Hansard Transcripts 1981-Nov-17 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, after many years of discussion and thought, I will be introducing for first reading today an Act to amend the Municipal Elections Act.

The purpose of the act is to change the term of office of municipal councillors and elected local boards to three years from the current two. The members of municipal councils and local boards elected in 1982 and thereafter will hold office for three-year terms.

This change has the support of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, the Ontario School Trustees Council and the Ontario Municipal Electrical Association.

Mr. Nixon: But not the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Mr. Wells).

Hon. Mr. Bennett: It has unanimous consent over here.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: My view is that the three-year term of office will encourage municipalities to engage in more long-term planning. Given the long time lag involved in policy making in many areas, such as industrial development and capital projects, municipal politicians find it difficult to engage in long-term planning because of the two-year term of office. Citizens often do not have an adequate time period in which to judge the success or failure of policy initiatives.

The common assertion that municipal politicians and not electors will be the main beneficiaries of the three-year term of office is, in my view, incorrect. As I noted in my speech to the Association of Municipalities of Ontario recently, I expect municipalities to act more responsibly in exchange for the greater authority I would like to see them exercise in the future. A three-year term should strengthen the position of elected representatives vis-à-vis civic servants, appointed local boards and private sector interests.

I believe municipal electors will be well served by the three-year term. I have great faith in our municipal politicians and I expect that they will, by their actions, quickly convince the public that my trust in them is well founded.

ELGIN-WINTER GARDEN THEATRE

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to inform this House that I have just concluded an arrangement with the private sector that I believe marks a turning point in the development of live theatre in our province and country.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Leader of the Opposition on a point of order.

Mr. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I would like to follow the statement being made by the honourable minister. I do not seem to have a copy of it, though. I would appreciate receiving one.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: The arrangement of which I speak involves the resurrection of the historic Elgin-Winter Garden theatre complex in Toronto as a showcase for the best in Canadian-produced theatre. It also involves the restoration of a magical heritage property and the generation of significant economic benefits.

As many honourable members know, the Elgin-Winter Garden complex is an important and celebrated part of Ontario's rich cultural heritage. Originally known as the Loew's Theatre, it opened in 1913 as a twin-theatre vaudeville house and operated successfully for several years. With the advent of film soundtracks and the decline of vaudeville, the lower theatre was converted to show "talkies" and in 1927 the upper theatre, the Winter Garden, was closed.

In the fall of 1979, the Ministry of Culture and Recreation became involved in efforts to revitalize the complex as a centre for live performances. Negotiations involving many parties have taken place since that time. The city of Toronto, its planning office and particularly the mayor of Toronto, have played and continue to play a major role in this undertaking, and I wish to acknowledge their support in the warmest terms.

As I mentioned earlier, the acquisition, restoration and renovation of the Elgin-Winter Garden complex has important cultural, historical and economic implications. First, it adds two mid-sized theatres, one of 900 seats and another of 1,600 seats, to the inventory of performing arts venues in Toronto, and additional mid-sized houses are important to the theatre mix in this city.

The new complex will function as a transfer house to present commercially successful productions from small theatres everywhere in Ontario. It will provide a badly needed additional facility for the production of large-scale plays and musicals, which have potential for long runs and commercial viability. It will offer a space to touring productions that currently bypass Toronto because of an insufficient number of appropriate-sized facilities. It is not inconceivable that the Winter Garden could become a winter showcase for Stratford and Shaw Festival productions. Honourable members will be particularly interested to know that in consideration of the public funding involved with the project, the operator will present a certain minimum of Canadian content each year, including productions mounted by Canadian companies and plays written by Canadian playwrights.

There are very few old theatres still standing in Canada that provide a link for today's public with the vitality of our past. The Winter Garden is such a theatre. Theatres of the Elgin-Winter Garden's dimension and character will never be built again. Throughout the United States and Canada, a tremendous move is afoot to save these magnificent structures from the wrecker's ball. So, from both an historical and architectural viewpoint, the facility is unique and irreplaceable.

The final group of benefits of this project has to do with economics. It is estimated that the operation of these theatres will pump more than $30 million a year into the Toronto economy through the sale of admissions and through related sales of such things as food, accommodation and transportation. These expenditures would be made by both residents and tourists attracted to the kind of theatrical presentations provided in the two theatres. It is evident that the stimulation of the theatre industry will further enhance Toronto's attractiveness to tourists as a major theatrical centre.

The people of Ontario, through the provincial government, have provided considerable support to the performing arts in this province. Last May, Toronto hosted a mammoth theatre festival which drew significant worldwide attention. With the addition of the Elgin-Winter Garden complex, Toronto will help consolidate its position as a major international English-language theatre centre, in league with New York and London.

As I mentioned earlier, the Elgin-Winter Garden project is being undertaken in cooperation with the private sector. My ministry entertained proposals from three private sector groups interested in the restoration and operation of the two theatres. The combined proposal of Tiberius Productions Incorporated, Cineplex Corporation and WBC Productions Limited has been accepted. The total cost of the project will be approximately $13 million.

The Ontario Heritage Foundation, an important agency of my ministry, will purchase the property from Famous Players for $4.5 million. The property will then be renovated and restored at a cost of approximately $8.5 million and rented to the Tiberius group for 40 years at $1 per year. Commercial and residential density rights to the property will be sold to private sector property developers, and this sale will reduce the government's obligation to a maximum of $3 million and minimum of $1.5 million.

Honourable members will be interested to know that it has been estimated that a 2,500-seat theatre facility in downtown Toronto would cost approximately $35 million to build new. Therefore, this agreement is clearly an advantageous one for the people of Ontario.

For many years people have dreamed of restoring the abandoned Winter Garden theatre to its former glory. I am pleased today to announce that we are now ready to proceed with bringing back to life this important and priceless part of our urban heritage.

2:10 p.m.

ORAL QUESTIONS

MCMICHAEL CANADIAN COLLECTION

Mr. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a question of the Minister of Culture and Recreation (Mr. Baetz) regarding the McMichael Canadian collection. In particular, I want to ask him to set the record straight as a result of some of his statements in the House yesterday.

First, with regard to his denial that he had asked Mr. Robert McMichael, the founder of the collection, to resign from his position as executive director of the gallery, I draw the minister's attention to the story in the press today in which Mr. McMichael is quoted as having said of the minister: "He's a liar. His exact words were, 'Will you step aside from your directorship?'"

The report continues: "McMichael said he reluctantly agreed to do so only after Allan Taylor, chairman of the gallery board, also asked for a letter of resignation, explaining Baetz had made repeated calls asking for the resignation letter."

There was also a report back in February 1981, an article in the Star by a Mr. Littman, which said: "After receiving a certain report, Baetz decided" -- and this is a quotation attributed to Mr. Baetz -- " 'the time had come to bring in a new executive officer and move Bob and Signe aside.'"

Given that Mr. McMichael remembers clearly having been asked for his resignation and even calls the minister a liar, which is very strong language indeed, and given that the minister himself is quoted in the paper in February as having decided to move Mr. McMichael aside, will the minister explain why he stood in this House to continually deny having recommended the resignation of Mr. McMichael?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: First of all, Mr. Speaker, let me say for the record that I am not a liar. My father, a clergyman, taught me to tell the truth, and I think I have gone through life telling the truth. So I am not a liar. I repeat that for the Leader of the Opposition and for anyone else who is interested.

As I also indicated yesterday, I do not intend to become engaged in a long, drawn-out debate in question period on what I said or was reported to have said or on any phone calls I might have made or anything else. However, when we begin debate at the time we introduce the legislation, I will produce the information that I think will make the record clear once and for all.

In the meantime, I hope that not only members opposite and members in my caucus but also everyone in this House and outside the House will not pass judgement on what I have said or on what the government's intentions are or on what Mr. McMichael's position is. I urge everyone to withhold judgement until they have all the facts. All the facts will be presented clearly and compellingly when we introduce the legislation, as we will very shortly. We have nothing to hide on this side of the House, and that is all I am going to tell the member at this time. He must wait.

Mr. Smith: Since the question seems to be fairly straightforward and seems to be simply that the minister says he did not ask Mr. McMichael to resign and Mr. McMichael says the minister is a liar, that he did ask him to resign, surely the minister would like to explain to the House why we must wait some weeks before he will set the record straight on such a straightforward and clear contradiction, especially in view of the fact that the minister himself was quoted in February as having spoken of moving Mr. McMichael aside.

May I ask the minister further: When he decides to set the record straight, will he explain his assurance to this House that there is no desire to renege in any way on the agreement signed with the McMichaels by Premier Robarts? How can the minister say there is no desire to renege on the agreement when the draft bill says this agreement shall be rendered retroactively null, void and of no effect? How can one renege any more than that on any agreement?

Will the minister explain what is the meaning of that clause in the draft bill if not to get rid of the agreement?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: This is neither the time nor the place to talk about a draft bill. The time to debate the bill is when I introduce it in the House. Then members will have all kinds of opportunity to debate the bill. Why try to do it now? Why try to inflame a situation right now? Playing politics: that is all the members opposite are doing.

In fairness to Mr. and Mrs. McMichael, I think the Leader of the Opposition had better hold off any further innuendoes and accusations until I introduce the legislation.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, by way of an aside, perhaps it would have been easier for all of us to refrain from comment if the minister had refrained from comment. If he had not made the statement he did in February, we would not be asking the questions now.

In the debate we are going to have, will the minister give his undertaking to this House now that when the bill is introduced and read the second time it will be put out to the standing committee on social development? In that way we would have an opportunity to explore the whole of the background of this matter, including the innuendoes and allegations made about Mr. McMichael.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Mr. Speaker, I am not prepared at this moment to make any promises like that.

Mr. Smith: Does the minister not recognize the seriousness of a matter that involves a man who would appear to be one of the great benefactors in the history of Canadian culture and certainly is one of the great benefactors in the history of Ontario?

If the minister asked for that man's resignation based on a number of unsubstantiated and unproven accusations about him, if he panicked when he heard those reports and asked for his resignation, does he not recognize it is the minister's resignation that would be appropriate in those circumstances? Has he not recognized the seriousness of this matter? Why will he not set the record straight right here and now?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: I will, in due course, at the time we debate the bill; that is the appropriate time to set the record straight. I can assure the Leader of the Opposition we will do so and there will be no doubt about the impropriety of anything. I simply ask the Leader of the Opposition to wait. Legislation will be introduced soon.

Mr. Smith: Outrageous! The minister has been called a liar in the paper today, and he will not respond to that? It is outrageous.

Mr. Speaker: New question.

Mr. Breithaupt: You are letting it fester, and that is very serious.

Mr. Smith: That is not fair to anybody.

Mr. Roy: How can you let that situation fester, Reuben? Give us an explanation now.

Mr. T. P. Reid: You are under a cloud and McMichael is under a cloud.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Leader of the Opposition with a new question.

NIAGARA RIVER POLLUTION

Mr. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I will direct a question to my friend the Minister of the Environment. The minister --

Mr. Roy: Why won't he answer our questions?

Mr. Speaker: Will the member for Ottawa East please let his leader pose his question?

Mr. Smith: The Minister of the Environment has made some statements as a result of the release of the environmental baseline report on the Niagara River. The minister is quoted as saying: "As I have stated in the past, treated water supplies serving Niagara-On-The-Lake, Niagara Falls and Fort Erie meet federal and provincial criteria for drinking water." The article is headlined: "Our Water is Safe to Drink, says Norton."

I wonder how the minister can say a thing like that when the report itself, on page 26, says:

"No drinking water objectives have as yet been established by Health and Welfare Canada or Environment Ontario for a number of organics detected in some raw and some treated water samples drawn from the Niagara River and at St. Catharines at part per trillion or part per billion levels during 1979 and 1980."

It goes on to say that although the significance of the concentration has been looked at by certain experts, some of the compounds are even above the United States Environmental Protection Agency recommended levels.

Why assure us the drinking water meets our standards and criteria when the report itself says that for many of the substances found in that water there are no standards or criteria?

2:20 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I ought to begin by congratulating the honourable leader of the operation -- that is, Leader of the Opposition -- for the generosity of spirit he showed at least in the preamble to his question.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Norton: It is his medical background. I am not sure what kind of operation he used to perform.

What the Leader of the Opposition cites in this report is by no means new information. Nor have I ever indicated there were criteria for any and all substances. As a matter of fact, it has been a matter of some action on my part in terms of communicating with my counterparts in other jurisdictions.

I think the fact that some substances are present in trace amounts and that heretofore no medical criteria have been established probably requires action of an international magnitude in terms of research to establish such criteria. It will involve a major effort to do so.

However, on the basis of the best medical advice available to me, to the Leader of the Opposition or, I believe, to anyone else, the statement I made is correct. I stand by that. It is true that there are no criteria for some of the materials found in trace amounts. If the Leader of the Opposition consults knowledgeable medical people in this field, I am confident they would advise him as I have been advised, that in those minute amounts they feel confident in making the assumption it does not constitute a present hazard.

Like the Leader of the Opposition, I would feel more comfortable if medical knowledge were more advanced. In some cases, our capacity to detect these compounds has outstripped the capacity of the medical community to do the research.

Mr. Smith: Accepting that in many cases the minister is correct and that with some of these compounds one does not yet know the significance, will the minister at least not agree that he ought not to be giving assurances when neither he nor I can speak of any limits that have been set?

In particular, does the minister not know that the United States Environmental Protection Agency has certain criteria under consideration for treated water. It is pointed out in this study that the concentrations found in Niagara for bromodichloromethane from methylene chloride and polychlorinated biphenyls exceed those suggested criteria.

Some criteria have already been exceeded. Specifically, the minister knows there is a list of priority substances that is set by the federal government. Is he aware that in this report it is pointed out that, in untreated water, 11 of those substances have increased in concentration from 1979 to 1980 and, in treated drinking water, 12 of those substances have increased from 1979 to 1980?

Will the minister not agree that this is a serious trend and one that requires more than bland reassurance on the part of the minister?

Hon. Mr. Norton: The Leader of the Opposition is again being selective in what he is choosing to recall or select from my comments of yesterday. To the best of my recollection, one quotation he has selected is accurate; it relates to the Canadian standards that have been established for Canada by the Department of National Health and Welfare.

I stand by what I said in that regard. I do not know if it is the same article from which he is quoting, but certainly there were some reporters who quoted my remarks reasonably accurately, indicating I am concerned about the trend and the longer-term impact of the levels of loading of contaminants in the Niagara River and the Great Lakes.

I have indicated, both here and in conversation with the persons who have written those articles in the past, that I see the forthcoming meetings with Governor Carey and Commissioner Robert F. Flacke as a first hopeful sign. But I do not see that as the end result.

If there is not some indication of a genuine commitment to concerted action to address this problem, then I have indicated as well that this jurisdiction will be taking other avenues of action which may be open to it. In fact, this week we will present that report to the committee of the International Joint Commission and press the IJC to lend its substantial weight to the efforts that we are making to try to encourage our neighbouring jurisdiction to address this problem as seriously as we have.

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, does adequate proof not exist when commercial fishing no longer exists in the lower Niagara River, when fish turn up there showing high concentrations of the kind of toxics that concern us, when the SCA pipeline has diffusion nozzles to dilute what they are putting in there, and when we have movement leaching from many of the dump sites?

What proof does the minister have to have before he does something meaningful to protect the citizens of the area? Is he going to wait until the citizens are affected? Does he not think we have ample proof?

Hon. Mr. Norton: I am not sure of the import of that question, Mr. Speaker. Furthermore, if the honourable member reads back his preamble to that question at some point, he will find he stated in rapid succession a number of things, some of which are quite accurate and all of which have long since been public information, that I myself in many instances made public in this Legislature and elsewhere.

Mr. Kerrio: It seems to escape you.

Hon. Mr. Norton: No, it does not escape me at all. I think the member's question was whether I think there is an indication that there is enough information for action. I do, and that is precisely what I have been doing and will continue to do.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, can the minister tell us precisely --

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: The New Democratic Party has missed its turn in the normal course of the rotation. That is not the way you have been allowing members to ask questions in the past, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: In the normal rotation, each party gets equal time and equal questions. The third party did not stand up then, but they stood up at this point. That is not a point of order.

Mr. Mancini: On the same point of order, sir --

Mr. Speaker: The member for Port Arthur has the floor for a supplementary.

Mr. Foulds: Thank you. Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Mancini: You are not going to hear my point of order; is that it? Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, can the minister inform the House in concrete terms what proposals he and the Premier (Mr. Davis) are putting to Governor Carey when they meet? Can the minister tell us whether he has asked the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) to investigate the possibility of laying charges under the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act of 1909?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first part of that question is no, not at this time. Even the member will understand that if one is in preparation for such a meeting and hopes to achieve success through such a meeting, it is folly to discuss one's strategy and specific proposals in advance. I will certainly share that with the member at the appropriate time, but I am not going to jeopardize the possibility of success in those meetings by responding in detail to his question now.

In answer to the second part of the member's question, I have sought advice from the Attorney General if the member includes, along with the Attorney General, the law officers of the crown. I assume he meant it in the broader sense of seeking legal advice from law officers of the crown. I have sought advice from them on that and a whole range of possible options that I have under consideration.

2:30 p.m.

CANADIAN ADMIRAL

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a new question for the Minister of Labour (Mr. Elgie) about the need to protect the workers at Admiral. It has been almost two weeks now since the shutdown of their plant and the workers still have no indication of whether they will get severance pay or if they will get pay in lieu of notice. In many cases they have yet to meet with the Unemployment Insurance Commission.

Is the Minister of Labour aware that, according to the terms of the Employment Standards Act, Admiral may not be required to give pay in lieu of notice to the workers who were thrown out of their jobs two weeks ago in cases where a contract of employment had become impossible of performance or frustrated by a fortuitous or unforeseeable event or circumstance; that is, specifically, in a case where the banks and bondholders took over control of the company, as occurred two weeks ago?

Will the minister enact legislation that will reverse this state of affairs to ensure that workers are not deprived of pay in lieu of notice because banks move in on a company that is failing?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the honourable member that this is a very complex issue that has faced the federal and provincial governments for some time. The member knows very well that the banks and the Caisse de Dépôt have moved in on Canadian Admiral, in one case under the Bank Act and in the other case under the debenture they hold on the fixed assets. Should the company become dissolved totally, then what is left over after those securities are met would be distributed to meet the other obligations, some of which we have already placed a claim for.

As I told the House yesterday, our employment standards officers have determined that approximately $490,000 is owing in vacation pay, and a claim has been registered with the agent and with the receiver. We are continuing to determine what amounts are owing with regard to severance pay, benefits and termination pay.

The real issue we are talking about is the one the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) raised yesterday and on other occasions, namely, is there some way to better protect wages in the broad sense? I have repeatedly said that the Landry commission in Ottawa, a tripartite commission looking at this, was expected to report. It reported today, and we are in the process of reviewing the material they have presented.

As the member knows, that commission proposed to the minister that there should be an interim solution through amendment to the Bankruptcy Act and then a longer-term solution with regard to a wage protection fund, following negotiations and discussions between the federal government and the province. I am anxious to hear the response of the federal government to that. We are prepared to enter into those discussions.

Mr. Cassidy: Since the problem we are talking about today is a different one from that of a couple of days ago and relates specifically to provincial legislation, the Employment Standards Act, and since the Employment Standards Act contains a loophole that allows the banks to slip in ahead of the workers and leave the workers with no claim to getting pay in lieu of notice, my question is: Will the minister enact legislation that will be sufficiently retroactive to protect the Admiral workers in this case, or does the Minister of Labour put the interests of the banks ahead of the workers?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I do not think this is an occasion for grandstanding; it is an occasion to deal with the problems. As I pointed out to the member for Riverdale yesterday, what we face are problems that are intertwined; insolvency and bankruptcy. If we want to step in and do some things that will force creditors to petition bankruptcy, so be it; but then it comes under the Bankruptcy Act. I am sure the member does not want that.

What we all want is the best solution to protect the wages of workers. That is what we are prepared to work at.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, there is another class of people who were severely damaged by this insolvency, the suppliers, a number of whom shipped merchandise in the last 10 days before the bankruptcy of this company. As a result, they have to lay off a number of workers, and they are in serious trouble. Is the minister looking into that question?

Is he conferring with his colleague the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Walker) about the securities legislation pertaining thereto so that we can never have a situation again in this province where a strip of the treasury results in the bankruptcy of a company.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I believe the member for London Centre (Mr. Peterson) put that question to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations the other day and received an answer. I really have no comment. It is beyond the scope of this minister.

Mr. Renwick: Final supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Will the minister consult with the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) and ask for an investigation as to whether any of the directors or officers of Admiral were in default under the Employment Standards Act and whether charges should be laid?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I will be pleased to tell the Attorney General that question was asked of me in the House by the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick).

UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a new question for the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) about the situation with unemployment in the province, and the need for action at this level of government. Is the minister aware that -- if I can give Chatham as an example -- a study done by the local Canada Employment Centre indicates that 24 per cent of the workers employed by the key industries in that area are on indefinite layoff? That means 1,623 men and women are without jobs.

Is he aware Canadian Fram has 204 workers laid off and 469 still working; that Rockwell has 464 laid off and only 126 working; that Motor Wheel has 149 laid off and 321 working; and that International Harvester has 548 workers laid off and 761 working in the truck plant in Chatham? Given that situation, will the minister not agree it is time to have a mini-budget here in Ontario that will get those workers in Chatham and everywhere else across the province back to work -- and back to work now?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I think we have talked about this question of the automobile industry quite often. That area is heavily dependent on trucks as well as cars, and I believe the member will find there is a major slump in components in both areas. We took some steps two weeks ago this coming Thursday to try to assist at least the inventory of vehicles, assuming that would help some employment in Canada and some employment in Ontario. We went through a similar slump a few years ago and I can only hope we will see changes in the interest rates before too long that will encourage consumers to start buying the products manufactured in Ontario.

I have reason to believe there will be considerable drops in the interest rates very shortly. I have received some predictions today to tell me the figures I gave the House yesterday were probably too high. We could even see figures as low as 14 per cent in Ontario, rather than the 15 per cent I guessed at yesterday, within the next couple of months.

Mr. Cassidy: If Darcy McKeough were the Treasurer of Ontario today he would not leave the workers in Chatham in the situation they are under this Treasurer.

Mr. Speaker, as a supplementary, does the minister have any employment measures in mind at all, in view of the fact there are 319,000 workers out of work in the province today and 124,000 of those workers are between the ages of 15 and 24; or does he simply intend to leave that very large group of workers, and even larger proportion of young workers, to sit on the unemployment rolls through another winter, wondering when on earth they are going to get some leadership and some help from the government they helped to elect?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Again, Mr. Speaker, we believe we have done some things that are going to improve fundamentally the medium- and long-term opportunities for employment in that industry. We have promised an auto parts technology centre and will be delivering it, as we deliver all of our promises, before long. This will, we believe, allow the parts manufacturers to remain competitive in Canada. That is a very important part of the total employment picture in that industry. The Board of Industrial Leadership and Development document outlined ways and means of improving employment.

Mr. Sweeney: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Budd Automotive in Kitchener announced layoffs of 826 workers yesterday, which will mean that company will go from a high of 3,058 workers to a low of 368 workers. Would the Treasurer be prepared to allocate some new funds, in co-ordination with his colleagues in Industry and Tourism, Labour and Colleges and Universities, to launch innovative retraining programs for many of those workers, who will not be able to go back to those kinds of industrial jobs.

2:40 p.m.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Again let me point out that the Ministry of Industry and Tourism, the Ministry of Colleges and Universities and the Ministry of Education have been working quite aggressively on retraining programs that I think are working well, and I think the member will agree they are.

Mr. Mancini: They have not been doing anything.

Mr. Nixon: That is why we are bringing in workers from Europe.

Mr. Smith: Give them a share of Suncor.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Training in business and industry, employee-sponsored training, upgrading -- that has all done quite well. My friend is talking about an industry --

Mr. Smith: They can learn to do other things.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. F. S. Miller: The product made by the corporation the member is talking about is auto body frames. Does the member not agree that is so? The story of the auto parts industry has been that as one component has changed, companies have adapted to making other things. That plant has the most efficient frame production in North America. Even so, the total amount of production for vehicles with frames is diminishing very quickly because the technology is changing as we go to lighter parts.

Mr. Cooke: You do not know what you are talking about.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I do not?

Mr. Cooke: They lost the General Motors contract in the United States.

Mr. Speaker: Order, order.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary. I wish the Treasurer could have been with me in Port Credit at 8 o'clock this morning when I talked to some of the Canadian Admiral workers who were these statistics that he plays with so fancifully. He does not understand what it means to people's lives when they have to face mortgage payments of $500 or $600 a month, when they have to face going from two incomes to one, or from one income to none, when people are looking for jobs and finding no openings available at all.

Would the Treasurer at least do what the federal government did last week and share with the House his forecast of the unemployment rate in this province over the next three or four years? The federal government says the unemployment rate in Canada will exceed eight per cent over the next three or four years. What unemployment rate does the Treasurer anticipate here in Ontario?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, my ministry and others do make forecasts of potential unemployment rates. The last time I saw the statistics -- something the member would like to forget -- we had more people at work in Ontario at the end of October than we had a year ago. The member has to deal with the negative.

Mr. Martel: That is helpful for those unemployed.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I accept the fact there are problems. I am not trying to diminish them at all, but we still have positives. If people only listened to the member they would give up in total despair and stop trying.

TORONTO TRANSIT COMMISSION FARES

Mr. Ruprecht: I have a question for the Minister of Transportation and Communications regarding the proposed Toronto Transit Commission fare increase. The minister will be aware the TTC today will decide on the amount of fare increase it wishes to see imposed on transit riders in 1982 and Metro council will soon make a similar determination. Fares are going to rise primarily as a result of the minister's refusal to increase his share of this vital service. I want to know if he personally favours a system in which fares rise year after year affecting those who can least afford to pay? Second, when is the minister going to give Metro Toronto a fair deal and pay at least the same share of costs that he pays to smaller Ontario communities?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, to give Metropolitan Toronto the same ratio of grants for transit operating expenses that we give to all other Ontario communities would not be a fair deal.

Mr. Smith: It would so.

Hon. Mr. Snow: It would not be fair because the systems are totally different. Their market areas, their density, their ridership, are totally different.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Snow: With regard to the first part of the question, I do not think it is unreasonable that from time to time there have to be fare adjustments. It is not only Metropolitan Toronto that has fare adjustments. As I read the press clippings from across the province, I find other municipalities are also making fare adjustments as they see fit. That is one thing we leave totally with the municipality, to establish their fare structure. Our ratio of expenditures, subsidies to the municipalities, is based on a percentage of operating costs.

For example, on the operating costs of the TTC, in 1979 the provincial contribution was $33,103,050. That went up in 1980 to $36,592,000 and it went up in 1981 to what we estimate will be in the neighbourhood of $43 million. As members can see, the province, through my ministry, has made very substantial contributions to the operating cost of the TTC and have made substantial increases in those grants that I think are in line with inflation. To make grants higher than those I have just read out are not necessary and would not be realistic.

Mr. Mancini: Supplementary: Does the minister know that by increasing his share to the same level as London and/or Ottawa and by forgoing the scurrilous 27 per cent tax on diesel fuel, those two items alone would reduce the operating costs by $9.5 million and move us that much closer to a fare freeze? Would the minister undertake to look at such a policy?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, the tax on diesel fuel is totally outside my control. If the honourable member wishes to talk about diesel fuel tax he should talk to my colleague the Treasurer.

Mr. Smith: Are you going to make that recommendation?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it would be fair to say Windsor, London, Ottawa, Hamilton, Mississauga -- cities of that size that have 200,000, 300,000, 400,000 population -- are in the same category as Metropolitan Toronto. Toronto can implement certain efficiencies and economies in serving a population of more than two million people. It is not a comparison of equal communities. It is not a fair comparison of equal area, densities, miles travelled per bus per 1,000 passengers carried -- this type of calculation.

In our funding in the past years we have paid to the municipality of Metro Toronto more than 50 per cent of the deficit it has suffered. We have paid more than we would have been paying under the old formula of 50 per cent of the deficit.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: The minister is making an argument that because the transit system in Ottawa, for example, serves only a third of the area of the transit system in Toronto the fares should be substantially lower. Is he aware the fares in Ottawa now are 70 cents? They went up by 10 cents in the past year and it is anticipated they will rise by another 10 cents in 1982. They are now talking of a 90-cent cash fare in 1983.

Would the minister say how high transit fares have to go in the major communities of this province before the government is prepared to step in? Is the government prepared to review the formula for funding transit in order to ensure a fair deal for transit riders in Toronto, in Ottawa and in other communities across the province?

Mr. Foulds: And in Pickle Lake.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I deal with all the municipal representatives across this province -- with the 61, 62 or 63, whatever it is at this moment, transit systems that operate. I do not find any of those people coming to me saying the formula we have for the funding of transit is unfair. In many cases, when I discuss transit with the ministers of transportation from the other provinces, they are somewhat surprised at the very generous funding and very heavy commitment this government has to transit.

We have the best system of transit funding in North America. The member knows that and there is no doubt about it.

2:50 p.m.

EXOLON COURT CASE

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of the Environment. The minister will be aware, I presume, that the Exolon Company of Canada Limited in Thorold, a large, dirty abrasives plant, was acquitted two or three weeks ago on two counts of air pollution. The lawyer for his ministry stated the court decision would not be appealed even though the judge who acquitted the company said he was satisfied "beyond a reasonable doubt that the pollution in fact took place."

Is it not true this case was lost either because of the inadequacy of his ministry in compiling evidence and witnesses, probably due to a lack of environmental staff in the Welland office, or because he did not want to prosecute hard enough to get a conviction?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I wish the choices were always that simple and as blatantly black and white as the honourable member usually perceives things. I am not at this point familiar with the evidence presented in this case. I will consult with the legal staff involved and be brought up to date on the specifics of the case.

Mr. Swart: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: I am somewhat surprised by the minister's answer. Is he not aware the lawyer blamed it on the refusal of witnesses, both employees of the Exolon plant and residents in the area, to testify? Does he not remember that he himself sent a letter to the city of Thorold on August 21, 1981, saying, "I would like you to be aware that the latest court case involving Exolon was a result of complaints and yet residents in the area did not wish to testify during the case."

I have here evidence from the employees, which I will send to him, that this statement is false. Does he know the main complainants were my immediate neighbours? I personally notified the ministry office in Welland they were willing to testify, as they did themselves. Let me quote from a signed statement -- I will send the minister a copy of it -- by the residents of the area:

"We state categorically that those statements by the environmental lawyer and the minister are incorrect. Although we are the main complainants and offered to testify in court, at no time were any of us contacted, either by phone or letter, and requested to do so. Had we been we would have agreed to do it with enthusiasm." It was signed by Mr. and Mrs. Byford, Mr. and Mrs. Petti, and Mr. and Mrs. Hargreave. I ask the minister why he would publicly malign those people and whether his ministry will now appeal that case?

Hon. Mr. Norton: The answer to one part of that question is no. I really did not realize any of the persons who might have had some evidence to present were neighbours of the member. I find that very interesting and I hope he will continue to encourage his neighbours to be responsible citizens of the community and be prepared to come forward whenever such events occur. But for him to expect me to comment on the specifics of that case at this time without some reference from the Ministry of the Attorney General to the persons who were involved in the prosecution is a little unrealistic.

The statements in my letter and what he said could both be quite correct. When one is preparing a case in court, as he ought to know I should think, there are certain key elements to making the case. It may not be a lack of willing witnesses, it may be a lack --

Mr. Swart: That is what your lawyer said it was.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Yes, but the member should just calm down for one moment so he can hear the complete sentence.

It may be, for example, that certain persons whose evidence would have been key elements to making the case in court were not there. It may be there were all kinds of people who would have liked to have given evidence, but the evidence might not all have been entirely relevant to making the case. I do not know that is the answer.

All I am saying is that his assumptions are very simplistic. I will check and see what I can find out regarding the statement attributed to counsel in the case, but I suggest the member check with the member for Riverdale. I guess he is the only lawyer left in his caucus. He should check with him and let him explain in simple terms what is required in making a case in court. It is not simply an oath-giving exercise where they line up witnesses whose evidence may not be entirely elemental in making the case. I will check and see what I can come up with.

Mr. Smith: In his answer to my Order Paper question on this very matter, the minister has said about the reason they did not prosecute Walker Brothers who operate the dump site: "Prosecution was not pursued since the statute of limitations applies and the certificate of approval that was in effect at the time drums were received did not exclude the acceptance of liquid waste."

At the time we raised the matter in this House there would have been time to prosecute and the statute of limitations ran out only because the minister took so much darned time about the whole thing. Given the fact the certificate of approval excludes liquid waste, inasmuch as it does not include it, and the Ridge landfill decision makes that distinction clear, what excuse is the minister now prepared to offer as to why he did not move towards prosecution?

Hon. Mr. Norton: I think it is important the honourable Leader of the Opposition understands that investigating a given case may involve a considerable amount of time. One of the things I will be --

Mr. Smith: You let the time run out.

Hon. Mr. Norton: That is not entirely uncommon.

Mr. Breithaupt: Not in your ministry.

Hon. Mr. Norton: As a matter of fact, I have three bills that have been introduced which will be given second reading in the House this afternoon. An important element of two of those is the extension of the present six-month statute of limitation period to a period of two years because of that very problem.

Investigations of matters relating to the environment often have a tendency to be very complex. It is not the kind of thing we can always be sure of getting done within six months. I reiterate, that is one of the things leading to the proposed amendments in the bills this afternoon, which I hope members will support unanimously and enthusiastically.

PRISON OVERCROWDING

Mr. Kolyn: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Correctional Services. In the Sunday, November 15, edition of the Toronto Star, an article written by Mike Erdle stated there are plans to put prisoners convicted of serious offences in the Mimico Correctional Centre. In Lakeshore we find this alarming. Will the minister tell me if that statement is accurate?

Hon. Mr. Leluk: The honourable member for Lakeshore is no doubt aware we have a degree of overcrowding in the Toronto East and West Detention Centres. The ministry is maximizing the use of available space at the Mimico Correctional Centre in west Toronto and is upgrading the security of the fence in order to accommodate up to an additional 150 selected inmates.

I would like to assure the honourable member we do not intend to house maximum security inmates at this facility and we are not upgrading the facility to maximum security. He may also be interested to know the average inmate stay at Mimico is approximately 67 days.

Mr. Philip: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: There has been a problem in the west end detention centre in the past with correctional officers complaining about excessive overtime and of that being a safety hazard. Would the minister table with us any changes there may be or any increases in the amount of overtime required as a result of overcrowding in these institutions?

Hon. Mr. Leluk: I will be pleased to get that information for the honourable member.

Mr. Eakins: Since we are speaking of overcrowding mainly in the Metro area, what is the situation in many of the institutions in other parts of the province? Is it similar to the Metro area?

Hon. Mr. Leluk: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the member for Victoria-Haliburton, this degree of overcrowding is mainly being felt in the Hamilton-Toronto corridor. Crowding in the other institutions is not to the same degree as it is in Metro.

GAS FURNACE VALVES

Mr. Ruston: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations with regard to energy conservation for natural gas furnaces.

3 p.m.

When is this government going to approve automatic, electric or thermal unit dampers for use in natural gas furnaces in Ontario? This type of unit has been used for seven years in the United States and some provinces in Canada and has reduced gas consumption by approximately 20 per cent. Can the minister assure this House Union Gas has not been a part of this refusal to approve this type of unit?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Order. Will the minister please respond?

Hon. Mr. Walker: Would you like me to send this to you, Mr. Speaker? Do you need a new gas valve?

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Walker: Would you like to repeat that? I think I will send this up to the censor board for their review of the matter.

I will have the matter looked into to determine if this gas valve, which is made in the United States, has Canadian Standards Association approval and the approval of the people from the energy board and the gas standards as well. I will have to determine whether or not it has been submitted to them for approval. Ultimately, if it is approved by them and meets the standards and qualifications of national and provincial requirements, it of course can then go on the market. There is certainly no other impediment.

Mr. Ruston: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: We know it has not been approved yet by Ontario. We want to know why, since similar units are being put in new furnaces in Ontario, the minister will not allow them to go in existing systems. The cost of these new furnaces is about $3,000 and for $400 extra one can put in the dampers, electronic ignition and also a set-back thermostat, which will save about 30 per cent of our natural gas.

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, nobody can dispute those claims; if they are valid that is just great. I think if they are capable of being adapted to existing furnaces, if they are valid and if they work properly on existing furnaces, which is an important safety factor, then certainly this province will not prevent them from being installed. The fact they are being installed in some new burners is promising, and I suppose it means it is likely they will ultimately be tailored enough to be approved on existing furnaces.

But safety is the key factor. That is why we require the approval of the Canadian Standards Association and of the Life Underwriters Association of Canada as well: just to ensure there is proper public safety. The member well knows there have been some incidents, probably not very far from his own community, where improperly installed gas appliances have created some difficulty. I know in other parts of the province we have valves that are creating difficulty.

Only three weeks ago I issued a statement in the House obliging a recall of the White-Rodgers gas valve, which has turned out to be something of a safety problem. It is not related to this, of course, but it is important that there be safe appliances. That is why we require proper safety features to be passed by the Life Underwriters, by the Canadian Standards Association and by the energy people.

Mr. Newman: Mr. Speaker, is the minister aware such devices have been approved in British Columbia, that they are likewise used throughout Europe and that millions of this type of unit are used as add-ons and not as regular equipment in the purchase of the furnace? Is he also aware that L-K Metal approached his ministry well over three years ago and asked for approval or for some answer from the minister and have never been able to get one from his ministry?

Hon. Mr. Walker: I would ask the member if it is this unit that has been approved for use in European centres and all through the United States and in British Columbia?

Mr. Newman: The Ameri-Therm unit has been approved in British Columbia and apparently is being examined by the Canadian Gas Association. From the information I received, it is absolutely safe.

Hon. Mr. Walker: I hope the member is right, and if it is a safe feature, I hope it will be on the market as soon as humanly possible.

LUMBER COMPANY LAYOFFS

Mr. Stokes: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Minister of Natural Resources whether he will undertake, in concert with his colleague the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Bernier), to come up with a program of silviculture work, scarification and thinning in northern Ontario to cushion the effect of all the layoffs in the lumber, particle board and plywood industries.

Specifically, will he use those funds there are in both those ministries to good advantage to meet some of the requirements under the forest management agreement for more silviculture work to increase productivity in the boreal forest?

Hon. Mr. Pope: Mr. Speaker, we are aware of the unfortunate consequences of the fire in that mill and of the widening impact of loss of employment on a temporary basis to the workers up there. For the last couple of weeks, our ministry staff has been working on a couple of alternative programs. The Minister of Northern Affairs has also been discussing it with me.

When we get a little further information from the companies involved, beyond the actual company involved in the fire, I hope we will have a couple of options to consider. We are concerned about it, and we are working on some alternatives.

Mr. Stokes: What kind of a time frame is the minister working within? As he well knows, there are literally hundreds of people who are out of work because of soft lumber markets, but there could be 1,500 people who will be out for several months as a result of that major fire at Kimberly-Clark in Terrace Bay. Is he looking at that in the immediate future?

Hon. Mr. Pope: We do have some limits in terms of climatic conditions that we have to consider in some of our own programs under the forest management agreements and under crown treatment for reforestation programs, but we are looking at something in the springtime that will be of some long-term assistance. The timing of it will have to be negotiated with the federal government as well.

Mr. Smith: Mr. Speaker, has the minister an estimate of how many of these people he could put to work over this very difficult and unfortunate time if his ministry were to use the money that is otherwise earmarked to purchase a jet plane?

Hon. Mr. Pope: Mr. Speaker, I am confident we have in place government programs that will allow us some flexibility in terms of utilization of manpower. I know the Leader of the Opposition is not familiar with the situation in the Kimberly- Clark mill. He wishes to use it as another vehicle to launch his tirade against the jet, which he does not understand either. I can assure him that with the existing programs, and we have the best in this country, we will continue to look after the problems of the people in northern Ontario, which he does not understand.

LIQUID WASTE DISPOSAL

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of the Environment. On November 9, the minister stated as follows, at page 3296 of Hansard: "As he may be aware" -- the minister was talking about the Leader of the Opposition -- "there has been an application for leave to appeal the Ridge decision, which comes before the Court of Appeal on the 16th. If I am not mistaken, I certainly have a very keen interest in whether or not that decision will be appealed because, obviously, if it stands, I may well have to take some specific actions. I am looking at those alternatives at the present time in anticipation of any possible outcome of the hearing."

Given that leave to appeal has not been granted in the Ridge court decision and that an indelible shadow now is cast on some of the minister's other certifications, can he advise us exactly what he is going to do to clean up the situation his own officials have got us into?

3:10 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, for purposes of clarity, I wish to point out to the honourable member that in the quotation he read, the words "if I am not mistaken" related to some uncertainty as to whether I had the correct date. I was not worried about being mistaken about my keen interest. That is just the way it came across. I was not sure about the emphasis.

The member is quite correct; the application for leave to appeal was denied yesterday. It is my intention to outline in the House, in a full statement to the honourable members within the next few days, the course of action I will follow to remedy the situation.

SPEAKER'S RULING

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order as a result of the confusion on the earlier point raised by my colleague the member for Essex South (Mr. Mancini).

As I understand the ruling you made some time ago in regard to leaders' questions, you ruled that there would be first a question from the party leader, then a supplementary from the party leader, followed by a supplementary from the other opposition party and a final supplementary from the party that asked the original question.

You also ruled that if the other opposition party missed its turn, it was simply out of luck. Yet today, on the second question from my leader, you recognized him for a supplementary and, when no member from the third party stood in his place, you recognized the member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Kerrio).

Mr. Speaker: With all respect, that is not a point of order.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Renwick moved, seconded by Mr. Mackenzie, first reading of Bill 168, An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is to create a first charge over the assets in Ontario of every employer for the purpose of securing the payment of any moneys that may become due to an employee by way of termination pay under sections 40 and 48 of the Employment Standards Act. This charge would have priority over every other security interest on the real and personal property in Ontario of the employer, whether created before or after the coming into force of this act.

VDT OPERATORS' SAFETY ACT

Mr. R. F. Johnston moved, seconded by Mr. McClellan, first reading of Bill 169, An Act for the Protection of Video Display Terminal Operators.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is to protect the health of video display terminal operators by regulating the conditions of their employment and by setting the standards for the operation of terminals.

It prohibits the sale or leasing of terminals that emit any form of radiation other than visible light. It allows operators to withdraw their services if they are pregnant, and it establishes health and safety committees for office workers who are terminal operators.

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Bennett moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Gregory, first reading of Bill 170, An Act to Amend the Municipal Elections Act.

Motion agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day, I wish to indicate to the House that there is standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. Smith a motion of no confidence in the government, which will be called this Thursday evening at eight o'clock.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

House in committee of the whole.

METROPOLITAN POLICE FORCE COMPLAINTS PROJECT ACT (CONTINUED)

Resuming the adjourned 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.

On section 19:

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Chairman, the Solicitor General will be here within five or six minutes. With the concurrence of the House, his parliamentary assistant, the member for Carleton East (Mr. MacQuarrie), will start the debate.

Mr. Chairman: I take it that I have the concurrence of the House. While we are getting organized, I will refresh everyone's memory. We are on Mr. Elston's proposed amendment, an addition to section 19. His addition will be subsection 18, "The board may make an order which awards costs to a party to the hearing."

Mr. Elston: Mr. Chairman, I do not think that has been officially moved. We closed at the end of section 19(17).

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Elston moves that section 19 be amended by adding the following subsection: "(18) The board may make an order which awards costs to a party to the hearing."

Mr. Elston: Mr. Chairman, this amendment was introduced in committee. It attracted some superficial appeal on the part of some honourable members, who then took a considerable amount of time to have their outside information brought to them. It was debated at length in committee.

I wanted to move it again and let the committee of the whole House know that this amendment is in accordance with a move that we think is appropriate, in which all boards with a public function ought to be able to award costs to a party for an appearance before a board. This would stimulate the use of the procedure by those people who would not be able to pay their own way in cases where they had a valid complaint. That ought to be the paramount consideration.

It also has the effect, as I pointed out during the argument in committee, of dealing with situations that are not "legitimate" in the eyes of the board. It would therefore tend to prevent the profusion of appeals to this public board by those citizens whose complaints were not substantiated in the initial event.

We think that it is worthwhile to make this amendment to this legislation, but we anticipate the reaction of both the New Democratic Party, which forsook the cause of the people, and of the government party, which also voted against this matter in committee.

3:20 p.m.

Mr. Philip: Mr. Chairman, not forsaking the cause of the people, but rather speaking on behalf of it, one would think that the Liberal Party would have understood that something as sensitive as a police complaints bill should be one in which every possible encouragement and ease for those people who may have been mistreated or allegedly mistreated in some way would be put forward.

Instead, the Liberals seem to want to bring forward an amendment that will discourage anyone from coming forward. Indeed, it will discourage those who are most economically disadvantaged from coming forward out of fear that, if the decision does not go in their favour, they will suddenly be faced with tremendous costs.

I would have thought the Liberal Party would have some sensitivity to that. Certainly they voted with us on the other amendments we proposed that would make the police complaints procedure more accessible and more open to the public.

No one is advocating, nor have we found before any of the other tribunals, that we have a series of people putting themselves through unnecessary complaints out of frivolous reasons. This has not happened before the Workmen's Compensation Board or any of the other tribunals that we have in this province, and there is no reason to believe that they would unnecessarily put themselves through that kind of procedure in this instance.

All this will do will be to discourage people who do not have the financial means to pay in the case of a decision that happens to go contrary to their wishes. Certainly we cannot go along with that kind of reactionary, upper-middle-class thinking of the Liberal Party. They should talk to ordinary people and find out what their concerns are before accusing us of not being sensitive to the public.

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Chairman, I want to speak very briefly in support of my colleague's proposed amendment, which we proposed in committee.

I was amazed in committee when the member for Etobicoke (Mr. Philip) and his colleague the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren) did not support us, and I am amazed to hear the same tired arguments being reiterated by the members on our left -- arguments that I would have expected from the members of the government party.

It is very clear to us that the object of the amendment is to reduce and eliminate frivolous complaints and to eliminate a frivolous defence by police officers who are clearly guilty.

Where the amendment is weighted on behalf of the complainant is that, even to get to a board hearing, the public complaints commissioner must first decide, even before going to that hearing, that there is some basis for the complaint. It seems to me to be very unlikely, unless the complainant has been lying from day one and that is uncovered at the hearing, that any hearing, even if it goes against the complainant, will then find that it was a frivolous complaint in the first instance.

On the other hand, a police officer who was clearly guilty in a complaint could force the issue through a hearing and, by doing so, discourage a complainant from pursuing a just settlement so that he would drop the whole matter. It seems to me it would have a chilling influence on that small minority of policemen who might be guilty, in that they would know there could be an award against them, should they go through the process and lose.

Rather than ignoring the plight of the working people and the little guy, whom the member for Etobicoke (Mr. Philip) as usual professes to speak for, it would be a really new protection for the little guy who is afraid of the process in the first place. It would say to him that if the other side is stonewalling, just stick with us and you may ultimately get an award.

Mr. Chairman: I see no other discussion from members opposite, and I see the Solicitor General is in attendance. Possibly, though, he will not be refreshed as to the debate. Perhaps the parliamentary assistant would like to make a comment about the proposed amendment by Mr. Elston.

Mr. MacQuarrie: I might say, Mr. Chairman, that the question of cost was carefully considered, not only during the course of drafting the bill but also at the committee level.

One thing the members opposite tend to overlook is that the burden of the carriage of proceedings is on the public complaints commissioner, and the bulk of the expenses incidental to the carriage of the proceedings is on him and the police officer, who is, of course, the accused.

Although the complainant certainly is entitled to counsel, the complainant in the situation of complaints before the board stands rather in the same position as the complainant in a criminal action or the like where the burden of the complaint and the charge is actually carried by, in this case, the public complaints commissioner. Therefore, I think the proposed amendment to award costs to parties involved is completely unnecessary.

Mr. Elston: Mr. Chairman, with respect to the parliamentary assistant, I think he has misconstrued the role of the public complaints commissioner. All along, this bill has been shown as setting up a mechanism whereby a person with some degree of independence in relation to this whole complaint process has been established to deal with a member of the public's complaint. The public complaints commissioner is there to adjudicate between those two parties who are at loggerheads.

He is trying to tell us, in effect, that the public complaints commissioner is acting in a way that would give him carriage of the whole matter for the complaint. I think, with respect, that argument does not hold water. I tend to believe people from the ministry who have made submissions indicating that the public complaints commissioner is indeed an independent mechanism. In fact, he does not have carriage, so to speak; he has a monitoring job to do. He does not carry the action for anybody.

If he is seen in that light now, we had better go back and start debating the very essence of this bill in which we proposed that the body should be independent altogether in terms of investigation and in terms of adjudication of the complaint itself.

Once we get past that argument, there is nothing left in the parliamentary assistant's rejection of this amendment, and we ought to proceed to implement this provision in the bill now and let the board deal with the question of costs in the appropriate situation.

3:30 p.m.

Mr. Chairman: All those in favour of Mr. Elston's amendment will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

Amendment stacked.

Sections 20 to 26, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 27:

Mr. Chairman: Shall section 27(1) carry? Carried.

I have an amendment here to section 27(2). The Solicitor General is making his way here slowly, but I am sure he will arrive.

Mr. Roy: Let the record show that the Attorney General walked in now.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: The Attorney General did walk in now, but it is the Solicitor General's bill.

Mr. Roy: That is what I mean about conflict.

Mr. Chairman: The parliamentary assistant.

Mr. MacQuarrie: Mr. Chairman, unfortunately, I do not have a copy of the bill with the amendment as printed.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. MacQuarrie moves that section 27(2) of the bill be struck out.

Mr. MacQuarrie: Mr. Chairman, this amendment introduces an element of confusion into the bill. It is redundant in view of earlier sections and serves no useful purpose in improving or otherwise enhancing the bill; in fact, it detracts very much from it.

The subsection immediately preceding it says that the act is to be "repealed on a day that is three years after it comes into force or on such day thereafter as is named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor."

The amendment says a detailed report on the operation of the project during its three years of existence has to be made before the act is repealed. We have status reports and evaluations being carried out consistently throughout the life of the bill, which is a three-year test or trial period.

One should remember the bill undoubtedly will be amended during the course of its trial period to incorporate recommendations for improvement that the public complaints commissioner might note in the course of his work.

I ask the honourable members to look at section 14(1)(f) which requires the public complaints commissioner to "evaluate the effectiveness of the system," section 26(e) authorizing the Lieutenant Governor to make regulations "prescribing criteria to be used by the public complaints commissioner in evaluating the effectiveness of the system for handling complaints," and section 3(3) requiring the public complaints commissioner to "report annually upon the affairs of his office to the Solicitor General." He, in turn, submits the report to the Lieutenant Governor in Council and then lays the report before the assembly. Section 4(10) places a similar reporting requirement upon the Police Complaints Board.

Obviously, the subsection which we propose to strike out is, in the light of those circumstances, clearly redundant.

Mr. Elston: It appears the parliamentary assistant sees something in this section that three Conservative members of our committee did not see. Three of those individual Conservative members voted with the opposition members on the committee to put this amendment in the legislation. They did not buy the arguments on section 3(3) which were put forward to some extent by Mr. Mitchell and by Mr. MacQuarrie, because they dealt with section 3(3) suggesting the annual report would convey to the members of the Legislature all we needed to know about the effectiveness of this operation.

This project is not determined to go year by year. It is determined to go over the course of three years in its entirety. One annual report on top of another is not going to give the Legislative Assembly of Ontario the true picture of how this pilot project is functioning in Metropolitan Toronto.

Nor can we consider we will be able to have enough representations to this Legislative Assembly to alleviate the fears we felt and which were expressed to the committee by various members of the community of Metropolitan Toronto in relation to the very essence of the creation of this pilot project.

We convinced three members of the Conservative Party to vote in unison with the opposition members of the committee to put this piece in section 27 so we might have the opportunity in the standing committee on administration of justice of the Legislature to examine members of the board, perhaps to examine complainants, to examine the police again as to their feelings in relation to the functioning of this pilot project. There is no redundancy in that amendment because the annual reports do not give the standing committee on administration of justice the opportunity to do any of those things when an annual report is filed.

I think the government feels it has unfortunately not whipped its members quite enough and it allowed them to vote and put in an amendment which is now embarrassing. They have lost the vote. They are now turning on their heels to reassemble the troops and to wipe out any semblance of input in this bill. We can understand if they are diametrically opposed to letting the project have an independent investigative procedure. We are willing to allow them to hold that opinion and to express it in the form it is being expressed in this legislation.

At the same time we do not think they ought to change it now, after the amendment has been made in committee, where the committee members had the opportunity to hear from the public at large. A large number of individuals came to us, both on their own and as representatives of groups of society in Metropolitan Toronto, to express their fears. We tried to make amendments which would deal with their concerns. In most cases we were unable to make amendments.

3:40 p.m.

However, in this situation, in concert with several members of the Conservative government, we were able to make an amendment which would allow us to deal with the results of this pilot project. Now we are being told by the Solicitor General that the justice committee ought not be able to determine whether or not this pilot project has worked.

The argument put forward time and again by the Solicitor General and by a number of his people who sat on that committee was to the effect that no amendments ought to be made to this piece of legislation that would destroy the essence of the bill.

They say, "Give it a chance to work. Don't interfere with it. Don't cause problems with public confidence in the police." That may be very well and good, but now that we have this piece of legislation we are being told the justice committee ought not to be able to find out the reaction to the pilot project.

This piece of legislation, in one form or another, will be designed to meet the needs of the rest of the province. It ought to come before the committee on administration of justice at the end of its first three years in existence so that we can determine whether or not it has been as effective as the Solicitor General says it will be and as effective as all members of that committee hope it will be. Despite the amendments, there is not one member of the committee who doesn't want it to work. We all want it to solve the problems which have arisen and which have caused such great concern among the people of Metropolitan Toronto.

This piece of legislation is important enough to have caused the Association of Municipalities of Ontario to pass a resolution asking that we provide for an independent investigative procedure in this bill. The standing committee on administration of justice did not make that amendment. I think the standing committee should be allowed to assess the results of its deliberations. It should be allowed to assess the impact the legislation has on the wellbeing of the members of society of Metropolitan Toronto. To eliminate this will prevent the standing committee from having the opportunity to assess the results and it will prevent the Legislative Assembly from hearing the results of this three-year pilot project.

I respectfully submit that we should vote against the Solicitor General's proposed amendment for deletion. I would ask members to vote in favour of retaining section 27(2), which would through the standing committee on administration of justice provide the Legislature an opportunity to voice its opinion on the results of the three-year pilot project.

Mr. Philip: Mr. Chairman, essentially this motion deletes an amendment which I was able to convince my colleagues, including two or three Conservatives, to vote for. The amendment is based on the premise that while we on this side of the House may disagree with what the government is doing, and particularly the way in which this bill operates -- and specifically that we have been so critical as to suggest the bill will not work in its present form, at least without amendments to section 5 -- we were willing to put our cards on the table and say: "Let's find out in three years. Let's have a public evaluation of the bill."

We said to the Conservative members -- and I know it was a very persuasive argument to Mr. Piché: "If you are right and we are wrong we will be the first to admit it, and it will come out in this kind of public forum we are advocating before this bill destructs in three years' time. If you really are not putting on a game, if you are not acting out a play, if you really believe this bill does what you say it does, then you have nothing to fear." That was the argument that persuaded the Conservative members of that committee to vote for the amendment. They bought the line of the Solicitor General; they believed the parliamentary assistant to the minister; they believed the bill really could work and with this kind of open evaluation they had nothing to fear and they would be proven right. With that thought, they voted for it.

I know how shocked the chairman of the committee sitting over there must be at this time. He reported this bill to the House in good faith. He thought he had a good bill. It was debated; his committee had looked at it in all seriousness; there were some disagreements; but finally he reported a bill to the House that would pass in the form in which he reported it. Instead the minister finds that Mr. Gregory was unfortunately not able to get his boys to stop thinking for themselves and to act as his puppets. For once, he was not sitting in that row back there acting as their ventriloquist and, therefore, they started to think for themselves.

It was fairly late in the bill, but I always say, "Better late than never." Finally, towards the end of the bill, when Mr. Gregory had to go to the washroom -- something happened anyway; he had to be in some other committee -- discipline broke down and democracy started to reign supreme in that committee. They started to think about some of the ideas. I only wish that had happened earlier. I am sure other amendments would have been passed and I think section 5 would have been in a completely different form.

The parliamentary assistant talks about the review process. I know the parliamentary assistant is new to this House and perhaps he is not fully aware of the way committees operate. If I may, therefore, I will give him a short lesson in the way this operates. Listen to the experience of six years. Some people have one year's experience, others have one year's experience six times, and other people have six years' experience. I would like to think at least I am giving you six years' experience.

One of the things I learned early in the committee, even before I was chairman of the justice committee -- I did not even have to be chairman to learn this -- I found out that committees -- particularly during estimates, which I assume is what he is talking about in 14(l)(f) -- would report back to the minister and the minister would be questioned in the estimates, to have public hearings. They do this in standing committees with special inquiries that are assigned to them by the House, but they do not during the estimates process. I am sure the chairman of the justice committee will tell you this, because he knows how all the committees operate now. But there is no way, other than sending out the annual report of the minister, we can have an open review of this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I know if you had been on the committee you would have voted with your Conservative colleagues, because you are a bright and honest individual and with your background as a lawyer you believe in the evaluation system.

3:50 p.m.

I come from a business background where evaluation is a must. We call it performance by objectives and it is proper to build into any kind of --

Interjection.

Mr. Philip: I am sorry. If I am going to respond to your interjections, at least I have to hear them. If you want to make it now and do not gargle it, I will be happy to respond.

Management by objectives is what we talk about. Here we have the Conservative government that prides itself on being good managers yet it is afraid of any kind of evaluation. Part of the evaluation in management by objectives, particularly in any kind of body that deals with the public, is that one goes out and asks the client how he feels about the product one is selling.

The government has sold us a product. They even sold their back-benchers until section 27 when Mr. Gregory wandered away for a few minutes. They sold them the whole thing. They believed it. Then we came in and said, "If it is all that good let us test it," and that is when they bought it.

But the Solicitor General or his parliamentary assistant comes in and says: "It probably is not that good. Boy, if we have public evaluations, they are going to find out what we have really passed over on them. They are going to find out the bag of tricks. Furthermore we are going to shock all those Conservative backbenchers. We are going to have this credibility problem in our own party, among our own back-benchers." So they said: "There is Gregory. He is at work. He has taken those three fellows out."

I do not know where they are this afternoon. I know if they were here they would be shocked at what is happening. I am sure he has done his best to keep it a secret from them.

Here we are with a serious amendment that was passed by the committee. It simply says, "If you are not afraid of the public, the police associations, all those people who came before our committee and, indeed, others who will be affected by the bill in the next three years, let us have a proper evaluation by Metro and by the justice committee. Let us deal with the public."

There is nothing in this bill now that allows for that public input. I hope some of the Conservative members will think about the problem in the same way their three colleagues thought about it in committee, and that they will join forces with us in a management by objectives exercise with a proper evaluation of this program; because this is a bill we say will not work. This is a bill they say will work. Put your money where your mouth is. Let us have an evaluation in three years and we will see who is right.

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Chairman, I would like to add a few words on this proposed deletion of section 27(2). I might say at the outset this is a very disappointing move on the part of the Solicitor General because in my opinion it takes away the last opportunity we have to judge this pilot project. I would remind the members of the House, at the outset, that is what this is meant to be. It is a pilot project. As the government was so ready to remind us throughout the committee hearings, this is not a piece of legislation that is etched in stone. It is a pilot project and three years later we are supposedly to come back, take another look at it and see what has worked and what has not.

It seems to me that the proof of just how much of a pilot project it is is right here in the proposal to delete section 27(2). I submit this is the project the Tories want today, tomorrow, next year and three years from now. The best way to make sure they get this project without any complaints or whimpers from the opposition or from the general public is to avoid having any detailed evaluation. That is what this amendment proposed.

I suggest the Tory back-benchers in the House and those who are listening to this debate check with the member for Sudbury (Mr. Gordon), the member for Cochrane North (Mr. Piché) or the member for Fort William (Mr. Hennessy). All three of those Conservative members were persuaded by the amendment introduced in committee and they joined both opposition parties in supporting it. I look forward to seeing them when we have this vote standing in their places in support of the retention of section 27(2).

It is important to have this subsection because this is the only way we are ever going to have a detailed examination of whether or not this pilot project is going to work. The parliamentary assistant to the Solicitor General pointed to section 14(1)(f), an evaluation proposal for the public complaints commissioner. I think the public complaints commissioner is going to have more than enough to do in the next three years just in trying to keep this project on the straight and narrow without trying to do a good detailed analysis at the end.

That is why we have put in another procedure for the board, rather than the public complaints commissioner to do an evaluation, so we can see that it is done right. Further to that, this analysis is then to be forwarded not only to the justice committee of this Legislature but also to Metropolitan Toronto council for its consideration. It seems to me this is a way to get Metro council involved in the discussion, and that, I believe, would be very useful.

During the hearings before the justice committee, which went on for some three weeks, we heard representations from many groups that disagree very strongly and passionately with some of the key elements in this legislation. They disagree with the proposal that now has the police conducting the initial investigation themselves. They disagree with the lack of power of the public complaints commissioner to step in at any time when he thinks his entry into an investigation would be in the public interest. And they have doubts about the proposal that no policeman can be found guilty unless the findings are beyond reasonable doubt as opposed to a balance of probability. That is just to name three.

Mr. Elston: I have a feeling the Solicitor General would like to speak to us.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Not at the moment.

Mr. Wrye: We will carry on. Perhaps he needs a little more convincing.

They brought all these complaints, and it is fair to say the opposition agreed with them and the government did not. I think we all wanted to come up with a piece of legislation that would work. So in the end, with the support of three out of six Conservative members on the committee, we said: "Let's give it one more chance to work by including at the end of the three years a good solid review of the project that can come before the justice committee and before Metro Toronto council. Let's see whether or not the concerns we and other groups have raised -- including the city of Toronto, some of the labour organizations, the minorities, the civil liberties association, a wide spectrum of opinion, groups and organizations in Toronto -- are valid."

That is why we put in this subsection. And it bothers me that we are taking it out, because to do so is a signal to all the people who came before us in good faith that the government does not really wish to have this re-examination. Oh, they have an annual report and a small evaluation system by the public complaints commissioner, but the PCC is going to be too busy with day-to-day affairs and the annual report will not come up for debate.

4 p.m.

I hope the members opposite will join with both opposition parties, and with their colleagues from Sudbury, the member for Cochrane North and the member for Fort William who voted with us during consideration by committee of the whole House, and defeat this proposed deletion.

Mr. Di Santo: Mr. Chairman, I express my regret for the move made by the parliamentary assistant on behalf of the Solicitor General. If we want to understand how necessary it is to review the whole operation of this project, we should try to understand the concerns expressed during the hearings before the committee by several groups -- the city of Toronto, the Civil Liberties Association, labour groups, minority groups, all those people concerned with the operation.

This pilot project has been clouded since the beginning because there are many people in our society who think this is not the right way to handle complaints against the police. How many cases have been denounced in the past few weeks? One after another, people say they have been treated by the police in a way that is abusive, and in some cases they allege they have been treated with brutality.

The relationship between citizens and the enforcement authorities in Metropolitan Toronto is a very sensitive area. We have tensions that are not going to disappear. We have racial and social tensions that increase every day because of the social conditions of our province and the makeup of this city.

Therefore, the government should understand it is in the best interests of everybody to have a mechanism that is not only workable but understood by the majority of the people, and about which there is no doubt of its impartiality in its role of solving the problems for which it has been set up.

A review is extremely necessary. When we have a review, we can say this is the type of mechanism we want. Perhaps the people who were critical of the administration of justice committee before the introduction of the bill, and during the hearing, were right in saying complaints against the police should not be investigated by the police but perhaps should be investigated by an independent body. This is extremely important if we want to have the kind of open government that will have the confidence of the citizens.

By proposing the amendment to section 27 the government is proposing something that is totally unnecessary. If the government is honest in its intentions, and if it thinks this is the right mechanism to solve the complaints against the police, they should not be afraid of a review three years from now when the bill expires. Then not only the government, and not only with coercion of the whip, but all the members of the Legislature will appreciate the bill as perhaps one that could become a model, not only for Toronto but for the province.

I suspect that with this amendment we are going a step further in what seems to be an imposition of what the government thinks the culture of the majority wants, which by definition is always right. The government is practically saying that it is right and that all those who criticize or do not agree, or who have a difference of opinion with them, are wrong.

I do not think all the minority groups that appeared before the justice committee were wrong; they had different opinions. I think the mechanism set up in section 27 allows for an evaluation of all those opinions, because I do not think the government is right by definition or because God gave it a special gift. This is a pilot project, as defined in the bill, and this pilot project should be subject to an evaluation, like all pilot projects.

I hope the government, in its arrogance, will think twice and perhaps give some credit to the Conservative members who, in good faith, thought that perhaps this was the way to go about it.

Mr. MacQuarrie: Mr. Chairman, I was going to say, with respect to the comment by the member for Etobicoke, who spoke of management by objectives, that what we expect to obtain by this bill are results. I would have much preferred to have heard him speak more positively of results emanating from this bill, which is one of the most progressive and advanced pieces of legislation dealing with complaints against the police that has been put forward in this or any jurisdiction.

I reiterate with respect to section 27(2) that the subsection as it is worded is confusing and redundant in view of the earlier provisions of the act. There could well be some merit in a report on the operation of the project being prepared but certainly not in the language used in this particular subsection.

Notwithstanding the remarks of the members of the opposition --

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: We are trying to work something out.

Mr. MacQuarrie: Just a moment, please.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. Perhaps it is unparliamentary for me to substitute for the parliamentary assistant, but what we are trying to do now is to accomplish the goal of this amendment. We are unhappy with the wording. We see a number of the problems, but we may have a wording that would satisfy the members opposite in this matter and demonstrate once again our desire to work together in the interests of the people of Ontario.

4:10 p.m.

Mr. Philip: In that spirit, I wonder if the Conservatives would agree to reopen section 5, where we can really deal with consensus.

Mr. Chairman: Section 5 is long gone but, with that in mind, are we waiting for a proposed amendment? What should I do to fill in the time?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: You could tell us a joke.

Mr. Chairman: Is it worthwhile to recess for five minutes?

Mr. MacQuarrie: If you will excuse me, Mr. Chairman, as I was saying, there might well be some merit in having a report submitted but not in the specific language that was used in section 27(2). We are prepared to substitute an amendment instead of deleting the clause completely.

Mr. Di Santo: Make an effort. Come on.

Mr. Chairman: He is getting there, I think.

Mr. MacQuarrie: I want to withdraw the amendment, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: The parliamentary assistant wishes to withdraw the proposed deletion of section 27(2). Is that agreed to by the committee?

Some hon. members: Yes.

Mr. Chairman: Is someone in the process of writing this amendment out? Maybe members opposite would like to have copies.

Mr. Philip: Could we get one copy for each of the parties?

Mr. Chairman: Is this it?

Mr. MacQuarrie: It is just in my handwriting on the bill.

Mr. Chairman: Perhaps you could read it nice and slow.

Mr. MacQuarrie: If I could read it, Mr. Chairman: I would move that section 27(2) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

"The public complaints commissioner shall prepare a detailed report evaluating the effectiveness of the system for handling complaints during the three years of operation of the project and forward copies of the report to the Solicitor General, the council of the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto and the standing committee on administration of justice of the Legislature."

Mr. Philip: May I ask a question of the Solicitor General? Do I take it that would be tabled as a sessional paper and, therefore, the committee could deal with it as a public document for public input? Is that his intention?

Mr. Chairman: Wait a minute. Before we go any further --

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: This is like Alphonse and Gaston.

Mr. Chairman: Yes, I know. Let us get our act together. With all due respect, I say to the Solicitor General, let us abide by the standing orders and get back on track. In theory, since you are in the House, the parliamentary assistant should be relieved of the responsibility of carrying the bill; that will make inquiries a little more direct, if you do not mind. I am sure it is the parliamentary assistant's proposed amendment, but that will save the business of passing information back and forth.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Chairman, I am much obliged to the assistance given me by the parliamentary assistant and the co-operation of the members opposite in proceeding.

It would be up to the committee to do what it chose with the report. Obviously, when it comes to the evaluation, that would be the subject matter of some discussion during estimates every year, quite apart from and prior to the three-year duration of the pilot project. It would be up to the members of the justice committee to make their own determination because, after all, they have responsibility for the conduct of their own affairs.

It seems to me this is reasonable and it is more than a compromise, because I think it does really achieve the objectives the members opposite were seeking. I am not prepared to agree to build into this legislation any commitment by any standing committee, three years in advance, to any sort of elaborate process. But we are prepared to commit the public complaints commissioner to preparing a detailed report and forwarding it to the justice committee. That, of course, would be a public document. The process would be followed thereafter, and the decisions would be made according to the needs or the perceived needs at that time.

Mr. Elston: Mr. Chairman, we have found the decision made by the Solicitor General's parliamentary assistant to remove the original motion a good one. I think, in fairness, the decision to allow a detailed report on the overall operation of the initial three-year operation of this project is a good one. At this point, we ought to allow the report, having been forwarded to the standing committee on administration of justice, to be dealt with by the committee as it sees fit at that time.

It does allow us to put a detailed summary of what has happened in front of the public. It lets us understand whether our project has worked and has been sufficient to meet the needs of the community of Metropolitan Toronto and, indeed, it enables the standing committee on administration of justice to report as to whether it ought to be extended even further, as is the suggestion at the base of this whole piece of legislation.

I think it goes a long way to alleviating our concerns that this sort of report would not come to the standing committee and that we would not have the opportunity to delve further into the operation of the project. I will urge my colleagues here to support this amendment as presented.

Mr. Philip: Mr. Chairman, maybe we can have the advice of the Clerk. As I understand it, unless the document is tabled in the House and referred to the committee, the committee does not have the power to deal with it in an open and public manner. What we want, and I am trying to be helpful to the Solicitor General, is that somewhere in the amendment it should be deemed to be a sessional paper and that it should be tabled in this Legislature for referral to the justice committee. If it is done in that manner, then I think we can meet the objectives I had in moving my amendment.

On the other hand, if it is simply a paper that is sent to the justice committee, then we are no further ahead than we were with the parliamentary assistant to the minister saying, under section 14(1) of the act, there has to be a report anyway and it will go off to estimates, perhaps.

Maybe the Solicitor General can comment on that or give us that assurance. Or maybe, Mr. Chairman, we can receive the counsel of the Clerk as to the procedure that would ensure that this amendment would mean the report would be tabled in the Legislature for referral to the justice committee for public hearings.

4:20 p.m.

Mr. Chairman: I am going to call upon the Solicitor General. It is going to be his amendment.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I am not prepared at this time to say that, as a matter of course, it will go to the justice committee for public hearings. I think it will have to await events as they unfold. Obviously we hope that everybody will be satisfied in three years' time that this project is the most workable legislative approach that can be found.

I am not prepared to commit ourselves to a series of public hearings in advance of events unfolding. If the committee has the report, it is a public document; it is legislatively mandated. The Legislature of this province has, in effect, said to the public complaints commissioner, "It is your duty to put forward a detailed report."

There will be lots of platforms on which to discuss that report. It is a pretty important responsibility for any public complaints commissioner, naturally, to want to conform with the legislation. I just do not think it is necessary or reasonable to determine now what should be the proper forum, with or without public hearings.

I do not think there is any difficulty with the request that the Solicitor General should table the report. I have been given some wording that seems to address that issue, at least in part; it would be section 27(3), which would indicate, "The Solicitor General shall lay the report before the assembly if it is in session or, if not, at the next ensuing session." That is wording that has been recommended to me by my senior advisers. I am quite prepared to accept that wording.

Mr. Wrye: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: Is the Solicitor General telling us there is a new section 27(3) coming in as well?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: No. Just for the discussion.

Mr. Wrye: We do not have the new section 27(2)?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: No. We can have this reproduced. For the purpose of discussion, this will assist us and I will have this reproduced for the members. It would read:

"I move that section 27(2) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

"(2) The public complaints commissioner shall prepare a report evaluating the effectiveness of the system for handling complaints during the three years of the operation of the project and forward copies of the report to the Solicitor General and council of the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto.

"(3) The Solicitor General shall lay the report before the assembly if it is in session or, if not, at the next ensuing session."

That was an alternative suggestion.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Etobicoke. I know it is difficult; you do not have it in front of you for discussion.

Mr. Philip: I think we are moving more -- I do not want to say in the right direction, because that is the way the bill goes, but in the correct direction, and I would like to see the amendment.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: The copies are being prepared now, Mr. Chairman, and should be with us very shortly.

Mr. Chairman: We will wait for two or three minutes.

Mr. Wrye: While we are waiting for a detailed wording, Mr. Chairman, I want to ask about one phrase I noticed is missing that I thought might have been in there. I ask the Solicitor General why he proposes to take out the words "prior to the repeal of this act"? Perhaps he can inform the House in a general sense. I may have misread the Solicitor General's amendment; we have not seen it yet, but it seems to me that phrase is not in it and I will be rather concerned if it is not.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: As the member knows, Mr. Chairman, the first subsection of that section states, "This act is repealed on a day that is three years after it comes into force or on such day thereafter as is named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor." If it were the decision of the government to allow the pilot project to terminate, there still would be the necessity of the report being made in any event, with the possible problems of time constraints and what not.

There is no specific time frame in relation to the preparation of this report, but it is quite clear to me that the public complaints commissioner would suffer some degree of loss of credibility if the report were not forthcoming within a reasonable time after the three-year period. If the government's decision is to allow the pilot project to terminate, then the practical value of the report might not be as great but it would still be important to have it.

What we are really interested in is not placing time constraints on the public complaints commissioner. Anybody who has that job for three years, assuming and hoping it will be the same person, will know what will be required, and nobody else can really speculate as to just what will be required in a report.

At the end of three years, it could be in the public's interest to let the project terminate prior to the publication of a report. There are a number of uncertainties here. If I were to be optimistic, as I am, I would expect that three years from now the government probably would have brought in legislation giving it more permanent status and that the report would be forthcoming shortly thereafter.

4:30 p.m.

I think what we are trying to accomplish here is to place the responsibility on the public complaints commissioner, which he is quite prepared to accept, of preparing a detailed report. His credibility would be at stake if that report were to be unduly delayed. That is how I see it. We are really trying to meet the objectives that were stated by the members opposite without locking us into any specific process for dealing with the report other than tabling it.

We are distributing to members the amendment I would like to propose. It means withdrawing once again the other amendment to this section.

Mr. Chairman: Hon. Mr. McMurtry moves that section 27(2) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

"(2) The public complaints commissioner shall prepare a report evaluating the effectiveness of the system for handling complaints during the three years of the operation of the project and forward copies of the report to the Solicitor General and the council of the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto.

"(3) The Solicitor General shall submit the report to the Lieutenant Governor in Council and shall then lay the report before the assembly if it is in session or, if not, at the next ensuing session."

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Chairman, we have had the assistance of legislative draftsmen through the legislative counsel. We can nitpick for a long time, but this is our amendment. We really are seeking to address the concerns of the members opposite without locking us into any specific mechanism, other than what is proposed for the tabling of the paper, until we all have had an opportunity to evaluate the project as it goes along. We really hope this meets the concerns of our colleagues opposite. That is our proposed amendment, and that is what we can vote on, if necessary.

Mr. Elston: Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of brief comments. I think this addresses most of our concerns. We expect to receive the report at the end of the three years, or at least within a reasonable time after the three years, and certainly before the government moves to make any sort of permanent legislation available to Ontario. I think we ought to --

Mr. Laughren: They have been known to renege on their deals.

Mr. Elston: Well, the people to our left sometimes have very little faith in anything any more and will jump on everybody.

Mr. Laughren: I am thinking of the McMichael collection, if you must know.

Mr. Elston: Nevertheless, I think this will go a long way towards providing the public information we need to have to determine whether the public is well served by this piece of legislation. The mere fact that this information will become public, I think, will act as a deterrent to any ill-advised implementation of other legislation before we have had a chance to consider the material here.

Mr. Philip: Mr. Chairman, the question I have is about the wording of the first part of the amendment, which says that "the public complaints commissioner shall prepare a report evaluating the effectiveness of the system for handling complaints during the three years of the operation of the project."

There is nothing that says the evaluation will be done and tabled before the three-year pilot project, or experiment, is concluded. I am wondering if the minister, in co-operation with his draftsman, would put something into that amendment that would give us the assurance that we would have an evaluation either before new legislation comes forward or there is an extension of the present bill.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I can't give that assurance. What will probably happen, if I were to be an accurate prognosticator, is that three years down the road there will be some extension of the project, for a length of time I cannot predict now, and shortly after the three-year period, within a reasonable period of time, you'll have the report. I do not see the need to tie the repeal to the report.

What we are really talking about is an evaluation that can be looked at by all the members of the Legislature, as well as the members of the public, within a reasonable period of time after the three-year period regardless of what happens to the project. I hope the project will still be going, but I don't think it would be helpful and it could create problems if we try to necessarily tie the two together. There may be another election between now and three years from now, who knows? Maybe a lot of things will change.

Mr. Elston: Is it possible you may not be Solicitor General?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: It is quite possible.

Mr. Laughren: You might be Premier. Mr. Chairman, the point I want to make is that surely the Solicitor General appreciates the fact that it is a sunset bill and has a sunset clause in it. The reason we were so concerned about getting this amendment into the legislation in one form or another was in case the report came back saying some changes should be made, but it is working well. It would be at that time, based on that information that would come before the chamber or wherever else, that the sunset clause would be changed, and there would be an extension to the bill. What good does it do to have the whole thing sunsetted and then two months afterwards, or six months afterwards, have a report come in describing the project in glowing terms?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: The government would look pretty foolish, wouldn't it?

Mr. Laughren: Well, yes, but how would you know?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Isn't that what you really want?

Mr. Laughren: No, that is not fair. What we are trying to say is that the report should come in before the sunset clause takes effect. I don't think it is asking too much to have that built into the amendment. If what you say is real, if you are sincere in what you say, then it should be in the legislation. In the last couple of days we have seen what happens when things are not built into the legislation.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: You haven't even seen that legislation.

Mr. Laughren: I saw the legislation that was debated, and took part back in the debate back in 1972 or 1973 on the McMichael collection.

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Chairman, I agree with my colleague from Huron-Bruce (Mr. Elston) that the amendment, as now proposed, goes a long way toward satisfying our needs in this area. I think we can support it. I am sorry this new great spirit of co-operation did not occur back on section 5 or section 14, but I guess it's better that it did occur, even at the eleventh hour.

4:40 p.m.

I saw the Solicitor General nodding on a couple of occasions, and he seemed to be implicitly committing himself and this government to a system whereby this report would not be laid before the chamber, would not be made public or would not be prepared after more permanent legislation was introduced. It would be prior to that because its usefulness would be severely diminished if it were to occur afterwards. It is my understanding that is the sense of the amendment. On that basis, I can live with it.

I might also point out to the House that should the majority government, which may be around three years from now since we may or may not have an election, wish to forestall any further discussion of the report by the justice committee, it is also to be forwarded to the council of the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto which would allow another forum for the discussion to take place.

I am willing on this occasion, as we so rarely do, to trust the integrity of the government which brought this amendment forward in good faith and to go along with it to see how the system works. We will take a look at it when Mr. Linden reports three years from now. I am satisfied to let him prepare the detailed report since he will be working on a day-to-day basis with this new pilot project over the next three years. We on this side are prepared to support the amendment.

Mr. Philip: I still find it unusual that the minister would argue this is experimental legislation. Part of the argument he and his parliamentary assistant used all through the committee hearings was: "Why not try this? After all, it is only in existence for three years and then we can make the necessary changes."

One of the phrases we heard over and over, ad infinitum, was, "It is not etched in stone." Yet he does not want to take that small extra step of saying that before this sunsets, a report will be tabled in this House, if it is sitting, so we can send it to committee and have public input before any changes are made.

That is all the members of the opposition are asking. If you have taken the step of saying there should be an evaluation and it should be tabled in the House, why can you not say the evaluation will take place before there is any further action on the bill? That is all we are asking you to do. I hope the minister will consider that and respond at this time.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I think it would be a very unwise step for any government to take. There is nothing magic in the three-year period. If it is in the public interest to repeal the legislation, it should not necessarily have to wait for a report. If some of the gloomy predictions I heard earlier in the debate are correct, and I sincerely believe they are not, then the government may decide to repeal the legislation within the three-year period.

The Legislature may, in its wisdom, do that. I do not think the decision to repeal or extend legislation should be dependent upon the filing or tabling of a report. I think that is a bad precedent.

I agree with the member for Etobicoke that the report will be a useful document in any decision that is made, but to tie one to the other is not in the best parliamentary tradition. For that reason, with the greatest respect to the member for Etobicoke, I cannot accept his suggestion. Although it is certainly our intention that the pilot project continue beyond the three-year period, members will have an opportunity to look at a report shortly after the conclusion of that three-year period. All will be well and we will all be congratulating each other on the wisdom of our approach.

Mr. Philip: Mr. Chairman, if I wanted to be cynical, and you know I am not a cynical person, I might say this is a very clever political trick on the part of the minister. He would like to have both worlds. If by any chance things look good, then he will table a glowing evaluation, it will go out to committee, and everything will be good for him because it will be tabled before the three years are over.

Maybe my colleagues in the Liberal Party will think I am being overly cynical, and I ask their opinion on this: but if on the other hand things are as bad as we on this side of the House predict they will be, if he has the same lack of public support for his process that this bill presently has -- as was evident from all the groups that came before the committee -- if it is the kind of disaster we suspect it will be, then what he will want to do will be to let it run for the three years, make a few changes based on the input he will get through his various routes, then have the evaluation and come in and say, "See, we were so enlightened, we were able to make some changes already, and we were able to meet some of the criticism in the report a year ago, when we made our changes at year three."

We have to say that some evaluation and some report is better than no evaluation and no report. If the government believes this is a bill that has what they say it has, why will they not have an evaluation before the three years are up? Why not let the public have an input before they make any changes? I cannot believe that a government that tries to paint itself as a good manager -- and we have seen some of its management with Re-Mor and Astra and all the other things that came before the justice committee, but it likes at least to see itself as a good manager -- cannot plan an evaluation that takes place at year two or two and a half, and cannot schedule that. They schedule everything else.

One does not have to be in Germany to be able to schedule a train. One does not have to be in Ontario and on the Conservative side of the House to schedule an evaluation. I wonder what the minister is doing. Why play games with it? Why not give us the assurance?

Mr. Chairman: Is there any further discussion? In fear of my reading the Solicitor General's amendment to section 27(2) and 27(3) incorrectly, could we go on the basis that the Solicitor General has read it into the record? Is that agreed by all parties?

Mr. Laughren: If you make one more mistake, Sam --

Mr. Chairman: I know, another censure motion.

We have agreed to that.

Those in favour of Hon. Mr. McMurtry's amendment to section 27(2) and 27(3) will please say "aye."

Those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Section 27, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 28 and 29 agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Call in the members.

5 p.m.

Mr. Chairman: Order. To refresh members' memories, we are voting on a proposed amendment to Bill 68 by the member for Huron-Bruce (Mr. Elston) whereby a new subsection, subsection 18, is added to section 19 of the bill: "The board may make an order which awards costs to a party to the hearing." All those in favour of the proposed amendment --

Mr. Cassidy: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: There were four of us who were coming in the door, and we were blocked by the attendant. I understand there was to be a 10-minute bell.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Interjections.

An hon. member: You will have to move a motion to have him fired, Mike.

Mr. Chairman: Yes. You just might. Order.

Would you suggest the chair open the doors? I thought we had agreed that there would be a 10-minute bell.

The committee divided on Mr. Elston's amendment to section 19, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes 37; nays 45.

Section 19 agreed to.

Bill 68, as amended, reported.

On motion by Hon. Mr. McMurtry, the committee of the whole House reported one bill with certain amendments.

METROPOLITAN POLICE FORCE COMPLAINTS PROJECT ACT

Hon. Mr. McMurtry moved third reading 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.

The Acting Speaker Mr. Cousens): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Is there any comment on the bill?

Mr. Elston: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak to the bill on third reading. We have worked very hard in committee to deal with the representations made by various members of the communities of Metropolitan Toronto. We have taken into consideration a great number of their concerns about this bill, and we have moved various amendments, both in the committee and in the committee of the whole House, that we felt would deal with those concerns and would eliminate any of the problems we could foresee.

Through a great deal of effort in committee of the whole House, we were able to put into effect at least a recording mechanism whereby this Legislature would have the benefit of a public report made available by the public complaints commissioner. This comes as a result of the arguments put forward by this party and by others in favour of having a reporting process that would enable us to evaluate this three-year project.

We are not in a position to agree completely with the way the bill was put together because, as we have expressed on several occasions, there are some very basic and fundamental concerns. But we are at least happy we will have the opportunity, after the three-year period has gone by, to look again at this piece of legislation. We will be able to see whether or not it has functioned well and we will be able to have some input and determine whether or not there need be further amendments. I think the --

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order. The honourable gentleman has the floor. Some attention please.

Mr. Elston: I think the process in which we are involved requires of this Legislature --

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member is speaking to the bill. Order.

Mr. Elston: The members of this Legislature, I am sure, will be interested when this matter comes back to us in three years or thereabouts, to determine again whether or not the people of Metropolitan Toronto are well served by this project.

Although there is not a great deal of interest being shown now, I think it will fall to each one of us as residents of this province to take a very serious and long look at a process which must be implemented. We must ensure the people in Ontario are able to come to some independent body to have their concerns aired with respect to the administration of justice by the police departments in Ontario.

I welcome the opportunity that has been afforded us by the Solicitor General in making that public report available. I think although there has been --

The Acting Speaker: I have asked this House for order. A member is responding. I asked for order and please give order while the member for Huron-Bruce has the floor.

An hon. member: A very wise decision, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Roy: I want to express a vote of confidence in this Speaker.

Mr. Elston: I am starting to feel like the Premier when he clears his throat for five or six minutes. It gets the same sort of rise out of some of these people.

At any rate we will put that under some committee to study or whatever. We still have concerns about the project. We still think there are valid concerns which were expressed by the people in Metropolitan Toronto when they came before our committee. We hope and trust the people in Metro will use the piece of legislation which is before them. We hope it will be successful.

I do not think there is a member in the committee who did not truly believe he was working for the best ends and interests of Metropolitan Toronto when he was putting the amendments and when he was considering and speaking to the amendments made by all parties. We have to be sure whatever piece of legislation comes through after this third reading that we, as members of the Legislature, support those people who are in a position to administer this piece of legislation.

We have a great deal of faith in the individual who has been appointed as the public complaints commissioner. We have a great deal of faith in those people he has chosen to be investigators in relation to this piece of legislation. We know their performance will go a long way towards determining how successful this project is. We all hope it is an extreme success. I do not think we wish to see any failures because that, in itself, would cause a very bad situation to arise in Metropolitan Toronto.

With those few words, I just want to let the people know we are pleased we were at least able to salvage some public reporting so that after this project has run its three years the Legislature can again have the opportunity to review it and to make some changes if that is what is required.

Mr. Philip: Mr. Chairman, it is with some regret that our party feels it cannot support the bill. We have stated over and over that we consider section 5 and the amendment we posed -- it was also posed by the Liberal Party -- was the guts of the controversy surrounding this issue.

5:10 p.m.

We have pointed out repeatedly that the minister could find no public support for the bill without amendments to section 5. Community group after community group that came before the committee, indicated that unless there was an independent investigation from the very start, the people they speak for -- the people they understand, the people they know far better than the Solicitor General knows -- would not in any way use the mechanism we are setting up.

Some groups argued it was worse to set up a mechanism and pretend there was an adequate police complaints procedure -- it was worse to set one up that would not deliver than to have none at all. In the last few weeks since this bill passed through the justice committee without the amendment our party proposed, we have had all kinds of evidence that certain people and groups in the community who may have complaints against the police, do not have faith in the system. They have been using the services of an organization known as the Citizen's Independent Review of Police Activities.

When we look at the matters they brought forward publicly before the Metro Board of Police Commissioners, we see exactly the very kind of problem we have been afraid of. We have seen examples -- alleged, but none the less examples -- of what has been labelled in the newspapers as the holdup squad torture technique.

If the evidence presented to lawyers in statements they brought forward to us is true, certain torture techniques of handcuffed prisoners were allegedly carried out. There was also evidence in the last few weeks, again brought forward by the same lawyers, that a number of beatings allegedly took place in a certain police station over a long period of time.

When one looks at these allegations one has a number of questions. One has to question how station supervisors and other officers could go on ignoring this kind of thing alleged to have happened over a period of time. I guess that is the crux of what this bill is about. How can we expect the public to have faith in a system of having not only police officers but police management involved in their own investigation system -- at least up to the end of the first month -- while these allegations are being brought forward by reputable lawyers and organizations?

We have had examples of alleged brutality, pictures shown to members of the committee which were not the least bit pleasant to look at. Allegations have been made by CIRPA and by certain criminal lawyers with regard to inappropriate use of language. We have had problems brought forward to suggest racism on the part of officers. Problems have been brought forward by CIRPA that talk about the inadequacies with which police allegedly handle complaints.

I will not go into any of the details or name names because I think it is important people not be accused publicly until an investigation has been undertaken. But if we look at the statements by people who have come forward to CIRPA, we see that over and over, for whatever reason, they had a fear of going to the police to have the police conduct these investigations on their own.

There is the fear, first of all, stimulated by such people as Mr. Givens. He suggested in an article in the Toronto Star on November 6 that certain people who came forward and launched what would be considered frivolous accusations or accusations that could not be proved, would suddenly find themselves launched on a civil action for damages. More important though, we have had other evidence both to members of this committee and to CIRPA, that people who were charged with an offence or who had some dealings with the police in an antagonistic way were afraid to come forward.

I suggest to the Solicitor General that all the events that have happened since this bill passed through the committee suggest to us more and more that if this bill is to have any credibility it would have to change section 5.

We say this out of respect, not only out of respect and concern for the numerous citizens and citizens' groups who came forward before the committee, but also for the police. At present, even if an officer is accused wrongfully, even if a frivolous action or an ill-founded action is brought forward, even if the officers are absolutely innocent of any wrongdoing, the public will still have their doubts.

So it is with some regret I say to the Solicitor General he has not listened to the public that has come before him. He has not listened to the Canadian Civil Liberties Association. He has failed to produce a single person representing any of the minority groups who was in favour of the bill as it is. Therefore, it is with some regret I must tell him I will be voting against the bill on third reading.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, during the three weeks of committee hearings on this bill I sat with other members of the committee -- some of whom are in the chamber this afternoon -- and saw group after group come before the committee all expressing virtually the same theme -- that they wished this bill to be amended.

Despite the fact the Solicitor General and his party have a majority of seats in this chamber, the opposition in this case represents the majority of people in Ontario with our suggestion that the police not be allowed to investigate themselves. There is absolutely no doubt about that whatsoever. Every group that represents large numbers of people in the community stated unequivocally it wanted this bill changed.

There was no dispute among the groups when they said they wanted it changed. Right from the beginning the Solicitor General seemed to be living in a different time warp than the rest of the people out there, particularly in Metropolitan Toronto. He really is living in the good old days when Toronto was called "Toronto the Good." He does not seem to understand things have changed out there. He was unwilling to listen to people who wanted to explain it, because the only time the minister appeared in the committee was when a group supporting his views was appearing.

Mr. Roy: Is that right?

5:20 p.m.

Mr. Laughren: That is correct. The minister led us to believe he only wanted to hear those who would make him feel good in his determination not to change the bill. That was consistent right from the beginning of the committee hearings.

The minister attributed motives to the opposition then and as recently as this afternoon. That was not fair. Aside from it being unparliamentary, aside from the fact we were expressing the views of the groups that appeared before the committee, the opposition happens to feel very strongly that the people who would benefit most would be not only those who lay complaints against police officers but the police force itself. The policemen stand again with an independent investigation. We know that whenever a controversial charge is laid against the police, and the police end up investigating that complaint themselves, there will be a cloud over that investigation. The minister knows that, and he has chosen to ignore that fact.

As a matter of fact, even though the police association now does not support our position -- that they should not investigate themselves -- only a couple of years ago they were in concert with the Canadian Civil Liberties Association asking for a completely independent investigation. It was only a couple of years ago, and since that time they have changed. Perhaps the sweet siren call of the Solicitor General had something to do with that.

When we on this side try to make the argument again and again that the Solicitor General should listen to those people coming before the committee, he simply shrugs his shoulders and ignores that argument.

The old Toronto is not the Toronto of today. It is a different city out there, and the Solicitor General had better understand that, because we on this side of the House want this city to run smoothly. We want a police force that functions with the confidence of the people of Metropolitan Toronto. That is in all our best interests, including the members of the Metropolitan Toronto police force. The Solicitor General, for some strange reason, seems to think that by requiring the police to investigate themselves in the first instance he is doing them a favour. That is simply not true.

When I look at the people who do not want the bill changed, I see primarily the Solicitor General, Metro chairman Paul Godfrey and the chairman of the police commission, Phil Givens. Those three people have decided, against the wishes of virtually every citizens' group in Metropolitan Toronto, that this bill will not be changed. Those three people have made that decision. They do not represent the wishes of the majority of people in Metropolitan Toronto, or elsewhere in this province.

This bill is a model project for Metropolitan Toronto, and no doubt all municipalities across this province will look at it very carefully. Even though there is a sunset clause in the bill the Solicitor General stated this afternoon that in all probability there will be an extension of this legislation unless something strange happens in the next three years.

It is unusual for us to speak on and vote against a bill on third reading, but we feel very strongly about this one. We believe the Solicitor General is making a serious mistake in not listening to the two opposition parties, who unquestionably in this case represent a majority of the people in Ontario.

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, this vote on third reading truly presents me with a real dilemma -- that is whether to support a bad piece of legislation which, while it is bad, may represent a minimal improvement on the present system. The groups that came before the justice committee were divided on the matter. While the legislation is inadequate in a whole series of ways in dealing with the problems with police that have arisen in Metro Toronto, some felt it would be some improvement and that this legislation would be better than the present system.

Even those who felt that way had proposed there be substantive changes in the bill, changes both opposition parties have tried repeatedly to introduce in committee and in the House. The government with its majority has arrogantly refused to listen. Some groups said this bill was better than nothing at all; others said it was not, because it would hide the problem under the guise of a so-called pilot project.

On balance, after a great deal of consideration, I cannot support this piece of legislation on third reading because it is such a bad piece of legislation. The government has failed to move on the two key areas: section 5, which we believe should have provided for an independent investigation, and section 14, which should have allowed the public complaints commissioner to move at any time he deemed it to be in the public interest.

The government's failure to recognize what was recognized by virtually every witness who came before our committee in three weeks of hearings dooms this legislation to failure almost before it gets off the ground. I say that with a great deal of regret because I think the one saving grace of this legislation if there is one -- and I think this is certainly it -- is the appointment of a truly outstanding individual as the public complaints commissioner.

Unfortunately we have tied his hands. It will be impossible for that gentleman to carry this project forward in a way that would ultimately lead to its success and to a new era of trust from the groups in Metropolitan Toronto who most need its help -- the visible minorities, the ethnic groups, the poor and those who have had run-ins with the police. I wish it were not so but I think it is.

I have no choice on balance but to suggest to the government that this is its bill. It has had many opportunities to improve it. It has stood alone in favour of it against the Liberal Party, the New Democratic Party and virtually every group that came before the justice committee. As the Solicitor General well knows, it has even stood against the views of some senior officers within the Metropolitan police department. Some of them support the concept of independent investigation.

I say reluctantly to the Solicitor General and the government they will have to stand alone on third reading. I cannot in conscience vote for a piece of legislation I do not believe will serve the people of Metropolitan Toronto who have asked for it for so long.

Mr. Di Santo: I think Bill 68 is the wrong bill and will not be able to solve the problems that prompted the government to introduce it. My colleagues and the members of the Liberal Party have explained the reasons today on third reading, during the debate and in committee.

The important point we have to make is that a complaint mechanism would be a workable one if it had the confidence of the people who wanted to use that mechanism. To be effective, it should be absolutely impartial. People who complain against alleged police brutality or violence must be absolutely certain the body to which they complain is absolutely impartial. The moment there is doubt they are complaining to a body which is not impartial, then the confidence of the citizens collapses. This bill will not be effective. In many instances in the past where citizens had complaints to lodge against the police, they were advised by their lawyers not to complain in order not to make their positions more serious.

5:30 p.m.

The government, despite all the presentations made by numerous groups before the justice committee and the arguments of the opposition, has insisted on two major points that make this bill completely ineffective. One is the investigation of the complaints by the police and this has been confirmed by the appointment of three people who were members of the so-called "holdup squad" to investigate complaints of their colleagues. The government does not want to understand this is not a test of loyalty to the police. That is not the point.

Many people think this bill is based on a false assumption that all those who do not trust the police are against this bill. That is not the case. If we see the police as a legitimate institution and all those who dare criticize the police are considered as almost subversive, then we do not understand the reality of Metropolitan Toronto in 1981. We are not playing a game here to impose on the minority groups, on the ethnic groups, on the visible minorities in Toronto, a model which has been set up according to the values of the majority which holds power. If we want an effective mechanism to solve the social and racial problems that are the result of the setup of our society then we should have a mechanism which is able to solve those problems.

The government is operating under the assumption that whoever dares to criticize the police is against the institution. That is not the case. The Solicitor General should know that some 2,700 years ago, the Romans set a basic legal principle which went, "Nemo debet esse judex in propria causa." No man ought to be a judge in his own cause.

This principle was set up 2,700 years ago. It is a basic principle that whoever administers justice must be independent, must be impartial, must be objective. With this bill, not one of these requirements is reached because the police are investigating the police. That is not right. The people who came before the committee think that is not right.

Since this is a pilot project we think it important to start off on the right foot. I fail to understand why the government cannot conceive that there are groups in our society who do not have their security. There are groups who are fearful of the institutions, not because they are criminals but because they do not understand the institutions, because they have a problem with the language, with the culture.

One must understand there are people in our society who are apprehensive whenever they come into contact with power, whatever the definition is. The government must understand there are people in our society who are insecure because of their status as immigrants, people who came to this country and are giving their best to this society. Unfortunately, they cannot operate according to the rules of this society, because those rules are not their rules, because it is not part of their background or part of their culture. The government refuses to understand that.

I feel frustrated because I think the government, with this bill, is testing those who are loyal and those who are not loyal. While I think this bill should respond to tensions that are real in our society, it is not going to make them disappear.

If three years from now, we find that this bill does not work, then I think the government knows that it is its responsibility. They do not want to listen to the people who are equally concerned as the minister and other members of the government.

I went through the cases presented to the police commission by the Citizens' Independent Review of Police Activities, and I spoke to some of the people who complained. I found there was a constant element in each case. What impressed me was not the treatment they received by the police, but their fear. They did not know how to react to the police, how to prove their case, how to prove they were innocent. Under the circumstances, they could not prove they had not done anything wrong. In many cases, they say at that time they were ready to say whatever the police wanted them to say, because they had given up; they could not stand the pressure put on them by the police.

I had hoped, during the debate, that perhaps the government would accept some of the suggestions put forward by the New Democratic Party and by the Liberal Party. I regret to say they have not been open-minded.

Let us be frank. The fact that there is a review after three years does not mean anything, because it is the concept that is wrong. This bill should respond to some of the problems that I hope are the result of a growth crisis in our society. It would be disgraceful if this crisis should become a permanent fixture in our society. I think the government is not helping to solve those problems.

For those reasons, I will vote against the bill.

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, I think the fact that we are having a debate on third reading underlines the serious distrust members on this side of the House feel about this bill. We feel it is not an answer to the serious situation we have, whereby many citizens of this city feel there is not an adequate procedure for making complaints against the police.

5:40 p.m.

I certainly believe the majority of the members of our police force do try to carry out their duties in a fair way and to be sensitive to the feelings and concerns of the people they are dealing with. But there have been a sufficient number of reports from individuals regarding the kind of treatment they have received when they were being interrogated and when their cases were being considered by the police.

I think those people feel there must be a procedure that they will consider is an impartial investigation of their complaints, and the procedure in this bill is not seen to be an impartial procedure by the people who make the complaints. They feel the complaint is still referred to the police force itself or to the appointed investigator, but there is not an impartial body that will hear their complaints.

The situation in Metropolitan Toronto has become serious when a large number of groups and people feel there is not an adequate means of making their complaints known. They must have confidence in the law, and I cannot understand why the government persists in trying to bring forward a law that the great majority of the people who appeared before the standing committee said was an inadequate law.

It seems to me the government is simply trying to bring in legislation that will more or less shut people up. It will say: "We have done this business. We have made provisions for citizen complaints." But when the legislation is declared inadequate by the majority of the people who appear before the standing committee, it is obviously not the answer to the problem.

I think this bill should be defeated and a new one brought in that will incorporate the principles that the members of the New Democratic Party have been putting forward as an adequate police complaints procedure.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, this is a sad occasion, and I do not intend to tarry long over the sadness of the occasion. It is sad not only because -- I am delighted to see the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Grossman) has not seen fit to take part in the debate on this bill.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I am well represented by my colleague.

Mr. Renwick: The minister is so modern, he is almost obsolete. Mr. Speaker, I want to say, without interruption from the Minister of Industry and Tourism, who does not choose to stand and talk about this bill that affects his riding -- I take it he's now going to leave the assembly.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I thought it might go quicker if I left. If you prefer me to stay --

The Acting Speaker: On Bill 68.

Mr Laughren: It's irrelevant. It doesn't matter whether the minister stays or goes.

Mr. Renwick: Just don't interrupt.

Mr. Speaker, it is sad because not only was the original bill, introduced by the former Solicitor General, the Honourable John Macbeth, as he then was, flawed, and not only was the bill introduced by the member for Burlington South (Mr. Kerr), when he was Solicitor General, flawed, but each of the bills this Solicitor General has introduced has been flawed. It has been impossible for this party to get across to the minister the need to provide for an independent investigation.

But the ultimate sadness of the occasion, and I stand to be corrected some years hence, is that this will establish the pattern that will be enforced across Ontario, and at no time will we be able to achieve the desired goal of an independent investigation. The goal is one that affects the police. This bill is a disservice to the police. It does nothing whatsoever to give to the police officer the status and protection in society he is entitled to. For those, of course, against whom the game is stacked, there is no reason to believe this bill will protect them.

I hope that at some point Mr. Linden will reread -- because I know he likely has read all of the transcripts -- the evidence given by Dr. Philip Berger from the South Riverdale Community Health Centre, who appeared on his own behalf, and not as a member of that centre, to give irrefutable evidence before the committee as to why people will continue not to come to the public complaints commissioner. That evidence, to my mind, was open and shut. I do not believe the minister bothered to be there that day because, of course, it likely was not acceptable evidence to him.

The device which the Attorney General and Solicitor General has used in this bill, pretending that somehow this is an experiment that will come to an end at a certain time, is purely a device to entrench this flawed bill into the jurisprudence of this province in a way which, I can say to every member of the assembly, from every municipality across the province, will in due course be the forum they are faced with in their communities. It is that serious.

The mistake has been defended by the minister with stubbornness and on many occasions with arrogance. He has failed to understand that the people who came to give evidence before the committee spoke as representatives. He did not have the good grace to accept their evidence as spokespeople. If they did not choose to say what he wanted them to say, he denigrated them in their capacity as leaders within the community. I think that is a very serious matter.

I do not know what the commissioner is going to do about the recent allegations of police brutality. I do not know what his plans are. But I challenge him to produce annually a report that is objective and critical and to find a method by which he will be able to tell this assembly the number of people who do not register complaints. I do not know whether that is possible, but that is the key to the flaw in the bill. Of course, the minister knows as well as I do that to prove a negative is almost impossible; so the bill will be put before us as being a good bill when the time comes to review its operation.

We tried on a number of occasions to express the principles this party stood for. In closing, I want to say to the minister that this bill is not a monument to him. It is what I would call, I hope, not his epitaph. But one of these days, I trust he will understand he has copied the kind of legislation that has produced in country after country and, in England, in city after city, a noncommunication between the police and the public. I would have thought he would have had the capacity to understand and recognize the need for the independent investigation which has been at the core of the debate that has gone on.

I simply want to pay tribute to my colleagues the member for Etobicoke and the member for Nickel Belt, who sat through the hearings, who devoted an immense amount of time in trying desperately to get across to the minister what is wrong with the bill.

I take it that my colleagues in the Liberal Party are going to vote against the bill. At least, that is the way I understand it. If I am wrong, it will not be the first time.

I simply want to say to the minister that I have no confidence in the bill. I have no confidence in the process by which he came to the conclusion that Bill 68 will solve the problems as I perceive them, not in Eglinton riding but in the riding of Riverdale. It will not assist anyone in the area I represent. It may give some satisfaction to those who live in different parts of the city, but not in the area I represent and certainly not in the area represented by the Minister of Industry and Tourism, who has now left the chamber.

5:50 p.m.

I appeal to my colleagues on the government benches to stand and have the courage to defeat the bill on third reading or at least to ask that the matter be referred again to the committee with the understanding that in due course the Premier (Mr. Davis) will perhaps take away the portfolio of Solicitor General from this minister of the crown and give it to someone else who has some understanding of the need we have tried to express in this assembly, year after year, to establish a complaint process that would have the confidence of the people and the police. I say it is a sad day.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, the members may feel I do not have a right to speak or I am somehow imposing, but I want to make it clear that the constituency I represent and those that a number of my colleagues represent are as vitally affected by this bill as many constituents from rural parts of Ontario are affected by farm legislation. It is important for those of us who have not had an opportunity to participate in the clause-by-clause stage at least to speak briefly. I do not intend to be shut up on it.

My colleagues have outlined a number of the problems. They crystallize into two points. First, unless there is an independent investigation, it will be impossible to clear the air on any complaint. If the complaint is not upheld and there is no independent investigation, the air cannot be cleared. It is impossible to do so. The second point, raised over and over again before the members who were hearing public testimony in committee, was that unless there is an independent investigation from the outset, the complaint procedure will not gain the trust of the communities it is designed to serve. Those flaws are still in the bill and I sincerely believe they doom the procedure to failure. That is a real tragedy.

I have not had the opportunity some of my colleagues have had to sit in committee and listen to the testimony, but I have had the opportunity to meet and talk to the men and women who have spent the last two, three or four years working in the communities, including my own community, with the police-community liaison committees. The minister will know those committees were set up in an attempt to foster better communication and better relationships between the front-line police in the local divisions and members and representatives of the minority communities who were having difficulties in their relationships with the police forces.

Everybody I talked to before the hearings began who had served on those police-community liaison committees said that, unless there were an independent investigation, the communities they represent and belong to would not make use of the procedure. What point is there in a procedure that is nullified from the outset by a lack of trust and confidence?

It is not a question, as the minister has indicated in the past, of being against the police; it is a question of trying to understand the sensitivities of communities that have difficulties in their relationships with police forces. The minister has failed to do that.

The minister referred to the recent accusations against the holdup squad as illustrative of the benefits of the bill. I say to the minister that the recent grave accusations against the holdup squad indicate the difficulties of the bill. Serious accusations are made against the holdup squad. The investigation is conducted by the police themselves. The police chief appoints ex-members of the holdup squad to do the investigation. And no matter what the outcome of this first round, the air will not be cleared.

If Mr. Linden comes in at some subsequent date, he is faced with a Hobson's choice. If he upholds the police investigation and the complaints are found to be groundless, he will not clear the air and he will not have credibility. If he finds the police investigation was inadequate, the police investigation then becomes a waste of time.

It does not make sense. I suspect the minister knows it does not make sense. He is so concerned about maintaining the paramilitary discipline of the Police Act that he is ignoring the other considerations which we feel are more important and in the long run would benefit policemen as well as the community. For these reasons, we intend to oppose this bill.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, I can commence my remarks at eight o'clock if you consider it appropriate.

The House recessed at 5:56 p.m.

November 17, 1981