supports the bill. The only ones who support the bill are the minister, the police chief and the Big Blue Machine.

I ask the back-benchers in the Conservative Party to consider that seriously, particularly the Metro members. I see that one of the Metro members is at present going to her place. Unfortunately, she was not on the committee even though this was a bill of tremendous importance to her and her community. I ask her to consider voting for this amendment. If she really believes in what her community has been saying, she should vote against the position of the minister, vote with us, vote for the amendment that is before us.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Chairman, I rise to make a few comments, though I note that the hour is late and I do not know if I will be able to complete them tonight. I just wanted at the outset to make a couple of comments about what went on this evening and to express my concern that some of our friends opposite do not seem to recognize some of the realities of March 19, that they are indeed the third party and that the official opposition --

Mr. Philip: Where was he when this bill was before the committee?

Mr. Wrye: I will get to that in a minute.

The members of the official opposition should have a few rights in this assembly. I find it very interesting that the member for Etobicoke has raised the matter of where I was on the day the vote was taken. I would like to deal with that for just a minute if we can get the member for Nickel Belt to stand down and be quiet just for a second.

Mr. Laughren: The member was conveniently elsewhere.

Mr. Wrye: I am going to give you an explanation.

Mr. Laughren: It had better be good.

Mr. Wrye: First of all, as the member for Nickel Belt and the member for Etobicoke are aware, I and the other members of my party on the committee spoke consistently and regularly in favour of the amendment that is before us tonight.

Mr. Philip: Where was your member in committee?

Mr. Wrye: Just hold it. Whoa.

When we got to the clause-by-clause consideration on Wednesday of the final week I unfortunately had been called back to my community for a pressing matter: the layoff of 1,500 Chrysler workers. But the hypocrites to our left obviously do not think the layoff of 1,500 union workers is very important; it was to their colleague the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. Cooke), I suppose. But had I not been there I would have heard about it, would I not? The member for Etobicoke wants it both ways. I am sorry I could not be in two cities at once.

Mr. Philip: Then the member should appoint a substitute. Where was the member for Kitchener (Mr. Breithaupt)?

Mr. Wrye: They are not interested.

Mr. Chairman: Order. The member for Windsor-Sandwich has the floor.

Mr. Wrye: Anyway, to the amendment; I just wanted to make that small point. It had also become clear that the members of the committee, who included, I believe, only one Tory from Toronto, were not disposed to vote in favour of the amendment. I guess those of us in both opposition parties hoped we could make the changes when we got to the floor of the assembly, and that is, I suppose, what I stand to appeal to the Tory members from Toronto to do tonight, to rethink the position the government has had and to support this amendment.

I appeal specifically to people like the member for St. George (Ms. Fish), who comes from a downtown riding with a large number of members of the so-called visible minorities and others who have had dealings with the police in the past, and who are probably most unhappy with the legislation as it is at present formed.

I am not certain they are unhappy, but if they are happy, they certainly did not come to the committee. As a matter of fact, the Solicitor General sits in his place knowing full well that we challenged the government to produce any members of the so-called visible minorities who supported this legislation. In spite of the fact that the committee hearings went on for some three weeks, to my knowledge not one member of that group was able to come forward.

I want to remind the members of the House, as we go through this discussion, of some of the comments that were made earlier by the Solicitor General in his opening statement before the justice committee. Early on he said: "I am convinced that Bill 68 not only represents a drastic improvement over the existing state of affairs, but also has the best chance for success of any civilian complaints mechanism we have examined. Simply put, this legislation has its foundation on co-operation rather than confrontation. Co-operation unites, confrontation divides."

A little later on he said: "I would also like to remind all interested parties that this legislation is not chiseled in stone, but is a pilot project only. Unlike some of my critics, I do not pretend to have the ultimate wisdom on this issue. The bill can be fine-tuned at any time." Do you remember those comments, Mr. Solicitor General?

I am drawn to those two comments, because one appeared very early in his opening statement, and it said that his aim was -- and I will accept him at his word -- to bring about an era of co-operation rather than one of confrontation. But then, later on, he suggested to the committee that the legislation was not chiseled in stone, that it could be changed. Then we sat back to see what the various witnesses would tell us, and witness after witness, group after group, came to the committee and said, "We would like to have a procedure, but we don't think the procedure you are putting in place is the best one. In fact, we don't believe it will work."

I will grant that some of the people who came before us said they would attempt to work with this procedure, mainly because the person of the public complaints commissioner, Mr. Linden, is an impressive one. Others said they would make no effort to work with this bill; indeed, if this was the only bill we were to vote on when all was said and done, it should be turned down because this bill was worse than what we at present have in place. And yet --

The Deputy Chairman (Mr. Cousens): One minute, unless you want to --

Mr. Wrye: No. At the appropriate moment I would like to move the adjournment of the debate, if that is your wish, because I will not be able to complete my remarks tonight.

The Deputy Chairman: We will give you first chance next time.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Wells, the committee of the whole House reported progress.

10:30 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: I deem the motion to adjourn to have been made and we will now hear the member for Nickel Belt.


Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, I do not mind if the Conservative members leave. They have never given a sweet hoot about pollution emanating from the Inco stacks in Sudbury anyway.

A week ago I asked a question of the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Norton) concerning the emissions from the Inco superstack in Sudbury. The Minister of the Environment responded that he was not aware technology was available that would allow Inco to reduce its emission standards to a level that was acceptable.

I took umbrage at that response because there is only one conclusion one can come to if that is a fact: Either the minister does indeed know the technology is available or he is incompetent. I suppose one could extract from me the admission there is a third possibility, namely, that officials within the Ministry of the Environment are deliberately keeping information from the minister which they know to be factual.

Back in 1975, Inco itself conducted a major study called SO2 Abatement Budget Book through its general engineering department. In that study, Inco admitted its emissions, which were at that point 3,800 tons per day, could be reduced to 2,000 tons per day in December 1978 and down to 1,500 tons per day in December 1979.

The Ministry of the Environment received that report. It was sent to the northeastern region of the Ministry of the Environment in Sudbury. The ministry had that report. Later in 1975, Inco sent a letter to the regional director of the northeastern region of the Ministry of the Environment in which it told the Minister of the Environment it had reconsidered and that a project it originally had thought would cost $200 million had escalated to $300 million.

It used this rather stark line in its letter to the minister. It said, and I quote: "This situation obviously requires a complete reassessment of our position since the economic and commercial feasibility of the proposed project is fundamentally changed. A program which is not economically and commercially feasible is in fact not technologically feasible."

What it is saying is, "If it is too expensive we are not going to do it." They have always said that to the Ministry of the Environment and the Ministry of the Environment has, without exception, caved in to that argument from Inco.

The minister's attitude in this case is truly disturbing. His predecessor, then the member for Oxford, imposed a new control order on Inco which required Inco to reduce its level of emissions. This minister simply stands in his place and says, "I do not know that any technology is available." He has the audacity to claim he does not know if Inco even has the technology or if the technology is available at all.

When I said to the Speaker I wanted to debate this last Tuesday night, I received word the minister would not be here. I later received word he might be here on Thursday. I spoke to the minister on Thursday and he said: "You can have your debate any time you want. I do not intend to be there." I spoke to him again today. He said: "I do not care. I have heard all the arguments. I am not going to the debate tonight."

I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, perhaps this standing order needs to be reassessed. If a minister of the crown can simply thumb his nose at a member of the opposition who wants to debate a legitimate point, perhaps it is time matters like this were referred to the standing committee on members' services or to the procedural affairs committee.

It is simply outrageous that the Minister of the Environment can stand in his place either admitting his incompetence in not knowing the technology is available or pretending he does not know when he does know. I will let the Speaker's imagination deal with the ramifications of that. We in this chamber, and those of us from northern Ontario in particular, are very tired of the rather cavalier attitude of the minister of this government towards pollution.

I can recall 10 years ago when the superstack was built. Until that time sulphur dioxide pollution was a Sudbury problem. They build the superstack, the pollution goes for hundreds of miles and suddenly it is a province-wide problem. It has always been a problem --

Mr. Speaker: The member's time has expired.

Mr. Laughren: -- and as long as the present minister is in his place I suspect it will continue to be a problem.

Mr. Chairman: Thank you. The Minister of the Environment, Mr. Norton, has up to five minutes to reply if he so wishes.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have had the privilege in the last 50 seconds or so to hear some of the remarks of the honourable member opposite on this subject. I am not sure precisely from whence he comes, but I can --

Mr. Foulds: He comes from Sudbury.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I am well aware of that, but I am not sure precisely from whence he comes on the subject on which he was speaking.

However, the honourable member opposite ought to bear in mind first of all the degree to which both the Ministry of the Environment and the industry to which he has been referring have achieved very substantial abatement of the pollution problems of which we are all aware. With regard to his suggestion that a great deal more can be done, I agree. It is simply a question of being able to determine the most appropriate technology and putting it in place. If he can present to me --

Mr. Wildman: This is a management study.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Sure. He can hold up Inco studies and other kinds of studies, studies that have been discredited or that have been found to be impossible to achieve. Nevertheless, if the members can present to me a format or a technology -- I am seeking that -- which will achieve those kinds of results I would put them into an order tomorrow, and my colleagues on this side of the House would support me, except --

Mr. Laughren: Does the minister know what he is saying?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Oh yes, I know what I am saying. I know very well what I am saying. The members opposite should not deceive themselves into thinking I am saying what I am not saying; they should not get themselves sucked in. It is important they understand that in order to undertake those important and very significant steps on abatement all we need is the technology and we will do it.

I do not know about the allegations the members have made in the past of secret memos and internal documents and so on with respect to Inco or any other organization, but I can assure them that as soon as we know what the most appropriate technology is for achieving further results --

Mr. McClellan: Oh, this is very reassuring.

10:40 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I am glad. I am so reassured to hear the member for Bellwoods, with whom I have had the long-standing relationship of minister and critic, say he is reassured to see me on my feet.

Mr. McClellan: I said I was not reassured.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Oh, he is not?

Mr. McClellan: No.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I will have to take him aside again. I am sorry, we have some further work to do.

When the technology is available, and I believe we are on the brink of that, we will take those steps that are necessary. I will only be satisfied when Inco has reduced to the absolute minimum their levels of emissions.

Mr. Wildman: Here it is.

Mr. Laughren: It is right here. Can you read? Do you know what that says? There it is.

Hon. Mr. Norton: The honourable member is falling into the same pitfall as did the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Smith) this afternoon. He is tying his whole star, whatever one ties to a star, to a single report. If he has followed through, as I am sure he must have, being a member from that area, he will understand the problems that evolve from that particular report.

Mr. Laughren: No.

Hon. Mr. Norton: The member did not address that report in his remarks earlier -- at least not that I heard in any event.

Mr. Foulds: Neither have you.

Mr. Laughren: But I did.

Hon. Mr. Norton: What the member has failed to do is to recognize that there are reports which --

Mr. Speaker: The minister's time has expired.

Hon. Mr. Norton: All I can do is assure the honourable members that as soon as the technology is available, we will reduce Inco's emissions to their very minimum possible level.

The House adjourned at 10:41 p.m.