Hansard Transcript 1989-Jan-05 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

That, in the opinion of this House, the positive initiatives of the government of Ontario since May 1985 regarding eastern Ontario economic development be commended and supported and that the government of Ontario be urged to continue this new higher level of support and encourage the government of Canada to support these efforts.

The Deputy Speaker: Mr. McGuinty has moved the resolution standing in his name. The member has up to 20 minutes to make his presentation and may reserve any portion of those 20 minutes for the windup.

Mr. McGuinty: I am pleased to offer this resolution because, during the first year of my service as MPP for Ottawa South, I had the honour of acting as chairman of the government’s eastern Ontario caucus and also the Ottawa-Carleton caucus, which is a subdivision within the larger whole. The eastern Ontario caucus has been particularly active during the past year with the purpose of asserting the presence of the government in eastern Ontario. Outreach programs were held in Cloyne, Kingston, Eganville and Hawkesbury, and one is to come in Cornwall within a few days.

The purpose of these programs is to allow government representatives to meet with municipal officials, businessmen, associations and others, to listen and to bring back to Queen’s Park the concerns expressed by local people. While at Queen’s Park we are concerned with the formulation of policies, politics is not merely policies; politics is people. We travelled to outlying parts of eastern Ontario, listened to people and brought back their concerns to Queen’s Park.

The eastern Ontario caucus is further broken down into the Ottawa-Carleton caucus with eight members representing constituencies in that regional municipality. The Ottawa-Carleton caucus meets monthly in Ottawa and receives briefs from various bodies dealing with matters which transcend riding boundaries.

Groups presenting briefs included boards of education, hospital hoards of directors, district health councils, the acquired immune deficiency syndrome committee, the children’s aid society, universities and visiting homemakers. In all, some 40 groups made presentations while I was chairman. In addition, the caucus met with various local ministry officials to ensure that members of caucus were better informed of the work of these ministries in the area.

Whether with regard to health services, education, transportation, housing or day care, the caucus brought back to respective ministers the concerns of people. Particularly effective were our presentations at Queen’s Park to the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) and other ministers with regard to hospital budgets and school board allocations. I am pleased to report that allocations to hospitals in eastern Ontario were some 18 per cent higher than the provincial average.

In this way, the elected members at Queen’s Park from eastern Ontario provided an open line of communication from groups, associations, regional bodies, municipal politicians and others to Queen’s Park. While a caucus can claim no direct causal relationship in every case between its representations to various ministers and funds allocated, there was definitely an influence for good exerted in this regard.

In total, over $1 billion was allocated by various Ontario ministries to eastern Ontario in 1987-88, a lot of money. At last, the people of eastern Ontario are getting the kind of good government they deserve from Queen’s Park. I meet these people, and from Killaloe to Cloyne, Kingston to Cornwall and Osceola to Ottawa they are saying, “Thanks a billion.”

Included in this total is over $275 million for community and social services; transportation, $266 million; health, $139 million; industry, trade and technology, $71 million; environment, $65 million; skills development, $57.7 million; education, $40 million; housing, $27 million; colleges and universities, $26 million; tourism, $4.6 million; culture, $3 million. This compares very favourably with allocations by the previous government and with the Conservative government in Ottawa.

In addition to grants, ministers have personally visited people in eastern Ontario to hear their concerns at first hand as never before. We are an open government that listens to the concerns of people throughout Ontario. Our Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan) made four visits to the Ottawa-Carleton region and the Ottawa Valley last year, meeting with boards of directors, health councils and others involved in the provision of health services.

Our Minister of Tourism and Recreation (Mr. O’Neil) visited widely with those involved in the tourist industry in eastern Ontario, as did our Minister of Culture and Communications (Ms. Oddie Munro), our Minister of Colleges and Universities (Mrs. McLeod), our Minister without Portfolio responsible for disabled persons (Mr. Mancini) and our Minister without Portfolio responsible for senior citizens’ affairs (Mrs. Wilson).

1010

Our Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. Kwinter) recently announced a $25-million economic development program under which his ministry will provide technical and financial assistance to eastern Ontario communities to develop strategic economic plans and to fund specific strategic projects associated with these plans.

The object of the program is to promote a balanced economic growth in eastern Ontario and to foster community self-reliance and local initiative in programs designed to encourage and support communities to work together in undertaking strategic planning to enhance their long-term economic development.

The aim of this program is to foster cooperation between communities and to provide wide-scale benefits such as more effective co-ordination between federal and provincial economic programs. In the long term, this improved level of economic activity will lay the groundwork for a more balanced regional growth, new jobs and a higher degree of community ownership.

As a teacher for over 30 years, as a trustee for 16, I think that perhaps the most notable achievement of this government has been the establishment of a homogeneous French-language school board which would regroup all the francophones of the Ottawa-Carleton region from kindergarten to grade 13.

I dealt with the matter during my 16 years as a school-board trustee and over 30 years as a university professor, and with regard to this and to other matters in eastern Ontario, particularly with regard to education, in days past we sometimes had the distinct impression that Queen’s Park was 2,000 miles away.

This seemed most obvious with regard to the question of the francophone school board in Ottawa-Carleton, and many people in eastern Ontario experienced over the years of past governments a pattern of foot-dragging and less than enthusiastic recognition of Ontario francophones’ reasonable and just demands.

I can remember from personal experience in days past when the school dropout rate of the French was tragically higher than the norm. During the 20 years when this matter was discussed one fact emerged with abundant clarity, and that was simply that the francophone community wanted its own school board. This hope was a logical evolution from the scandalous situation a few years ago when it did not even have its own schools, and the support for the board was endorsed by the Mayo commission, by municipalities, local school boards and teachers’ groups.

The formation of the francophone board was logical because it is to be expected that trustee members of the francophone community immersed in its culture, speaking its language, would be more understanding, responsive and sympathetic to these schools by virtue of their particular identity and particular needs with regard to books, busing, staff and programs. Control of the means best serves young francophones surrounded by an anglophone environment.

It is surely right and reasonable that these schools should be developed by francophones and for francophones. I am very proud of the good work of my government in this regard.

As parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Skills Development (Mr. Curling) I am delighted to report that the activities of the Ministry of Skills Development are particularly impressive in eastern Ontario. As mentioned earlier, $57.7 million were allocated in 1987-88.

Ministry programs are delivered through community colleges in Nepean, Belleville, Brockville, Cornwall, Kingston, Peterborough and Lindsay. There are 10 skills development offices located in eastern Ontario. These offices served 1,300-plus employers in 1987-88, and in eight months of 1988 they served 1,375. The Ontario skills program provides partial support for the direct cost of workplace training, and from April 1, 1988, to October 31, 1988, 1,853 employers accessed this program in eastern Ontario.

Of the province’s 55 community industrial training committees, 12 or 22 per cent of the whole are operative in eastern Ontario, bringing together business and labour, education and government to identify and respond to local training needs.

The Ontario basic skills program allocation for eastern Ontario by the Ministry of Skills Development has been $2.5 million in both 1988-89 and 1987-88, representing 13 percent of the total provincial allocation. This program provides literacy and numeracy and other basic training.

Eastern Ontario is served by seven district field offices of the apprenticeship branch, in Ottawa, Brockville, Cornwall, Kingston, Pembroke, Peterborough and Belleville. In 1988, from April to November, over 1,600 new apprentices were registered.

The Futures program is active, with 10,371 or 28 per cent of the young people availing themselves of this program in Ontario as a whole coming from eastern Ontario. The Transitions program, which gives a credit of $5,000 to older people for retraining in the workplace, has taken care of 389 people in our region, or 20 per cent of the provincial whole.

Perhaps equally impressive, meaningful and more convincing regarding the action taken by the government to assert its presence in eastern Ontario is an account of a recent tour that the Minister of Skills Development made. Meeting with the Minister of Mines (Mr. Conway) in Pembroke, we went on to meet with the Renfrew County Board of Education; drove over to Killaloe and met community groups there which had been subsidized through the ministry and from Killaloe down through the residential part of the Ottawa Valley to Eganville and Douglas; bypassed Osceola because we hit it at the rush hour and went on to Arnprior and Renfrew, where we visited factories whose skills training had been supported. One of the highlights of the visit to the Arnprior plant where we provided funds for Japanese second-language training was to hear Ottawa Valley natives speaking Japanese with an Ottawa Valley accent.

In these ways, firsthand involvement with communications with such groups as we met at Pembroke, Killaloe, Eganville, Renfrew and Arnprior by the minister and his staff asserts the presence and the concern that our government has for the people of eastern Ontario. Such tours facilitate communication and bring ministers in firsthand contact with the needs and problems of those who avail themselves of our ministries’ facilities.

The guiding norm for ministerial contacts with the people of eastern Ontario has been based on a simple principle. That norm has also guided the activities of our caucus with its Outreach program in the various parts of the eastern Ontario region. That is, very simply, politics is not merely policies; politics is people. This government has as its foremost aim to serve the needs of people, and this we have done and will continue to do in a manner not common in days past, through the work of the eastern Ontario caucus and our ministers, to assert the concerned presence of our government for eastern Ontario.

I thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will reserve the rest of my allotted time for rebuttal at the close of this important debate.

Mr. Runciman: I very much appreciate the member for Ottawa South (Mr. McGuinty), so it is difficult to be overly critical, but I have often heard that academics lack imagination, and this sort of self-congratulatory pap confirms that in my mind. I think the member and most of the so-called eastern Ontario Liberal caucus must have sore arms from continually patting themselves on the back.

When I take a look at the intent of this resolution, really, I do not know whether to laugh or cry. It is indeed quite sad when you take a look at the reality of the situation with this government, now in power for almost four years.

If we want to talk about the Ottawa caucus, the member for Carleton (Mr. Sterling) raised the issue just this week with respect to the government’s closing down the innovation centre in Ottawa and the impact that closure is going to have on that important part of the province and inquired, “Where was the Liberal caucus when that was occurring?”

Recently, we have had the government announce with great fanfare something it is calling the eastern Ontario community economic development program. I want to read into the record some excerpts from an editorial that appeared in the December 28 issue of the Prescott Journal.

1020

“The ‘Alice in Wonderland’ logic of the powers that be at Queen’s Park has struck again and a number of Eastern Ontario communities, including the town of Prescott, have once again found themselves holding the dirty end of the stick.”

It goes on and then it says: “Unfortunately, many area officials later learned that all that glitters is indeed not always gold and while there still is $25-million in provincial funding to be had, there are also a number of loopholes and conditions which mean that the money won’t be going to areas where it is needed the most.

“The whole mess is a larger version of the old saying, ‘You can’t get a job without a union card and you can’t get a union card without a job.’

“For years Eastern Ontario residents have felt alienated and ignored by those in Toronto and central Ontario who seem to have all the power and make all the decisions. The Eastern Ontario Community Economic Development Program was designed to change all that and it has failed before it has even started.

“Once again Eastern Ontario people have seen how ‘the more things change, the more they stay the same.’”

I think that I had difficulty with the program from the inception, without getting into the nuts and bolts of how it was going to work, which took, I think, close to a year and a half from the time it was announced in the budget until the formal announcement of the program a short time ago.

When we talk about $5 million per year being injected into the region over five years and when we look at it on that basis, it is not a great deal of assistance, when we look at things occurring in the Toronto area like 30 million of provincial taxpayers’ dollars going into the most opulent stadium in the country. We see provincial taxpayers’ dollars going into an opera centre in downtown Toronto. We see millions and millions of dollars going into the waterfront in downtown Toronto: taxpayers’ dollars, Ontario taxpayers’ dollars, eastern Ontario taxpayers’ dollars.

We can go on and on ad nauseam in respect to the significant amounts of funds that are being funnelled into Metropolitan Toronto in southern Ontario from taxpayers right across this province. We are supposed to be terribly enthusiastic and pleased about the provincial government giving us poor folks down in eastern Ontario $5 million a year for five years, which in fact is not going to help many of the communities that are facing difficult circumstances.

One good thing about this particular program, I will say, is that apparently they have eliminated the Ottawa-Carleton area from the program, and I think that is an appropriate move. Too often programs are applied province-wide and do not recognize the different circumstances in the various regions, and that certainly applies to eastern Ontario as well.

Ottawa-Carleton is one of the most successful areas in eastern Ontario -- I would say perhaps the most successful -- and having the federal government centred there is one of the prime reasons for that, I would suggest. But a study carried out by the federal government a little over a year ago showed that when you take a look at the statistics of people and families earning under $10,000 a year and families earning under $5,000 a year, eastern Ontario has the highest percentage of people living on less than $10,000 a year and less than $5,000 a year. That is the reality of the situation. It is not the glorious picture the member for Ottawa South was trying to paint a few moments ago.

I want to talk about some of the things the government could be doing in this area. One of my complaints over a great many years is the fact that there is no recognition within government of a clear definition of just what constitutes eastern Ontario. Every ministry has a different definition. In some instances we have eastern Ontario, through the Eastern Ontario Development Corp., extending up into the Oshawa area. We have the program that I just mentioned going up into the Peterborough area. We have various definitions within various ministries.

I think the bigger that one makes that pie in terms of the people eating from it, the real eastern Ontarians are the folks who suffer. I think that has been a problem for a great many years -- and I am not laying that solely in the lap of the current government, but it is something that this government has failed to address. I hope that it will indeed take a hard look at it, work with the Association of Municipalities of Ontario to develop a standard definition of eastern Ontario and then use that definition with all ministries in this province.

I want to talk about the fact that the Premier (Mr. Peterson) has seen fit to appoint, I believe, an assistant deputy minister for Metropolitan Toronto in the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs. This is a minister who is going to work with various ministries and work with the local governments within Metro to try to resolve problems and concerns within Metro.

Okay, that may be fine, but again, it is a case of Metro’s problems being the focus of this government, Metro concerns being the focus of this government.

We have a Ministry of Northern Development. We have an assistant deputy minister in the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology dealing with northern Ontario.

What does eastern Ontario have? Nothing. When officials from eastern Ontario met with seven officials from the Ministry of industry, Trade and Technology to talk about eastern Ontario, there was not one member of the ministry sitting there with any knowledge or any background of eastern Ontario. That is the reality.

Mr Mahoney: They’ve got a development corporation down there. That’s the reality.

Mr. Runciman: The reality is that is not functioning as it should, and I am not going to get into interjections with my limited time. I have talked about Toronto, the focus on Toronto, and I think one of the initiatives this government could undertake is also to follow suit in terms of what it has done for Metro Toronto: appoint an assistant deputy minister in the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs to deal with eastern Ontario matters.

I am not talking about a significant enlargement of the bureaucracy. I am talking about two or three people to co-ordinate efforts to ensure that there is a significant voice at the senior levels within government bureaucracy to deal with eastern Ontario concerns. That is all I am asking for, and I think it is an appropriate initiative, based on what the Premier is doing with respect to Metropolitan Toronto.

I want to take a look at meaningful initiatives in eastern Ontario. We have a land bank, 10,000 acres in Edwardsburgh township, owned by this provincial government. What is being done about that land bank? Absolutely nothing. Nothing is being done to promote it.

If it wants to do something meaningful, why does the government not look at developing a program of providing hard services for the development and expansion of industrial parks in eastern Ontario? That is the kind of program that is going to get people who are coming into Metropolitan Toronto, which is facing congestion, increased crime, rocketing housing prices, a multitude of problems, but they are still coming here because this government is not encouraging them to take a look at other areas of this province, especially eastern Ontario.

They can do that by coming up with some innovative programs. They have a 10,000-acre land bank. Why do they not go in there, service that and make it available, at cost, to industry? That would be a tremendous incentive to get industry into eastern Ontario.

Why do they not look into providing programs of low-cost loans to a variety of small and medium-sized municipalities in eastern Ontario to extend services in existing industrial parks and to develop new industrial parks?

That is the kind of meaningful initiative that they should be undertaking, and up to this point, what do we have the eastern Ontario members of the government doing? Getting up and congratulating themselves, slapping themselves on the back at every opportunity and not really giving us a meaningful voice on the government side of the House.

We do not have a minister with significant impact in that government. We do not have one minister from eastern Ontario in an economic portfolio. This government is really continually ignoring the very valid concerns of eastern Ontario.

Mr. Cleary: As chairman of the eastern Ontario caucus, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on this resolution.

Before I begin my address, I must think of the positive approach the Ontario government has taken to eastern Ontario.

I would like to congratulate the member for Ottawa South on his excellent speech. Like the member for Ottawa South. I must commend the efforts of the Liberal government since coming to power in 1985. The residents of eastern Ontario can rest assured that the government’s unprecedented efforts to recognize the interests of this region will continue in the coming years.

Less than one month ago, on December 12, I had the honour of attending the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology’s announcement of the eastern Ontario economic development program, a five-year, $25-million development plan. The plan relies on local initiative. For its part, the ministry will provide technical and financial assistance to eastern Ontario communities.

As a result of this technical and economic assistance, the eastern Ontario communities will develop strategic economic plans and fund specific strategy projects associated with these plans. Under the program, municipalities are encouraged to group together at the county level to work on planning, implementing and strategies for growth. Thus the counties of eastern Ontario will be mapping their own destinies. The fact that eastern Ontario economic development programs do not include the Ottawa-Carleton region should not be viewed in a negative light. The Ottawa-Carleton region already has extensive planning resources at its disposal and already has developed a sound long-term economic strategy.

1030

The improved level of economic activity which will be stimulated by this economic development plan will lay the groundwork for eastern Ontario and a more economically balanced region. There will be growth, a higher degree of community ownership and new jobs in sections of eastern Ontario which have not already been as fortunate as the Ottawa-Carleton region.

While addressing some of the government of Ontario’s initiatives in eastern Ontario, I will limit myself to speaking on the progress that took place since September 1987 when I had the honour of being chosen to represent the people of Cornwall at the Ontario Legislature. Further, I will focus on economic initiatives in relation to tourism, recreation, skills development, housing and the Eastern Ontario Development Corp.

The Ontario government has not only recognized tourism as vital to eastern Ontario, it has created Destinations East, a program designated to propose and enhance tourism and recreation in eastern Ontario. Under the program, eastern Ontario municipalities, the private sector, tourism developers and tourist-oriented nonprofit organizations are eligible for funding as long as their activities have the potential to improve tourism in eastern Ontario, create new jobs and increase tourism opportunities.

Funds can be used for everything from developing tourist facilities to funding feasibility studies for determining the merits of a tourist project to assist tourism businesses to put together marketing strategies for the first time. One of the local motels in my riding was awarded a $10,000 marketing assistance grant for marketing a campaign and a bus tour market in Ontario, Quebec and the northeastern United States.

In the past few weeks another motel received over $27,000 to assist in an upgrading project. The project is an excellent example of how eastern Ontario can improve its position as a first-choice tourist destination.

The Worldfest/Festimonde Cornwall, a nonprofit organization that organizes an annual multicultural festival and attracts talented folk groups from every corner of the world, benefited from a $23,950 grant. Worldfest is using this money to provide a video and a brochure to attract corporate investors.

Tourism grants which directly and indirectly stimulate eastern Ontario’s economy have also taken the form of capital grants for new recreation facilities. In the past year the township of Cornwall received a $220,000 grant to construct a bicycle path. To illustrate his ministry’s commitment to the development of eastern Ontario’s economy through tourism and recreation, the Minister of Tourism and Recreation was on site at the official opening.

My colleague the member for Ottawa South (Mr. Chiarelli) talked at length about the government’s interest in the eastern Ontario economy, with the Minister of Skills Development touring the region.

I would also like to deal with the Ministry of Skills Development’s commitment to eastern Ontario. In my own riding the commitment was made evident in the ministry’s renewal of funding for the Cornwall Youth Employment Counselling Centre.

In May 1988 the centre received $107,256 from the ministry. The counselling centre is a community-based organization to help unemployed youth. The centre raises money for the community and the moneys raised are then matched by funds from the Ministry of Skills Development. This is the fourth year that the community has provided such support for the Cornwall centre. During the past year the centre has served more than 850 young people.

The young people of Cornwall, like those in other communities across Ontario, are the key to our future economic stability. The government’s efforts on the part of eastern Ontario youth are a concrete indication of its commitment to the eastern Ontario economy of tomorrow.

The government attempts to alleviate illiteracy will also provide a boost to the eastern Ontario economy. Illiteracy, as we know, is a problem that plagues many Ontarians. Individuals who are not functionally literate will have countless problems in their efforts to participate in Ontario’s economy. To combat some of these difficulties, the Ontario government, through its Ministry of Skills Development, provides Ontario communities with literacy grants. The grants are also given to nonprofit community based organizations to provide basic literacy programs for adults. In Cornwall, the Association canadienne-française de l’Ontario and the Tricounty Literacy Council both receive $33,000.

Another Skills Development program benefits Cummins Recon, a Cornwall company that builds diesel engines. The company received $122,730 to set up a workplace literacy and skills program. The funds will be used to increase workplace literacy as well as a hands-on training session assisting women developing the skills of nontraditional occupations. The employees benefit by acquiring not only the basic skills but updating of training as well. The company and the economy as a whole benefit through an ample supply of skilled workers.

When the government’s new economic development plan started and got into full swing, local economic strategies in my riding can call on the Stormont Dundas and Glengarry Industrial Training Council, a community industrial training council that operates in the heart of my riding. This organization, which is made up of members of various backgrounds, provides a source of planning knowledge and can be relied on to participate in the training needs.

In essence, as employers become increasingly aware --

The Deputy Speaker: Your time is up. I am awfully sorry. The member for Sault Ste. Marie.

Mr. Morin-Strom: I am pleased to speak to this resolution with regard to economic development in eastern Ontario. Although I am not a member representing a community in eastern Ontario, I do understand the concerns of areas outside the heartland of the Golden Horseshoe of Ontario, being a member from northern Ontario. We in the north experience similar problems to those communities in eastern Ontario with regard to economic development and in particular with regard to getting this government to act on their behalf to stimulate economic development in those important regions of our province.

I find it interesting that the Liberal government and its backbench members from eastern Ontario can do such a job of patting the backs of the government in terms of initiatives for that region, when in fact the feeling in that region is quite the contrary when it comes to those economic development initiatives. I would just look at what the reaction has been to initiatives in terms of eastern Ontario economic development, in particular the major announcement recently by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology with regard to the eastern Ontario community economic development program.

This initiative has not been well received in eastern Ontario, particularly with regard to smaller communities, those communities that really do need the economic development in those regions.

1040

I will just quote briefly from an editorial from the Prescott Journal, a paper that I think reflects one of the smaller communities in eastern Ontario and the sentiments of people in that region. Its editorial of December 28 starts, “The ‘Alice in Wonderland’ logic of the powers that be at Queen’s Park has struck again and a number of Eastern Ontario communities, including the town of Prescott, have once again found themselves holding the dirty end of the stick.”

The editorial goes on further in terms of this particular development project and states, “Unfortunately, many area officials later learned that all that glitters is indeed not always gold and while there still is $25 million in provincial funding to be had, there are also a number of loopholes and conditions which mean that the money won’t be going to areas where it is needed the most.”

The editorial concludes: “For years Eastern Ontario residents have felt alienated and ignored by those in Toronto and central Ontario who seemed to have all the power and make all the decisions. The Eastern Ontario Community Economic Development Program was designed to change all that and it has failed before it has even started.

“Once again, Eastern Ontario people have seen how ‘the more things change, the more they stay the same.’”

In terms of this government’s initiatives for eastern Ontario, one has to question where it is going and whether initiatives like this are new funds, new programs or just replacements for other programs that are being cut by this government in the same region.

I point out that just yesterday in question period, we had a question from the member for Carleton (Mr. Sterling) with regard to the innovation centre at the University of Ottawa and the closing of that centre that has recently been announced by this government.

The answer from the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology was: “It was decided the money could be spent with greater effect through other programs that are in place. As a result, the decision was made to inform the various innovation centres that after their term was up, which is now going to be the end of the month, they are going to be wound down.”

We have a clear statement from this government that what is happening is that programs are being cut in order that the funds be spent in other areas. These kinds of major announcements are not new funds, but are just taking funds that had been going into other programs in the region.

When it comes to economic development in eastern Ontario, as in northern Ontario, one of the major initiatives in recent years from the government has been the development corporations. There are both the Northern Ontario Development Corp. and the Eastern Ontario Development Corp. But if one looks at the amount of funds that has gone through these corporations, one sees that the recent Liberal government has been underspending the budget provided to these development corporations in both these regions, and in fact the total budget is down considerably over the last five years.

I have the figures here in terms of the estimates budget figures for the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology. If one goes back five years to the last full fiscal year before the Liberals got into government, the actuals for the year 1983-84 show that the actual spending in the Eastern Ontario Development Corp. was $8,195,000; more than $8 million. I look at what the estimates are for the current fiscal year, five years later, 1988-89, and the amount in the budget is $3,993,000 -- under $4 million.

We have gone from a budget of more than $8 million for the Eastern Ontario Development Corp. to a current budget of under $4 million, a cut of more than $4 million in terms of annual funding in that development corporation. That is the kind of commitment we have seen for development in eastern Ontario, and it is similar to how this government has treated other outlying areas of the province as well.

I point out as well that just yesterday, in the standing committee on resources development, we started the budget review of the Ministry of Transportation and we had the major opening remarks from the Minister of Transportation (Mr. Fulton) with regard to initiatives in transportation. If there were ever an area of economic development of importance to outlying regions of this province, it is our transportation infrastructure, and in particular our highways.

Let’s look at what this government says are its new major expansion projects already under way onto commence in 1989. The minister lists them and they include the E. C. Row Expressway in Windsor; Highway 406 to the city of Welland; Highway 410 from Highway 401 to Bovaird Drive in Brampton; Highway 403, Brantford to Ancaster; Highway 115 from Highway 35 to Peterborough; Highway 401 from Neilson Road to Brock Road in Pickering; Highway 401 within the city of Cambridge; and Highway 69 from Waubaushene to Port Severn. A very high priority for the ministry is the construction of Highway 407 from Highway 27 to Dufferin Street. These are the expansion priorities for the Ministry of Transportation in terms of highway development.

I think anyone who looks at that list will recognize none of them are in eastern Ontario. Eastern Ontario is not a priority in terms of economic development or development of the infrastructure in this province. We in northern Ontario know that we have not been a priority of this government and have got less than our share of spending by this government. The same certainly applies to eastern Ontario. That continues to be the case the longer this government has the kind of representation it does and the lack of input, particularly from the backbench Liberal members who have not been effective in advocating for their own residents in that part of the province.

We look at the rail sector. We did not see the provincial government active in trying to protect the overnight rail service between Ottawa and Toronto, a service that has been threatened and is of vital importance to that region of the province. In fact, in the Ministry of Transportation, as in other ministries, the priority is greater Metropolitan Toronto. The priority of this government is to enhance the growth and continue the growth of the Metro area.

We should be looking at what kind of development possibilities exist in other areas of the province. We could have a more balanced economy in this province. We should have economic stimulation in areas such as eastern Ontario. That is a very important region of this province. It has a very strong growth centre potential around the city of Ottawa, but much more can be done in a lot of the smaller communities in eastern Ontario to stimulate economic development in those areas and provide a better way of living for everyone in eastern Ontario. I encourage this government to do so.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. M. C. Ray): The next speaker is the member for Frontenac Addington (Mr. South).

Mr. Cureatz: Wait a minute. We have a rotation here, Mr. Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: Excuse me, the third party, the member for Durham East.

Mr. Cureatz: As you were casting your eyes about, Mr. Speaker, I know that for some strange reason you missed my obvious presence. Now that I am here, it is a great privilege to have the opportunity of speaking to this resolution by the honourable member for Ottawa South.

I am so flabbergasted by the resolution that I am almost at a loss for words. However, from the depth of my soles on the bottom of my shoes, I have been able to gather up one or two trivial bits of thought about this resolution. Of course, for any of the lawyers who are listening this a.m. and, if not, maybe on the repeat tonight, I will have to begin, and the lawyers will appreciate this, by saying that I have nothing but the highest respect for the honourable member for Ottawa South.

This should lead into the obvious fact that this resolution is absolute b-u-n-k. I did not do very well in spelling. Does that spell bunk? Because that is what this is. I am embarrassed profusely for the honourable member for Ottawa South, for whom I have nothing but the highest regard -- a man of his stature who has a very large family, most of whom voted for him and that is why he got elected. He is a presence in the educational field.

1050

As a matter of fact, when I grasp through my memory banks all the various attributes this member has, I am flabbergasted he has come forward with this kind of nonsense. I am really getting worked up now. I mean, of all the things -- oh, I almost felt like saying something that would be unparliamentary -- a Liberal backbencher could be doing.

Do you know what I have to do for a moment, Mr. Speaker? I have to go into my backbench speech because the member has not learned a thing yet in a year and a half. I started off a year and a half ago and I said: “Now, Liberal backbenchers, here is how this game is played. Listen very closely.” Of course, it is the old story. If you want to fool them, tell them the truth because they do not believe you. I am going to try to tell him the truth again.

I say to the member for Ottawa South, bringing forward this resolution does absolutely zilch for him; nothing at all. What is he going to do? Go back to his riding and say, “I spent half a morning at Queen’s Park bringing forward a resolution complimenting what a great job the Premier (Mr. Peterson) the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway), the member for Brant-Haldimand (Mr. R. F. Nixon) and the member for St. George-St. David (Mr. Scott) have done.” I mean, really, in his riding, who cares? Does he think they are that concerned that he is complimenting the people who are really running the show?

Few people have the opportunity, first, of getting elected, and then getting on the ballot to present to these chambers a possible piece of legislation or a resolution. We all know that process. Holy smoke, you have to go through the gauntlet. Finally, the member for Ottawa South comes forward.

I have to say selfishly -- I am not even getting into my remarks, doggone it -- that when I evaluate my opportunity of speaking in the morning for private members’ hour, I take a look and say: “What would be helpful for the people of Ontario? What might be beneficial for the people in my riding?” That is so at some future time lean come forward either through a newsletter or at election time and say: “On behalf of all of you in Durham East, I had this proposal brought forward. I spoke on your behalf and I brought it forward to the Legislature.”

Now, Dalton -- I have to call him Dalton; we have been on committees together and we have had a couple of chuckles -- how in the heck are you selfishly going to be able to use this? Know what happened? I can remember when I once sat over there where the member for Essex South (Mr. Mancini) is. George Ashe -- who then outmanoeuvred me and got into cabinet way before I ever did, and of course I guess this is how he got into cabinet -- at private members’ hour brought forward a resolution that they should be electrifying the rail train from Oshawa to Windsor or something.

I went over to George and said: “You know, George, actually that was not a bad idea. As a matter of fact, it is a good idea, and l know you; it did not come from you.” He laughed a little. He said: “You are right. I got it from someone on the front bench.” I said, “Aha, so someone is feeding old George and he is playing the game.”

The member for Ottawa South has fallen right into the trap. Someone over there -- it must be the member for Renfrew North. He is the only one I can think of who would be suave enough to cajole him into coming forward with this resolution.

Then they are saying: “Don’t worry, Dalton. We will be there at election time. The Premier will come through your riding and we will look after you when it is called. Pat us on the back a bit.”

I mean, this is so self-serving that I am embarrassed for him. It is just unbelievable that he thinks he can get away with this. Then on top of that, as if he was not on the Sunday shopping committee in Ottawa. For all members who were not there, what a road show we had. Of course, it is not over yet. We all heard yesterday from the Premier about closure. If I have the opportunity, I will be saying a word or two about that. But reading this resolution, it is as if he was not in the Ottawa hotel. Well, he was. I saw him in flesh and blood. It was not a phantom of my imagination.

Members should have seen the protest groups there against that Sunday shopping legislation. The animosity in that room was unbelievable. You could see the electricity bouncing over the walls. And there was the member for Ottawa South, sitting in the back row with his legs crossed. He did not come up with us. I will tell members who came up with us, who took the real heat. It was the member for Ottawa West. Oh boy, was he under the gun.

Did we see the member for Ottawa South coming to his rescue when all the press was there with the microphones giving the devil to that poor old member? As a matter of fact, I even felt sorry for him because I have been in that spot once or twice myself, and of course no one came to my rescue, so I thought: “Why should I go to Bob’s rescue? He is getting hung. Too bad; it is his riding. It is his home town.”

The member was there. He saw how antagonistic those groups were from his own home town, all the religious organizations, the large businesses, the unions, the various aspects, individual people. They were screaming at this government and the member sat in the back row, smiling like a Cheshire cat, grabbed a free coffee, went out in the hallway for a smoke, and then he comes down to Queen’s Park and he gives us this rubbish. It is unbelievable.

Of course, the Liberal backbenchers are getting away with this all the time. They are telling about all the funds that have been spent and allocated. Let’s get some specifics. The member comes forward talking about the large percentage of increases in hostel spending in his area.

It comes as passing strange, if I may use that turn of phrase, that he made no reference specifically to that promised increase to school boards across Ontario, no doubt more particularly in his home area, and the lack of funds that are coming forward to those school boards. He could have talked about that.

Why does he not play fair and give the member for Renfrew North a little whack? He tells us on the wonderful tour by the Minister of Skills Development and the government House leader through eastern Ontario, what a great reception they had, except through Osceola because there was a huge traffic jam. The traffic jam was because people were running away from the House leader and from the member and the Minister of Skills Development. They began to see the maya of it all: the arrogance of this Liberal administration in arms of Sunday shopping, passing on that onerous responsibility to the municipalities; housing, passing that on to the municipalities with an increase in lot levies; the waffling on insurance.

I have not attacked the Minister of Energy (Mr. Wong) yet about the possibility of brown-outs in Ontario in the wintertime. I told him we could stand it in Ontario in the summer -- if it gets too hot, you sit underneath a tree in the shade and pant -- but what are you going to do in the wintertime when you do not have electricity and you do not have any heat for people across the province?

He does not bring forward any of that stuff. He comes forward with a pat-on-the-back resolution that I am totally embarrassed about. A man of his experience and intelligence should have known better. I do not know what the deal was. Is the member for Renfrew North taking him out for a nice dinner at La Scala or something, saying: “Bring this one in. Tell us what a great job we are doing and we will look after you for a nice meal.”

I am waiting now for the rest of the backbenchers to come forward with resolutions about how wonderful the government is going to be in western Ontario, in the Niagara Peninsula, in mid-northern Ontario and in northern Ontario. What about in Metro and the garbage crisis we have here? No, first we have this and now we are waiting for the rest of the backslapping we are going to get from the Liberal backbenchers.

The Acting Speaker: There is time remaining only for a windup by the member for Ottawa South.

Mr. McGuinty: After the remarks of the member for Durham East (Mr. Cureatz), I am not sure if I should offer a rebuttal or leave and go to confession at St. Basil’s.

What I did, and he probably was not listening, was that I outlined in some chapter and verse the expenditure of $1 billion in the east. I spoke of specific examples of our Ministry of Skills Development, our ministerial presences throughout the area, our caucus hearings, our listening to caucus briefs, our outreach program, all of these things.

The member for Leeds-Grenville (Mr. Runciman) chose to refer to this background information as “congratulatory pap.” I can only assume he is still suffering the lingering effects of the traumatic shock administered by the electorate in 1985 and 1987.

I think it is also significant that in searching for a source to quote, an authority to quote, which is critical of our government’s activity in the east, he chose to go to the Prescott Journal. It would be like the Orange Lodge going to L’Osservatore Romano to look for a congratulatory comment.

The member for Leeds-Grenville alluded twice to years of neglect, years of neglect. We agree there have been years of neglect. I think one of the questions he should be asking himself is where he was in the previous government as an economic minister during these years of neglect. I think it is also significant that the only evidence the member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Morin-Strom) could muster was that which was fed to him by the member for Leeds-Grenville, who chose to quote the same editorial, showing the poverty of sources of reputable comment they had to draw upon. The same editorial was used by both people.

1100

So I do not apologize. I also would respectfully suggest to the member for Sault Ste. Marie that it is a bit presumptuous of him to tell the backbench Liberals from eastern Ontario that they are not properly tied in with their constituents and that they do not properly respond with feeling and understanding to the needs of the area. I think that is a bit presumptuous. I think we do.

As I have said, we have had our outreach programs. As he does, we spend time in our constituency offices. We travel throughout the eastern part of the province. We do it regularly. We meet here. We meet elsewhere. We meet in Ottawa and outlying areas. I think we do; we have done. I think there has been a causal relationship between the expenditure of ministry funds in our region and the work of our eastern Ontario caucus. For this we do not apologize. It is not a matter of back-slapping and congratulations; it is a matter of statement of facts.

I ask for your support for this resolution.

SOIL CONSERVATION

Mr. McGuigan moved resolution 41:

That, in the opinion of this House, the Minister of Agriculture and Food should develop a lease form for voluntary use by owners and renters of farm land that would give credits to the lessor for lessor-financed long-term conservation measures which, when totalled at the end of the lease period, would recompense the lessee for the residual value of the improvements to the land owned or controlled by the lessor and which would, at the end of the lease period, recompense the lessor for the deterioration or damage due to faulty tillage and farming practices to the land owned or controlled by the lessor; and that the minister should provide personnel to act as evaluators and arbitrators in the event that disputes over the residual value of the soil building and conservation measures develop at the time of termination of the lease and in the event that arbitration fails, the minister should provide expert witnesses when such disputes are taken to a court of civil law for settlement and that the minister, as a long-term policy, should advertise, promote and encourage the use of such lease agreements in the province of Ontario.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. M. C. Ray): The member will know he has up to 20 minutes for his presentation and may reserve any portion thereof for his windup.

Mr. McGuigan: The Encyclopaedia Britannica defines “land reform” as follows:

“Land reform includes the redistribution of agricultural land among existing or new owners, including consolidation or subdivision development or settlement of holdings; adjustment of rental charges; compulsory reimbursement of costs incurred by the tenant for improvements made on the lands he cultivates; increase in the security of tenure; adjustment of policy and procedure in the taxation of agricultural land; and the adjudication of registration of land and water titles.”

With this resolution, we are dealing specifically with the third item of land reform, “reimbursement of costs incurred by the tenant for improvements made on the lands he cultivates.”

I would like at this time to put on the record my very sincere appreciation for the work of Yvonne Lavelley. Ms. Lavelley was a parliamentary intern in my office in the spring of 1988 and assisted me in the gathering of research material for this resolution.

The history of the world since Grecian times has been marked by bitter struggles between the landless and the land owners. In England, one of the guarantees forced on King John in 1215 by the Magna Carta was that religious bodies would have limits placed on their land holdings. Those struggles are going on today in Mexico, Latin America and South America. Recent documentaries addressed the pointless destruction of the Amazon rain forest by the Brazilian landless.

Over the years, in the United Kingdom the burdens imposed on tenants were somewhat relaxed by more clearly defining their obligations to their feudal lords. In North America we have been partially insulated from the ancient problem because of free land available in the early days. Now that there is little, if any, new land available, pressures on rented land to produce immediate income due to the competition among lessees are showing up in the form of a faster rate of soil degradation on leased land than on owned land.

This resolution addresses the problem of agricultural land tenure, which has been widely recognized by farmers and researchers who study the causes and effects of soil degradation. This resolution looks to the future and to trends that are apparent in Ontario at the present time. Agricultural production in Ontario, while still a very large figure, something in excess of $5.6 billion at the farm gate, is giving ground to industrial production. Full-time farmers are a decreasing percentage of the farm population, particularly in the cash-crop counties of southern Ontario. For the 30,000 commercial farmers in Ontario, only 30 per cent of their income comes from the farm.

Due to changes in production systems, economic pressures brought on by exploding land prices in the 1970s, declining commodity prices in the 1980s and emerging industrial employment practices, a great many farmers now work both on and off the farm. Also, due to declining farm land values and forced bankruptcies, farm homes and properties are now attractive to urbanites who have the opportunity to sell their city homes for prices that are more than sufficient to buy a country home and the attached productive farm land.

The end result is that both established and new farm property owners are faced with the problems and opportunities to lease out their farm lands to both established farmers and new, young operators who have the expertise and the equipment to farm more acres but who do not or cannot purchase the land outright.

Historically, North American farmers have lived poor and died rich. They lived as frugally as they could, pouring their savings into the land and then selling the farm, which had usually gained considerable value, and retiring with a comfortable nest-egg. Today, partly due to taxation policies of all government levels, partly due to their own rising expectations and largely due to world subsidy policies, particularly in the European Community, the United States and to some extent our own agricultural commodity subsidies, younger farmers look to the earning capacity of the land plus government payments rather than to the capitalization value of the land. Lending policies of both private and government agencies today, as never before, look at the productive value of the land rather than to the capital value of the land.

Also, under our capitalistic system land must produce a return to the land owner sufficient to his or her lifetime needs. Land must return money sufficient to pay the local taxes, income taxes, sales taxes, equipment purchases, repairs and other miscellaneous costs. In short, the land must pay for itself in every generation. By comparison, publicly owned lands such as roads, bridges, canals or parks pay for themselves only once.

The result of these circumstances and policies is that between 25 per cent and 35 per cent of the Arabic land in Ontario is farmed by farmers who rent or lease the land, generally on yearly terms. I believe this trend will slowly escalate and, in my opinion, the above pressures will increasingly come to bear on our agricultural economy, due to the free trade agreement. As a result, more and more land will be farmed under lease. In the United States, from which the pressures will largely emanate, it is estimated that 50 percent of the crop land is leased.

To appreciate the purpose of my resolution, I believe it is necessary to step back a few hundred years to examine our system of land tenure. Except for the province of Quebec, the Canadian system of land tenure comes from England. After the Norman conquest in 1066, all land in England was held by tenants from feudal lords upon various forms of feudal tenure. By the end of the 15th century, a large part of the agricultural land was let to tenants on leases, either for a term of years or for life, at fixed rents generally established on the basis that the owners provided the land, house and necessary buildings while the tenants supplied the livestock and working capital. Part of the terms of the lease was to maintain the fertility of the land. By the latter part of the 18th century, leases of seven, 14 and 21 years were offered.

Both the common law and the superior bargaining power of most landlords tipped the scales against the tenants. In Britain, the Landlord and Tenant Act of 1851 and the Agricultural Holding Act of 1875, followed by similar statutes up to the present time, gave more power to the tenants. Under Second World War emergency conditions, new legislation gave the state control and power to evict inefficient farmers. These later powers were repealed in 1958, but the act continued the protection of tenants in an improved form.

1110

It should be noted that in Canada, the government of Alberta passed the Agricultural Service Board Act in 1970. This act has very wide powers over treatment of land and the province may, under certain circumstances, take control of the land away from the owner and issue an order of land reclamation.

In the United Kingdom, everything that was put into the soil or was attached to the land became the property of the land owner without recompense to the tenant unless otherwise agreed. Tenants claimed that, as a matter of justice, they should receive residual benefits of any improvements they had made to the holding and in many districts, custom upheld their position. In the act of 1851, tenants were able to remove certain agricultural fixtures, but other improvements, such as breaking up of scrub land, were naturally irremovable.

In Britain, the Agricultural Holdings Act of 1875 gave tenants the right to compensation for the unexhausted value of improvements made by them, but most landlords contracted out of the act. The act of 1883 invalidated contracting out unless the lease gave the tenant terms not less favourable from the statutory provisions.

The Agricultural Holdings Act of 1923 gave improved protection to the tenant; compensation for improvements; compensation for “high farming,” that is, for adopting a standard of farming more beneficial to the farm than that required by the tenancy; compensation for disturbances on the termination of the tenancy, and provision to receive a year’s notice to quit, thus preventing termination of a tenancy while the crops were still standing. The act was amended as late as 1986.

The system of land tenure developed in England is unique. The real control of land in the United Kingdom lies with the tenant. On the other hand, apart from communist regimes, over the great part of the world the occupiers of agricultural land are the owners of it. Farmer proprietorship is predominant, and where there are dual interests in the land, the most common system is some form of métayage.

The term is French and describes what was probably the dominant type of land tenure in 18th-century France. It is a form of sharecropping involving sharing half the annual output. The landlord would provide the land and fixed capital items and some of the machinery and half the cost of annual inputs. The tenant would provide half the inputs and all of the labour.

The system existed in France, Italy, India, Japan, eastern Europe and the southern United States, and was predominant in southern Ontario until recently with high-labour-requirement crops such as sugar beets, tobacco and some vegetable crops. The system has largely given way to the farm owners taking over these crops now that mechanization has been substituted for manual labour.

The system does, however, persist and is used in Ontario today to share the risk in growing grain corn, soybeans and small grains. It also persists for the reason of federal tax benefits to the landlord. Commonly, the landlord supplies the land and receives 35 per cent of the gross sales and the tenant supplies the inputs and receives 65 per cent. There are, of course, some variations in those ratios.

I believe the British system evolved from the feudal landlord system, from their inability to produce all of their food requirements and from their wartime experience of food shortages. I am not suggesting that we adopt this system. I am suggesting that we look to the British model to improve our land leasing practices to shift towards a more even balance of power between landlord and tenant for the long-term benefit of both.

If you examine the terms of lease forms printed by the Dye and Durham Co. Ltd., form 85-88, in pursuance of the Ontario Short Forms of Leases Act, you will see that the power lies largely with the landlords. There are general terms to protect the land.

“That the lessee will cultivate, till, manure or fertilize and employ such parts of the said lands in a good farmer-like and proper manner and will in like manner crop the said lands by a regular rotation of crops so as not to impoverish, depreciate or injure the soil.”

The lease form also says that when notice to quit is given by the lessor, “The lessee shall be entitled to be compensated for the value of the crops sown and then growing, or of the ploughing done on the said lands in preparing for a crop, the amount of such compensation to be determined by arbitration if the parties cannot agree thereon.”

There is no mention of compensation for the long-term improvements to the land and property, residual value which will accrue to the landlord or to the new purchaser of the land. The absence of such a clause discourages the tenant from doing anything to improve the land. In fact, it encourages the tenant to look only to his short-term benefits.

This oversight in leasing practice has been noted by soil conservationists. Senator H. O. Sparrow, chairman of the standing committee on agriculture, fisheries and forests, in the 1984 report Soils at Risk, Canada’s Eroding Future, says: “Many leases are verbal agreements with no obligations spelled out in detail and most are for one or two years at a time. As a result, the renting farmer is reluctant to take any conservation measures for which the payout is only in the long term.” One of the studies shows that in 1987, 68 per cent of all agreements were verbal.

The Science Council of Canada, in its September 1986 report A Growing Concern: Soil Degradation in Canada, expresses concerns about leased land. The Ontario Federation of Agriculture and the Christian Farmers Federation of Ontario, in their annual briefs to cabinet, have noted the need for long-term leases to encourage good stewardship of the land.

The Ministry of Agriculture and Food, led by the Honourable Jack Riddell, has moved in this direction by providing three sample leases that, in their preambles, give good conservation advice but follow the same terms as the Dye and Durham forms.

In these samples, when the tenant leaves the farm, the tenant agrees to pay the landlord reasonable compensation for any damages to the land for which the tenant is responsible, but there is no mention of recompense to the tenant for improvements to the leasehold. The only compensation to the tenant in the event the landlord sells the land is for the value of the crop sown and then growing or the plowing done on the said lands in preparation for a crop.

The minister has made further progress. On March 3, 1987, the minister announced that in order to contribute to the development and promotion of sustainable farming systems, a new land stewardship chair will be established at the University of Guelph, backed by a $1-million fund provided by the ministry. In December of the same year, the minister announced a new, three-year, $40-million land stewardship program. In co-operation with the Ontario Soil and Crop Improvement Association, it provides grants to encourage farmers to adopt conservation practices that will improve food production, soil resources and water quality. It also funds research, education and extension services, including 12 additional field crops regional advisers.

A part of the program is the stewardship lease component to encourage landlords to require tenants to farm their lands. Under the stewardship plan, a grant of $10 per acre per year will be paid to the land owner when the land is leased under an approved, minimum three-year stewardship lease.

The maximum grant available is $3,000 per applicant. Agdex 570, December 1987, offers a land stewardship lease, schedule A. This sample lease sets out cropping and tillage practices for the minimum of three years. It also provides a chart to be filled out by the two parties as to the responsibilities for installation, payment and maintenance of erosion control structures but leaves the choice of responsibilities up to the parties.

In the event that the tenant pays for the erosion control structure, the sample lease is silent on the question of any compensation for the cost of such structures in the event that the landlord terminates the agreement at the end of the three years.

The stewardship lease and the $10-per-acre payment partly address the issue but presently have a life of only three years, and the funds are already oversubscribed. I hope that the program will continue and be augmented by further funds, but regardless of the outcome, I believe a need exists to bring an appreciation of the need for a greater balance between the power of the landlord and the power of the tenant.

The sorry state of the world environment is because we have allowed economic considerations to prevail over environmental concerns. I would prefer to see our future programs be long-term, tying incentive payments to environmental programs.

It is this deficiency in all of the ministry sample leases that my resolution is designed to correct. I realize, of course, that any agreement could have a compensation and arbitration clause inserted by the two parties, but I believe this is not likely to happen in the absence of such a clause in the sample agreement. My purpose is to legitimize such a clause and to encourage OMAF to promote the concept to be used in a voluntary way by both landlord and tenant to mutually agree upon the ethics of land stewardship.

The history of concern about soil erosion in Canada began in the 1930s and ended in the 1950s, when the technology developed in the wartime period briefly eclipsed the need to conserve our soils. The escalation of grain prices due to the Russian great grain robbery of 1972 and the subsequent stimulus to production brought about the reawakening to concerns about soil degradation in the 1980s.

Environment concerns of today are acid rain, waste management, ozone depletion and man-induced climate changes. I believe that from a worldwide perspective, soil degradation ranks among this list but is likely the most easily managed once the political will is motivated to do so.

The Soil Conservation Society of America, Ontario chapter, says, “Soil erosion may well be the most underrated yet most damaging natural resource problem of the 1980s.”

We have begun the task. This resolution is another small step. The concept is a big step that could set the direction of future actions. I respectfully request the support of all members for the legislation and I reserve my time remaining.

1120

Mr. Wildman: I rise to support the resolution. I want to congratulate the member. It is always interesting to hear his concerns and views, particularly because he has such a breadth of knowledge in the agricultural field and in economic development generally. While I do not always agree with the views of my friend, I always find them interesting and most often very well researched, and so for that I appreciate the opportunity this morning to hear his comments in support of his resolution.

I support it because I believe that there is a need to develop a greater balance in the relationship between tenants and landlords. Obviously, an owner of land that is leased to another farmer must be protected to ensure that the land is not in any way harmed by inadequate farming methods, techniques or even laziness on the part of the person who is leasing the land. But on the other hand, there must also, as I believe the member has indicated, be some provision to encourage the person who is renting the land to make improvements, and one of the ways to do that is to in some way make it possible for that person to be compensated for those improvements.

As the member also indicated, there must be a need for longer-term leases. If a person is only leasing land for one year at a time, for instance, it would not make any sense for that person to invest very much capital in improving the land.

In my area in northern Ontario we have a particularly unusual problem, I think, in that in some cases land that has been farmed in the past has reverted to the crown for lack of payment of taxes. Neighbouring farmers would like to lease that land for cropping or pasture or haylage.

In many cases this land is not properly fenced, and if a farmer is going to be using the land for pasture, obviously it needs to be fenced. But if the farmer can only arrange a one-year lease with the crown, it does not make sense for him, even with the subsidies that are available, to build a proper fence. So obviously there must be provision made for longer-term leases so that the farmer knows that if he makes improvements to that land, it will benefit him not just for the one year but for the foreseeable future, if he hopes to have a longer-term operation in that particular location.

I noted in passing that the member mentioned the historic competition for land, the demand of the landless for land, and the control that the few have tended to have historically over land, whether it be religious organizations, aristocracy or plutocracy. That is indeed a historic situation that we know of in feudal Europe and which was actually imported to North America at the time of the seigniories and so on, and it is still a major problem in many, many parts of the world.

Although the member said that in most parts of the world, other than the communist world, land tenure is usually a situation of ownership, in fact there are many, many areas he has mentioned like Latin America and Asia where a few, an oligarchy, tends to own the vast majority of the land.

I noticed that the member mentioned Latin America and he talked about Brazil and the destruction of Amazonia. The fact is that about two or three per cent, I think it is, of the land owners in Brazil own 40 per cent of the land. Most of the good land is in southern Brazil.

You have many people who are now dispossessed and are moving into Amazonia. The only way they have of turning that land into agricultural land is by doing what we did historically in many parts of southern Ontario and the Maritimes: just burning down the forest. There were fires last summer in Amazonia which were larger than the area of Prince Edward Island. This is a tragedy, not just for Brazil but for the whole world, because the rain forest in the Amazon is one of the main producers of oxygen on this planet.

It is interesting that after we have destroyed our forests in Europe, and in North America to an extent, we are now turning to the people in the Third World and saying, “You must not do what we did because it will cause problems for the whole globe,” while at the same time we own enormous debt owed to our banks by the people of the Third World and by their governments.

Would it not be interesting for North Americans and Europeans not just to say to Brazil, “You must stop the destruction of the Amazon rain forest,” but to say, “In exchange for that we will cancel debt”? That would have serious ramifications for the banking system. They would survive, but it would mean a tremendous effect on our economy.

We all know that just around Christmastime, Chico Mendes was murdered, not because landless people were attempting to develop areas of the Amazon which he was trying to preserve but because big land owners, developers, were opposed to his efforts to preserve the rain forest, efforts which were recognized by the United Nations two years ago. We are seeing a concerted effort by developers, not just the landless in Brazil, in many cases financed by governments. Even the Canadian government until recently was providing assistance for “development” of the Amazon.

This has led to the concerted destruction of the rain forest, the habitat for the Indians and for many species of animals. That has meant the destruction of many Indian tribes and the extinction of thousands of species of plants and animals. The irony of all this, in this particular case, is that the land is not very good. It only lasts for about two years as productive land after the forest is cut down.

I got somewhat sidetracked but I appreciate the fact that this resolution was brought forward this morning and that the member put it in a historic and a global context which enabled us to look at some of the aspects of difficulty faced by people who need land, who want to obtain land to farm and want to be able to make improvements on that land which are useful not only to them but also to the owners of the land.

I applaud the stewardship program which has been proposed by the provincial government; in effect, the provincial government. I would, again, support the member’s proposal in his resolution for expertise to be made available to enable people who are leasing land to get advice as to what they should be doing to improve the land.

1130

I would again support the proposal that there be a standard lease form available, which could be used on a voluntary basis, that would both enable the landlord’s interests to be protected and ensure that the tenant, the person who is renting the land and farming it, can make improvements and have the possibility of compensation for those improvements.

Again, I support the resolution.

Mr. Villeneuve: It is also a pleasure to participate in the debate of the private member’s motion from my colleague the member for Essex-Kent (Mr. McGuigan) on that great area of southwestern Ontario known as the Sun Parlour, certainly an area that is very agriculturally productive and sound.

The resolution, however, concerns me in a number of areas, and I hope to touch on them in the limited time allotted to me. It certainly tries to find ways to improve soil quality on leased land, and we can appreciate that. It is a problem that I believe the land stewardship program has attempted to assess and to look into, however with some degree of difficulty in getting off the ground and certainly limited funds, as alluded to by the member for Essex-Kent.

The idea behind the resolution is certainly good because it can be argued that a farmer will work less hard and spend less money and less time maintaining the soil on rented land than he would on land which he has title to and owns. However, in suggesting that the Ministry of Agriculture and Food develop lease forms and provide evaluators, arbitrators and witnesses to decide how soil has been treated goes way too far, I think, in the creation of unnecessary costs, bureaucracy, possible litigation and disputes. That is the area of concern I have as an individual, as one who has leased and rented land in the past and as one who owns and farms land at the present.

There is nothing wrong with the ministry suggesting that lessors of farm land insist on clauses that will result in soil conservation and improvement measures being practised by the lessee. There is nothing wrong with the ministry providing information as to soil and cost benefits of different conservation and farming methods.

But I do not believe that government bureaucracy should closely monitor or control individual lease agreements. In my opinion, that is going a little bit beyond what I feel should be within the jurisdiction of the man who has to derive a living and meet his financial obligations. The courts provide an existing vehicle to determine if the terms of a lease have been violated.

Soil conservation issues have been growing in importance this decade and we continue to learn more about soil itself. As recently as 10 years ago, soil conservation was not considered to be a serious issue or a great problem in Ontario. However, in the last 10 years, we have certainly looked at the subject in a very much different light.

When the age of chemical farming, sprays and fertilizer came on, it was thought that as long as the soil received enough chemical nutrients, nitrogen, phosphorus, potash, minor elements, and the photosynthesis process occurred, a crop was produced and that was all that was asked for. It is a lot deeper than that. As we have looked at the monoculture, particularly in later years, the issues of soil compaction, chemical runoff, leaching and erosion all became more prevalent and cause for great concern.

In 1983, the province announced a five-year, $25.5-million program, the soil conservation and environmental assistance program. Prior to that, there was only an older farm productivity incentive program in place. Since then, there have been additional programs as our understanding of soil issues has increased and as we have watched some countries across the world go from being a breadbasket to actually living famines.

Education has played and continues to play a very important role in soil conservation as well. The effects of soil degradation are usually gradual and are generally not noticeable by farmers unless they are aware of the problem and can spot the soil and crop losses. We as farmers have all gone to the field in the spring and, my goodness, there is a gully that was not there in the fall when we harvested. I think we have to look at crop rotation, leaving residues on top and minimum tillage practices, which are very much incorporated and being promoted by the land stewardship program.

Over 10 or more years, it is easy to see the effects of degradation, but year over year it is a little less visible. As a result, it has often been difficult to convince farmers to take action, particularly, as the member for Kent-Essex knows, on rented land, which is a very large portion of some of the agricultural operations in the area he represents, certainly a lot more so than in the area I represent.

Government incentives have therefore been very useful methods to encourage farmers to undertake conservation measures. That is why the member for Essex-Kent may have better spent his time asking for a more solid commitment for ongoing funding for the land stewardship program and for extended soil conservation and environmental assistance programs. These are now in place. I always dread an additional layer of bureaucracy.

We should also remember that there are three ministries involved in dealing with soil conservation and erosion questions. The Ministry of Agriculture and Food’s responsibility is for erosion and municipal drains and for soil conservation programs on food land. The Ministry of the Environment looks after water quality and the Ministry of Natural Resources -- and certainly the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Natural Resources, the member for Essex-Kent, would know that water management and the actual in-stream quality system works. I am sure the parliamentary assistant knows that.

More should perhaps have been said about municipal drains, the Ministry of Natural Resources and what that ministry is trying to do to some of our conservation authorities. I have had occasion to speak to representatives of the three conservation authorities in the riding that I represent: the South Nation River Conservation Authority, the Raisin Region Conservation Authority and the Rideau Valley Conservation Authority.

There are a great many unanswered questions and indeed concerns as to what is happening to conservation authorities. Their very name says it all. They are also part of what we are addressing here this morning -- conservation and the maintaining of soil in the areas that produce our food.

Certainly there is concern in the fact that the amalgamation of these long-standing conservation authorities is of great concern to us all. Eastern Ontario has not received adequate attention in this regard. As a matter of fact, I remember well having met not long ago with the member for Essex-Kent, the entire group representing the South Nation River Conservation Authority regarding a fairly major capital expenditure that is required in eastern Ontario.

I would love to have had time to address the previous private member’s motion earlier this morning, but I had to be in committee. The Liberals are saying that eastern Ontario is getting so many good things. I have a number of things that certainly have to come to eastern Ontario. The dredging of the south branch of the South Nation River must be addressed and it must be addressed soon, because more than 10,000 acres of tiled land presently are silting in because this river has not been dredged recently.

It is an absolute must to at least maintain the tile drainage system that is presently in place. I know the parliamentary assistant heard our concerns and I am sure he remembers well. However, we have received very little, if any, financial support. The studies are in place, and we have to address this particular problem.

Hiring ministry personnel to evaluate soil buildup and other measures also undermines the ministry’s current co-operation with the soil and crop improvement associations, and they are the ones that are responsible for the land stewardship program, which I feel is a very important program and should be funded adequately.

I have notes here: $499,000 was spent in Dundas county, one county that I represent, used by 70 farmers. Well over 100 would have applied; however, the funding was not there. The program per farmer for seeding down was $4,558. I did not have time to check the other three counties that I represent in part. However, that is in Dundas county alone. That is in place. We need more funding for the stewardship program.

In conclusion, three years ago the Honourable John Wise, the then Minister of Agriculture for Canada, warned that we could lose topsoil needed to feed ourselves within the next 50 years. Africa, as was mentioned by my colleague earlier, is a perfect example that demonstrates how soil can be completely destroyed if not properly administered.

There are some who have predicted that Ontario is heading for famine. I like to think that our farmers, provided they can produce enough income, are the best stewards of their land and will take care of their land. Famine can certainly be avoided, but we have to remember that Ontario is still losing close to 15 million tons of soil annually and that this loss has to be cut.

Some specific information should probably be directed at those who rent out their farm land, encouraging soil maintenance, crop rotation and leaving residue on top. However, let’s keep the army of bureaucrats to a minimum.

1140

Mr. Miller: It is a pleasure this morning to rise and support my colleague the member for Essex-Kent in his drive to preserve our agricultural farm land. Conservation-minded as he is, over the years he has contributed so much to the agriculture industry through the Ontario Federation of Agriculture and as a lifetime farmer.

Again, I would like to congratulate him for that and for the initiative he has taken with this resolution 41 in bringing it before the Legislature in this new year of 1989 at the first private members’ debate. I think it is fitting and it was interesting. I listened carefully to the comments of our members and the remarks of the members in the official opposition and the third party.

I would like to indicate too to the Legislature, to the members here this morning, that as a farmer myself, I can recall leasing land as far back as 1945. My father passed away and we were share-cropping with our neighbours because it was after the war, there was not a lot of help and food was needed. The farmers were not able to work it themselves. We worked on a share-crop basis.

We had considerable experience over those years. Even today, our family is working much more land than it owns because there do not appear to be farmers willing to take the chance to work that land because of the return on the investment. As we all know, the farming community generally has been very hard hit, particularly the cash-croppers because of low commodity prices, the return on investment and the high price of equipment.

Again, our area has played a role in conservation over the years with the sand plains within my riding of Norfolk. The forests were cleared. The fields were cleared of trees and they thought they could work the land, until it started to blow and of course they soon found out they were in trouble. Conservation has played a role.

It has been replanted and reforested and is now again productive with tobacco. The tobacco industry is being devastated. Tobacco has always played an important role in conservation. They would take their crops off and seed down with a rye crop to hold that soil. Conservation has played an important role in my part of Ontario as far as agriculture is concerned.

I am pleased today to rise to respond to the resolution initiated by the member for Essex-Kent and to speak on behalf of the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Riddell). The Minister of Agriculture and Food has developed a voluntary lease form for use between renters and those who lease farm land that would allow financial compensation to renters who practise sound land stewardship practices.

Conversely, the person who leases the land could receive financial compensation for damages and deterioration of farm land caused by poor farming practices. The resolution also requests that the Minister of Agriculture and Food provide staff to evaluate the extent of land stewardship practices and to arbitrate disputes concerning these practices between renting parties.

I fully support the principle of the request, but I have some serious reservations about generally drafted leases and the provisions of arbiters. Under the minister’s current land stewardship program, the minister has developed a lease to promote stewardship practices. The renter receives a grant of $10 per acre if a conservation management plan is carried out on the rented land.

However, the recommended changes suggested in resolution 41 would require a specific lease to be drafted by the ministry, and the staff act as arbiters and expert witnesses. To do this, a program of inspection and evaluation would have to be established. This evaluation presents a major difficulty. Evaluating the benefits and degree of conservation management and setting an agreed financial settlement between two parties is difficult, if not impossible.

The government would not want to provide arbiters for this virtually impossible task. Complex lease negotiations are best left to the private sector. A review of the three Ministry of Agriculture and Food publications providing general guidelines on lease creation shows the complexity of farm leases. Differences in farm types, landlords and tenants cause problems with a generally drafted ministry lease and could in fact mislead the land owner or renter.

It is the jurisdiction of the courts, and not the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, to deal with contractual and conveyance matters. I am in agreement with the principle of the resolution. A long-term lease that recognizes and rewards conservation management practices is ideal.

Again, from my experience as a farmer, with short-term leases you cannot plan year to year. At least five, 10 or 20 years is perhaps best, because when you put fertilizer on this year it is going to have an effect, and the management you use down the road is going to be there for many years ahead. If you get proper drainage --

Mr. Wildman: Take it all out of the hands of the lawyers.

Mr. Miller: Does the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman) know how to get the water off the fields? Does he run a ditch and shovel it out?

Proper drainage plays an important role in farming and if you do not have that proper drainage so you can get on the land at the proper time in the spring, your crops can be failures.

This year was a good example regarding timing because you only had a few days. Some who were able to get their crops in at the proper time had good results; the ones who did not had to pay the price because of the drought situation. One has to use the moisture that is there.

The government will fully support the long-term conservation lease concept. The current lease forms will be reviewed and the ethics of land stewardship will be advertised, promoted and encouraged. Again, I would like to congratulate the member for initiating the resolution this morning. As I said, he has been a leader in the field as far as agriculture is concerned, over his lifetime. I am sure the Legislature and the ministry will be responding and taking the comments that have been made this morning and dealing with them in the best interests of agriculture in Ontario and across Canada.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Durham East.

Mr Cureatz: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. It is nice to see you in the chambers this morning. It is too bad you missed my tirade earlier, but I am sure you caught it on television. It is a little difficult for me to tone down from this morning’s earlier resolution. Now that I have calmed down a little bit, I will keep my remarks at a more reserved decibel level, especially because it is coming from my learned colleague the member for Essex-Kent, whom I have had the opportunity of sitting on with a number of committees. Interestingly enough, he and I –

Mr. Wildman: When did he sit on you, Jim?

Mr. Cureatz: Sitting alongside then; all right?

Interestingly enough, I think he and I have, believe it or not, similar approaches to politics: that is, first and above all, we are concerned about our respective constituencies and the people we represent; second, there is the overall concern about the people of Ontario; and third, I do not think he takes too seriously, as I do, the amount of game playing that takes place in terms of whatever caucus you are in, be it the government, opposition, or yes indeed, our own humble little 17-member caucus.

1150

Indeed, one has to participate to a degree, I guess for a little bit of survival, but I think he and I see eye to eye on that concern. We set that aside because our desires are to look after as best we can and reflect the concerns of the people of Ontario. That goes specifically then to his proposed resolution, which I have to tell the member I am not overly supportive of, but it certainly is not because of the substance; it is only because of the procedure.

Needless to say, I can hardly speak on behalf of farmers in my community, never mind Ontario, although I am from a farm background. Our family originally had mixed farming and apple orchards. The honourable member, I believe, is involved in the fruit aspect of farming. He has never invited me to his farm when the cherries are ready to be picked, but I know next summer I will get an invitation to participate in the cherry pit spitting contest. I know I will be beaten hands down by Liberal backbenchers in a cherry pit spitting contest.

I want to say, though, that if I can do my best to try to capsulize my thoughts about the resolution, again, it is not about the substance, because the honourable member has had the opportunity of touring part of my riding, and more particularly of some concern to us, the Kendal hills and the Ganaraska forest. My family and I are new residents in that area.

I will not go into a large history, but the Ganaraska River had become depleted with deforestation and a large, almost sand-dune atmosphere was created, I guess, in the 1930s and 1940s. It took a long time through the initiatives of the provincial, federal and local governments to establish a large conservation authority to replant that area and protect the soil. As a result, there is a beautiful forest of some 10,000 acres, which is holding down what neighbours of mine, Helen Boyd and Fred Wilson and Senator Andy Thompson, indicated to me at one time was just sheer blow sand.

The honourable member certainly is coming from a direction of concern about good soil conservation and soil use. The problem I have, though, and I say this respectfully to my colleague, is that I am just a humble, little, quiet, mild-mannered lawyer from Kendal and I like to, as they say, KIS, or keep it simple.

Looking at the resolution, and I have read it over a number of times, I am wondering if it was drafted by a lawyer. The member indicated one of his assistants participated in drafting it.

I did find it awfully wordy and complicated. In terms of trying to get his point across, it would not hurt to do it again, actually, because this is the kind of worthwhile resolution a private member can participate in to try to reflect concerns. I have seen many members over the years come forward again and again with the same kind of resolution developed in different ways, learning through the process of debate. I suggest to him taking another look at it and maybe meating out the substance of what he is really after and trying to do away with the large procedural aspect that it would seem to me he is trying to portray.

I have only a few minutes. I would like to bring to members’ attention, of course, that there was a Senate committee on agriculture, fisheries and forestry which identified soil erosion. I have to give credit to our researchers, because they did some work for us, which we appreciate very much. There is erosion -- 98 per cent of losses are due to water and two per cent to wind -- pollution of rivers and lakes caused by silting of nitrogen and phosphorous and soil compaction and damage to the soil from acid rain and heavy metal contamination.

There was a program set up by the Progressive Conservatives of Ontario when they were the administration and I give credit to the Liberal administration for extending that program to 1990. It is called the Ontario soil conservation and environmental protection assistance program. Notwithstanding particular politics, I think when it comes down to issues that are of concern to all of us in Ontario and to the members in these chambers, we set aside the political aspects, and governments, no matter who is in power, centre in on particular concerns, that being one of them.

It would seem to me that possibly the member might have proposed a consolidation of all soil and water conservation programs under one provincial ministry agency. Of course, here I am saying on the one hand that the resolution is awfully wordy and awfully procedural, yet I am saying that maybe we should be looking at another ministry or another global umbrella aspect.

I listened very closely to the member’s remarks and he gave a little history of a tendency of our common law system that far surpassed any lectures I had at law school.

Mr. Ballinger: Did you go to law school?

Mr. Cureatz: Well, the diploma on the wall says so, anyway.

I give him credit for the in-depth research he made on that. Let me say in conclusion, without going into further aspects of my research, that with my representation of the farm community in my riding of Durham East, I have found interesting aspects. I have had occasion, when I have been out driving in the community and seen a farmer in a field, to get out and have a little talk. The odd time, if the farmer knows I am coming by, happening to know I am a lawyer, he will have a copy of a lease and will say, “Take a look at this and see what you think.”

It is interesting. When two farmers get together there is a stewardship. I must admit, in the farm community, of which I am so proud. It is obvious that one farmer is unable to use that land for two or three years or whatever length of time. The other farmer is also concerned about the land. He wants to use it, but there is a give and take between them. There is not the aspect of using the land outrageously for an individual’s purpose. There is a stewardship in the farm community that I see time and time again.

Quite often, it works the same way with a large land owner who is not farming but who entrusts his farm to a person who is a farmer. I have seen this time and time again, I can think in terms of a small fruit grower in my constituency. There is another corn producer who has taken over a property. He is very delicate with the land. He is very concerned about the way he manages it and uses it because he has the feeling it has to be passed on and does not have to be overly abused.

I guess I am saying to the member that I compliment him on the substance. I am not so happy about the procedure. I am happier that this can be resolved within the farm community itself.

Mr. McGuigan: I want to thank all members who contributed: the member for Algoma, the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry (Mr. Villeneuve), the member for Norfolk (Mr. Miller) and the member for Durham East. I will not address them individually, hut I will try to answer some of their very legitimate criticisms.

I point out that the program I have suggested is voluntary. My expectation is that it would only be entered into by a relatively small number of people. Due to the fact that it is voluntary, they would have to have a good soil stewardship ethic or they would not have joined in the first place. I anticipate that it would not be a largely litigious exercise. Nevertheless, I do recognize that the ministry is probably reluctant to get involved in these items, particularly of arbitrating between people. It may rather be that private arbitrators would come to take over such an undertaking.

My main purpose was to highlight the fact that we have an increasing amount of rented land out there, and that land is under greater pressure in most cases than is owned land. Therefore, we should be addressing it.

I said in my speech, “I would hope that the program would continue and be augmented by further funds.” I was talking about the stewardship program. I am very much in favour of it. In fact, I hoped this whole debate would be helpful in providing strength and encouragement from all parties to the Minister of Agriculture and Food, and I see it has done that, towards increasing and continuing that program.

I might mention to the member for Algoma that certainly I agree with his comments about the Brazilian rain forest. While I am not a great supporter of the banks, I think it should be noted that our Canadian banks have, up to date, set aside about 45 per cent of their outstanding loans to those developing countries and have forgiven them. I hope they will forgive further amounts, because we are contributing to the destruction of the world when we are part of the World Bank program that is bringing about the destruction of those forests.

I thank everyone. I thank them for their very constructive advice.

Mr. Speaker: That completes the allotted time for debate on ballot item 51 and ballot item 52.

EASTERN ONTARIO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

The House divided on Mr. McGuinty’s motion of resolution 53, which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes

Adams, Ballinger, Callahan, Campbell, Cleary, Cooke, D. R., Dietsch, Elliot, Epp, Fawcett, Ferraro, Fleet, Furlong, Henderson, Keyes, Kozyra, Leone, Lipsett, Mahoney, Mancini, Matrundola, McClelland, McGuigan, McGuinty, Miclash, Miller, Nicholas, Nixon, J. B., Oddie Munro, Offer, Pelissero, Polsinelli, Reycraft, Roberts, Sola, South, Sullivan, Tatham, Wilson.

Nays

Breaugh, Cureatz, Farnan, Grier, Hampton, Harris, Philip, E., Pollock, Pouliot, Sterling, Villeneuve, Wildman.

Ayes 39; nays 12.

SOIL CONSERVATION

Mr. Speaker: Mr. McGuigan has moved resolution 41.

Motion agreed to.

The House recessed at 12:09 p.m.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1:30 p.m.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

PUBLIC SECTOR PENSION PLANS

Mr. Farnan: Government employees are concerned that the government has mismanaged their pension funds. They are paying seven per cent of their wages into these trusts and they are concerned about the security of their investment.

They are justifiably upset that the government now intends to take another chunk off their paycheques in order to pay for past mistakes and mismanagement of their pension fund. With proper investment, this $4-billion fund could generate the cash necessary, not only to cover existing commitments to pensioners, but also to fund improved benefits.

The Slater report found that it would be in the best long-term interest if employers and employees entered into full partnership and joint trusteeship of pension funds. Unfortunately, senior officials of this Liberal government have refused to enter real negotiations with the union. They have also indicated that employees must pay for past mistakes made by the government overseer of the fund.

I call on the government to bring in an amendment to the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act to make it possible for collective bargaining of public service pensions in this province. Government employees deserve the right to negotiate to determine the best way for these funds to be handled.

The pensions of union members ought to be separate from those of deputy ministers or other special friends of the government. Pension funds must be at arm’s length from the whims of government ministers. The best way to keep it honest is at the bargaining table.

USE OF GILL NETS

Mr. Pollock: I have received a number of letters in my office from members of the Great Lakes Sport Fishing Coalition. The members of the coalition are extremely active in attempting to enhance recreational fishing opportunities in Lake Huron and, in fact, all across the Great Lakes.

The coalition remains seriously concerned over the incidental catch of nontarget fish species in gill nets. They spend many dollars and countless hours on fish culture programs and other enhancement projects and frequently see the product of their labours end up as the incidental catch in the commercial fisherman’s gill net.

The members of the Great Lakes Sport Fishing Coalition are of the opinion that the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio) is soon going to release his position on what should be done with the dead incidental catch. Since the minister appears reluctant to meet with it, the coalition remains justifiably concerned that his decision will be made without knowing all the facts on the issue.

The Minister of Natural Resources owes it to those who work so hard on a voluntary basis to enhance sport fishing in Ontario to consult with them before a decision of this magnitude is made. The members of the coalition have stated that they will meet with the Minister of Natural Resources at his convenience. I hope that the minister will take them up on their invitation.

CELEBRATION OF JULIAN CHRISTMAS

Mr. Fleet: [Remarks in Ukrainian]

For those who do not speak Ukrainian, merry Christmas. I extend this greeting on behalf of all people, including members of my own family, who celebrate Christmas on January 7 in accordance with the traditional Julian calendar. This calendar, named for Julius Caesar, long precedes the Gregorian calendar established in 1582.

Christmas is celebrated on January 7 by people of Ukrainian, Serbian, Macedonian, Bulgarian and Russian origin. It is an opportunity for families to gather together and for people to express their religious commitment. This year it marks the conclusion of the millennium celebration: 1,000 years of Christianity in Ukraine. The freedom to honour one’s religious beliefs is truly a blessing in our multicultural society and enriches the lives of us all.

Also using the Julian calendar, but celebrating the birth and baptism of Christ on January 6, are those members of the Eastern Orthodox and Coptic Christian faiths. This includes people of Armenian origin. For Armenian families, this Christmas is one when, more than ever, their faith will be called upon to sustain them. Our hearts go out to them.

I ask all members of the Legislature to join me in extending best wishes of the season to those now marking the festive and holy celebration of Christmas.

DOUG POLLINGTON AND BILL BROWN

Mr. Farnan: The response of Canadians to the Armenian earthquake, inspired by our fellow Canadians of Armenian heritage, has been magnificent. Today I wish to recognize two distinguished and much respected Cambridge citizens who left their homes and families in order to assist in the relief effort. I speak of past and present Cambridge fire chiefs Doug Pollington and Bill Brown. Their eight-man team of experts in disaster and emergency control was headed by Doug Pollington, a past president of the International Association of Fire Chiefs and an ambassador with the People to People program.

They were able to enter Armenia and be involved in the rescue efforts. Their expertise was underutilized, and for the most part they worked with their hands to remove rubble in the hopes of saving some lives. They endured considerable hardship, living on meagre rations and sleeping in tents in subzero conditions. Both Doug and Bill were extremely moved by their experience. They have been able to provide eyewitness accounts of the earthquake aftermath and the ongoing relief effort.

They are determined, as a result of their experience, to work towards the creation of an international relief management control agency that could respond to similar situations in any part of the world and assist in directing relief efforts. They intend to work through People to People, and ultimately their hope is that the United Nations will spearhead this project. Doug Pollington and Bill Brown, Cambridge is proud of you and Ontario salutes you.

RENTAL ACCOMMODATION

Mr. Harris: I would like to continue today the year-end review of the province’s housing situation which I started briefly yesterday. I note that during 1988 the option of home ownership grew increasingly remote for most Ontario residents. The alternative, of course, is rental housing. Here are some of the highlights of past year in the area of rental housing.

In 1988, rental housing became more scarce. The vacancy rates in Toronto and other Ontario centres are now lower than they have ever been. The minister’s Rental Housing Protection Act has not served to protect the rental stock in Ontario. Despite promises of action, nothing has been done to assist unrelated persons who are compelled for economic reasons to share accommodation.

Furthermore, for those who are successful at finding accommodation, they are faced with a rent review process which is hopelessly backlogged. It is enormously frustrating for both the tenants and the landlords. In thousands and thousands of cases, claims are laid a second time before the previous year’s claims are even considered. In 1988, the rental housing crisis clearly got worse.

Finally, let me mention another trend which became disturbingly more evident over the past year with the Minister of Housing (Ms. Hošek) and also with the Premier (Mr. Peterson) and the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon). That is this trend to wash their hands of the responsibility for dealing with the problems and important issues facing this province and to try to blame somebody else.

The outlook for the new year will be bleak unless this minister and the other members of the government stop looking around for someone else on whom to lay the blame for their difficulties and face up to their responsibilities for provincial housing in Ontario.

JOE AND BRIAN SHAW

Mr. Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to your attention and to the attention of my colleagues a very tragic loss to the city of Mississauga with the passing of firefighter Joe Shaw and his son Brian, also a firefighter. Brian died as a result of injuries received in a traffic accident, and a short two days later his dad Joe succumbed to a long fight with cancer. I would like to extend the sympathies of all members of this House to Glenda Shaw and her family on this most tragic loss of her son and her husband.

While I did not have the opportunity to know Brian, I considered Joe a friend as well as a true and loyal servant to the citizens of Mississauga. He was always volunteering at community festivals and he was also known as a minor hockey coach in the Mississauga Jets organization, where Brian also played. Joe was an outstanding athlete in his own right, having led the Mississauga fire department fastball team to a championship held last summer at Canadian National Exhibition stadium.

All too often, tributes to an individual only come forward after that person has left us. It is a true mark of the esteem in which the community of Mississauga and the firefighters across this province held Joe and Brian when you witness the number of people in attendance at their funeral earlier this week.

This is a double tragedy of incomprehensible proportion for Glenda Shaw and her family, but it is also a tragedy and a loss to the city of Mississauga. At least Joe and Brian are together.

1340

FRANCISCO CHICO MENDES

Mr. Wildman: I rise to express our sympathy and outrage at the cowardly murder of Francisco Chico Mendes, internationally recognized ecologist and union leader in Amazonia. This morning I made some comments about this in the House. It is evident that there must be international pressure to ensure that the Amazon rain forest is preserved and that these kinds of politically motivated murders do not go unpunished in Brazil.

In the past, pistoleros have been convicted of these kinds of violent acts, but never the people who finance them and hire them. It is impossible for us to prevent large land owners from using this kind of violent action to ensure that they can further destroy the rain forest unless we, in our banking system and our governments, put pressure on the Brazilian government not to turn a blind eye to the violence that continues in Amazonia.

ORAL QUESTIONS

USE OF HOLLOW-POINT BULLETS

Mr. B. Rae: I have today some questions for the Solicitor General, as well as for the Premier (Mr. Peterson). I assume the Premier is coming momentarily.

In the absence of the Premier, I wonder if I could ask the Solicitor General a number of questions now emerging about control over the police by civilians, and indeed by the government and by the politically appointed people, and of control over access to weapons as well as to ammunition.

I wonder if I could ask the Solicitor General a very specific question: Could she tell us precisely what controls exist in the province today with respect to general access to 38-calibre hollow-point bullets?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: The 38-calibre hollow-point bullets to which the member refers are not specifically referred to in the regulations to the act at all. What are referred to in the act are specifications as to what is permitted rather than what is denied, plus the special circumstances clause, which says that in certain circumstances, this regulation does not need to be adhered to.

Mr. B. Rae: This morning, an associate of mine went to a sports store and asked if he could purchase some 38-calibre hollow-point bullets and he was told: “Of course you can. How many boxes would you like and what kind would you like?” He was able to purchase for some $18.65 a box of hollow-point bullets for a 38-calibre pistol.

This is not a hunting bullet. This is not something used in hunting. This is specifically a pistol cartridge, a hollow-point cartridge, of which he was able to purchase three boxes at a sports store.

I would like to ask the minister: Just how realistic and how tough is her control over access to this particular hollow-point bullet when anybody off the street can walk into a sports store and, without being asked for a permit, without being asked for anything, can simply pick it up?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: I would point out that my control is under the Police Act and under the actions of police officers. It is not related to the general public or to anything done in the sports stores; it is to the use of these things and ownership of these things by police forces.

Mr. B. Rae: There is a basic question here. If anybody off the street can simply walk into a store and purchase these bullets without any restriction in terms of access, without any questions being asked with respect to what you need or want them for, without even any requirement apparently that you have a gun permit, surely the Solicitor General has to appreciate that she appears to have no control over general access to this stuff, as well as no specific control herself over what guns, what ammunition and what general arsenal apparently the police across the province have.

By way of final supplementary, I wonder if the Solicitor General is in a position today to tell us if she knows what guns, what ammunition and what arsenal the police in the province, operating under her general authority as Solicitor General, have. If she does not know, why does she not know?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: As I have pointed out already, the question was never raised. To me, the regulations seemed to be quite satisfactory. They are very specific and had always been assumed to be adequate. As soon as the matter was raised to me, I sent out a questionnaire to the police to find out if in fact these police forces have ammunition other than we thought and, if indeed they are using it, in what ways they are using it.

I think the member does no service to the public or to the members of the Legislature to confuse federal law and provincial law on firearms in general. We are talking about the Police Act and what the police can and cannot do.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. B. Rae: By means of a new question I would like to go back to the Premier again today and again focus his attention on the question of Sunday shopping and on his continued refusal to meet with those groups that continue to be opposed to the government’s legislation.

I would like, quite simply, to ask the Premier why he continues to refuse a meeting with representatives of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario as well as with the interfaith committee coalition and other members of the coalition against his legislation? Why will he not simply sit down with them and at least agree to a meeting with them before he decides to force this bill through by using closure?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I think my honourable friend misrepresents the situation. There have been endless meetings with the ministers concerned and with staff. I have met with AMO and a whole variety of people on this matter. I do not mind meeting with anybody. I do not mind hearing their views.

We have had an opportunity to discuss this in this Legislature for the last nine months. If the member feels they can shed some new wisdom on this matter, then I am very happy to have the benefit of their points of view, but I can tell him there have been endless meetings for the last nine months.

Mr. B. Rae: Is the Premier saying that on the critical section of the bill, section 4, which is the section that deals with the question of the local option, his mind is closed?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am saying that the government has put forward the bill. That is the government’s position, and that is the basis on which we are proceeding.

Mr. B. Rae: I asked the Premier very clearly, not whether or not the government was proceeding. Obviously the government is proceeding. What I am asking is, why would the Premier refuse to have a meeting when there are going to be literally thousands of people affected by this legislation, when there are literally hundreds of people who presented their positions in this Legislature?

Over 400 people heard by the committee were opposed to the legislation, and only 26 groups specifically said they were in favour of the legislation as it stood: 26 in favour, over 400 opposed. New Brunswick and Nova Scotia both tried the local option and both rejected it after the experience of two years because of the injustice that it created.

Why is the Premier’s mind so closed on an issue when there are clearly so many people in the province who feel differently and who are in fact opposed to his own position?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I think my honourable friend is a little, shall we say, alarmist about this.

Let’s look at this in its practical effect. Look at, for example, the Niagara Peninsula. There you have a situation where Fort Erie is open, Niagara Falls is open, Niagara-on-the-Lake is open. Those tend to be tourist areas, or special circumstances with respect to Fort Erie. But Welland is not open, St. Catharines is not open and Thorold is not open to the best of my knowledge.

This situation works very well. It has not destroyed families. It has not ruined people’s private lives. What I am saying to the member is that is how the law will operate. What we do have is a new enforceability. We have a situation where people can make their own judgements based on their own circumstances.

If my friend wants to stand up in this House and say that Sault Ste. Marie should not open, then he can go ahead and say so. I think they should be allowed to if they want to be. What we have is a very tight regulatory framework.

1350

Mr. Wildman: They are already open.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: If they are already open and it is working, what is he getting so excited about? Stand up and say we are just regularizing the law.

WINE PRICING POLICIES

Mr. Brandt: I would not want to get excited about some of the pressing issues in Ontario with the Premier, but I do have an issue that I am somewhat agitated about, and that relates to the Premier’s words back in July of last year when he indicated, in speaking on the free trade agreement, “If the people of this country speak on an important issue, I have to accept the results of that.” Then on November 21, to reinforce what he had said previously in July, he made a statement that was much the same, “I have no way of stopping it. Let us respect the voice of the Canadian people.”

Is it the Premier’s intention to live up to his commitment? I just spoke his words as they relate to the free trade agreement. Is he prepared to continue and honour his promise as it relates to what he has specifically stated with respect to the free trade agreement?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The reality is, I have no choice. The federal government has the power to pass the legislation and it has done so.

Mr. Brandt: I think the Premier knows what I am getting at. It was six weeks ago –

Mr. Ballinger: What are you getting at, Andy?

Mr. Brandt: Just wait, just wait. You’ll hear it.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Brandt: It has taken fully six weeks for the Premier to break his promise with respect to his very own words. He knows full well that there is an international trade deal that has been struck with respect to the wine industry.

I have raised with him in the House previously that as a result of his position on this very important and sensitive matter, he is inviting retaliation against other industries in Canada, as well as industries in Ontario by setting up an us-or-them situation relative to the wine industry. On one hand he wants to put himself out as a martyr for the wine industry, but on the other hand he is not telling the people of this province the straight story as it relates to potential retaliation.

Mr. Speaker: The question?

Mr. Brandt: This is my question: We now have a group, the Canadian distilleries industry, which is vitally concerned about retaliatory action as a result of the Premier’s words and actions. Is he prepared to sell that industry down the drain?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am not prepared to sell that industry down the drain, but is the member prepared to sell the grape growers and the wine industry down the drain? That is the question. He is.

Mr. Brandt: The Premier is an interesting fellow at certain times.

[Applause]

Mr. Brandt: I am not through yet. Interesting in that he reminds me of the parents who were standing by the side of the road watching the parade go by and they said, “Look, everyone is out of step but our boy, Johnny.” The Premier happens to be out of step, because on one hand he indicated he was opposed to the free trade agreement, and then he indicated, when it related to the wine industry, that he was not going to accept a decision made in the context of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.

I want to remind the Premier that the Canadian distilleries industry represents some $400 million of export business, and 90 per cent of that business goes to the United States. He is not prepared to accept free trade, he is not prepared to accept GATT. Where does he turn for defence? This is my question. Where does he turn for a defence of Ontario’s position if someone takes issue with our exporting practices if he is not prepared to accept GATT and he is not prepared to accept free trade? Does he have a third option that he wants to share with this House? I would like to hear it.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Let me say to my honourable friend that he is interesting on all occasions, not just part of the time. He too reminds me of the story of the parents watching the parade go and a poor, lonely, little figure at the end, saying, “Look at our boy, Andy.”

Let me say to my honourable friend that I think he makes a fundamental error of judgement when he would roll over and capitulate to some of these threats, real or implied, that he reads about.

One of the things we will have to do under the free trade agreement, with the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade or in any other trading relationship, is to be good and tough negotiators. I remind my friend that already a couple of disputes have come up under the free trade agreement -- plywood, for example -- that are going to have to be negotiated. We are going to have to negotiate the subsidies question and a lot of other things. What we have to do is make sure that we negotiate in Canada’s interest and that we have a clear view of forcefully putting forward our point of view.

What concerns me about my friend opposite is that he seems to be the first to want to capitulate on every issue. His colleague the member for Carleton (Mr. Sterling), the one remaining friend he has in Ottawa, stood up in the House yesterday and said we should sacrifice Ontario jobs for some unspecified jobs in some other provinces.

The member has turned out to be about the easiest person I know to spook out on these matters, so I say to my friend, let us be vigilant and stout-hearted in the defence of Ontario and Canadian interests and do not just be naïvely taken in by those who want to scare us into capitulation, because this government will not be frightened into capitulation.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order; just so the member does not have to shout.

FORENSIC AUTOPSIES

Mr. Runciman: I have a question for the Solicitor General, and if her staff are on their toes, she will be aware that I am going to ask her this question.

The minister should know that on December 3, 1988, the partially clad body of Valda Champagne Marks was found in an Ottawa parking lot with no obvious cause of death. The Ottawa police were unable to have a forensic autopsy conducted in Ottawa, so it was done at the ministry’s Toronto Centre of Forensic Sciences. As of 11 o’clock this morning, 33 days after the death, the Ottawa police had still not received the results of the autopsy.

Can the minister explain why the autopsy has taken so long, and does she believe that kind of time frame is acceptable?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: The member says that he kindly advised my staff of this? Oh, I misunderstood. I do not have the detailed information. I would be glad to get it for the member and reply to him in person.

Mr. Runciman: I guess it does not surprise me. I said if her staff were on their toes, and I guess we all know they are not, because the minister certainly is not on her toes.

This concern about the Ottawa police force’s inability to have forensic autopsies carried out in Ottawa was brought to the minister’s attention by the member for Carleton (Mr. Sterling) last summer. It should be no surprise to the minister. She has done nothing to remedy that situation, and her inaction places homicide investigations in jeopardy.

What specifically is the minister prepared to do to ensure that forensic autopsies are carried out in Ottawa?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: These tests are carried out. It is my understanding that in some particular cases, to which this may also belong, the tests are very complicated, do involve prolonged testing and are therefore delayed. I am sure the results will be satisfactory when they are forthcoming.

1400

Mr. Runciman: That response is unbelievable. The minister simply does not know what is going on in her ministry.

I spoke to the Ottawa police this morning. They are not able to have forensic autopsies carried out in that city. They simply are not able to. The provincial government pays $40 to $50 for an autopsy. It costs the hospitals $400. The Ottawa police require eight to 10 forensic autopsies a year. It would cost the province approximately $3,000 or $4,000. Instead, they have to send corpses to Toronto, they have to ship cars to Toronto, they have to fly toxicologists to Ottawa for trials.

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Runciman: The minister is very quick off the mark when it comes to criticizing police forces across this province. Will she, for a change, stand up on behalf of the police of this province and ensure that the modest amount of money required is made available in order to perform forensic autopsies in Ottawa?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: The member should get his facts straight to ask these questions and not produce inaccurate facts. Forensic studies are done in Ottawa and were instructed to be done in Ottawa, but some particular tests cannot be done in Ottawa and are done elsewhere.

NONPROFIT HOUSING

Mr. Breaugh: I have a question for the Premier. Just before Christmas, the Minister of Housing (Ms. Hošek) seemed rather upset that apparently some $90 million that she thought would be forthcoming from the federal government will not be available for nonprofit housing in Ontario this year. This is a little difficult to take, since this is the minister who in the last two fiscal years has wasted allocations of $91.6 million in her own ministry for nonprofit housing.

Could we have the Premier’s assurances that moneys that have been allocated for nonprofit housing in Ontario this year will in fact be spent and that those allocations will no longer be wasted at the end of the fiscal year?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I want to say to my honourable friend I do not think his characterization of this is quite fair. It is not a question of its being wasted. One does not get the impression that there is money sitting around in pots around here, just waiting to be spent. That is not the way budgeting works. We have to make sure that every single dollar is well and effectively spent.

Obviously, we have substantially increased our programs in housing -- the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) could assist me with respect to the increase in that regard -- and we will continue to do so. We are going to make sure that is well and effectively spent, and obviously, we need the support of the federal government in this regard.

Mr. Breaugh: I do appreciate the lecture, but the Premier at least ought to know that when the government allocates money for nonprofit housing, the money is indeed set aside and is meant to be used, and approvals are given to be used for nonprofit housing. In this instance, for the last two fiscal years, the government has allocated the money and the minister has been unable to process the applications.

Could we at least have the Premier’s assurance on this, since there are now many projects that are on hold -- and we are aware that movement of allocations from one particular program to another, for example, could ensure that these housing projects that have acquired the land could proceed.

Here is one example: a 105-unit co-op town house project at Bayview, north of Highway 7, in Richmond Hill, an area of the province that does not have very much in the way of nonprofit housing, I remind the Premier, utilizing lands once owned by the Ministry of Transportation and Communications. This one slipped by the Treasurer. They got this one at slightly below market value. Here is a project that has the land, that has the project in hand, that awaits the funding.

This project is now in danger because the federal allocations apparently are not coming through, but we are aware that the minister has allocations within her own ministry where that money could be used. Will the Premier give us his assurance that allocations already approved for nonprofit housing will be used to make this project a reality?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I thank the honourable member for his constructive suggestion and I will ask the minister to look into that particular case. Obviously, we are most anxious that any housing project can proceed.

Just to widen this a little, we do think that the federal government has a responsibility in this regard, and the member will be aware of some of the ongoing discussions. It applies to other programs as well. If the federal government is in it, then it backs out; we step in and take it over. They continue to offload these programs from the federal budget. Yes, we are more than prepared to do our share and work on the particular application the member is talking about, although I do not know the details and I cannot give my friend a solemn commitment on that today, but what we have to make sure is that the federal government assumes its responsibilities as well.

Surely the member understands, shall we say, the difficulty the minister is in with respect to negotiating with the federal government. We need its help. We are certainly prepared to do our share. We do not want to see any lost opportunities in this regard and we want to continue with a very aggressive program. Even though we have an extremely aggressive program and a lot of things are happening, my honourable friend is aware of the demand that is being created by massive in-migration, by new Canadians coming in here, a refugee program that is bringing more new people to our province. Immigration programs substantially increase the number of immigrants. We know that 50 per cent or 60 per cent of those will come to Ontario -- all of this, so in spite of the incredible performance that goes on in terms of supply, it still is very difficult to keep up with this influx of people.

It is one of the downsides of the great success that we are enjoying, but we will continue to be as aggressive as we possibly can to approve these housing projects as quickly as we possibly can, to work with the federal government, because we are committed to making the most progress possible in these circumstances. I think my honourable friend will also want to make sure that all of these matters are appropriately dealt with and attended to in the proper way and all the proper procedures are followed, because he would be the first one to stand up in this House and criticize, I am sure, if that was not done. But I think he will see on the basis of --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

Interjections.

Mr. Cureatz: Is this how the Premier trains them in London?

ELECTRICITY DEMAND AND SUPPLY

Mr. Cureatz: I have a question to the Minister of Energy. The minister has reported in the Toronto Sun, “Cold strains Hydro.”

Mr. Ballinger: All right, wave the paper.

Mr. Cureatz: They need a plug too.

As I have indicated to the minister previously, we on this side of the House have concerns about the capacity of Ontario Hydro to meet the electrical demands for the people of Ontario. Is he able to assure us in this House and the people across Ontario that Ontario Hydro is going to meet the demands that are going to be required of it in the upcoming few weeks as winter continues? The people of Ontario will have to keep warm and they need the electrical power.

Hon. Mr. Wong: I think the question the honourable member asks is one that is on the minds of a number of Ontario users, be they individuals, companies or industries. Let me assure the honourable member and the Legislature that the government has an energy efficiency and conservation priority policy in place, first, in its energy electricity policy. As the first part of my answer, let me indicate that energy efficiency and conservation have immediate benefits. They have energy savings benefits. They have economic benefits. For the supply side, it means that Ontario will be able to defer the building of other major power plants into the future.

For those who may be concerned about how effective energy efficiency and conservation measures can be, let me also indicate that between 1973, when we had the oil price shock in the world, and 1986, energy intensity -- that is, the amount of energy used per unit of economic output -- improved, if my memory is correct, by approximately 17 per cent in Ontario.

As a second part of my answer, let me briefly say to the honourable member that we have a plan and a process in place, as he knows, to evaluate the demand/supply planning strategy and we expect to have results from that soon.

Mr. Cureatz: I can only say to the Minister of Energy that, for a newcomer here, he has learned very well. As the present Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) used to say, it is like nailing jelly to the wall. He did not answer the question. Is Ontario Hydro going to be able to meet the requirements for electricity by the people of Ontario? He should try to answer that. My supplementary is –

Mr. Speaker: I thought I heard it. If the honourable member had difficulty, I will give him another chance.

1410

Mr. Cureatz: The real supplementary question is: When is the minister’s government going to make a decision to ensure that Ontario Hydro will be able to meet the capacity? I said before Christmas that I would give it a year to decide. I do not think it has a year any more, in view of what took place with the Metro Toronto transit system, which reached its capacity to be moving people here in Metro Toronto. When is it going to make a major decision as to what method of power it is going to use for the production of electricity?

Hon. Mr. Wong: The answer to the question of when, is that we made a decision as a government a year ago. We made a decision to make sure we had as open and responsive a process as possible for the government and the people to decide. First, there was a review of the demand-supply planning strategy by the Ontario government ministries, which I turned over to the select committee on energy. Second, there was a review by the specially appointed Electricity Planning Technical Advisory Panel to the Minister of Energy. Third, we very soon expect the results of the Candu nuclear cost inquiry. Fourth, we also expect the results of the select committee on energy soon.

The government intends to hand over all of this information to Ontario Hydro, so that on a very timely basis -- the middle of 1989 -- Hydro will have the opportunity to present to the government and the people of the province some alternative plans and its preferred plan, so we can decide for the province how to ensure that our needs for the immediate and long term, to the year 2000 and beyond, will be met.

FEMALE STUDENTS IN MATHS AND SCIENCES

Mr. Owen: I have a question for the Minister of Education. We know that this government is committed to encouraging girls in our school system to pursue studies in maths and sciences. We know that the figures reflect this has been successful at the elementary level. We know it has been successful in grades 9 and 10, because there they outnumber the boys. But we are now finding out that, as of grade 11 and up, the girls are rapidly dropping out of the maths and the sciences, and we know the effect this will have on the potential for their futures.

I am wondering what the minister has by way of statistics in this regard and what the ministry is proposing to do about this problem, which is critical for the future of these girls.

Hon. Mr. Ward: The member has identified an issue which has long been of concern to my ministry, certainly to the Ontario women’s directorate, and has long been a concern of mine as well, that being the number of female students enrolling in math and science courses.

We have in fact been promoting and encouraging young females to pursue courses in the maths and sciences. We have been monitoring enrolments and keeping statistics, and I would point out to the member that the programs we have had in place for the last three or four years are definitely producing results. Roughly the same number of female and male students are currently enrolled in math and science courses throughout the province.

There are still some areas of concern, though. For instance, there are still very few female students enrolled in physics courses. We will continue to promote the pursuit of careers and the pursuit of courses in those areas for female students.

Mr. Owen: People in education have given me some of their views. They feel there is still a problem in identifying role models with certain families. They also tell me there is a problem with the industries themselves in accepting women into their workforces. I understand that in senior management in this province women still make up less than two per cent. I understand that of 3,000 partners in national chartered accountancy firms, there are only 15 women.

If they are not going to be encouraged to continue their secondary school studies in this area, there is no way they are going to correct this imbalance when they get to the university level. I am wondering if the minister is able to do anything with regard to the role model problems of families and/or with the industries themselves to accept and encourage women into these fields.

Hon. Mr. Ward: We will be working with many industry education councils that currently exist in this province to encourage those sorts of initiatives. In the coming year, we will be beginning a new in-service program for teachers to sensitize them on the gender issue, and as I indicated in my initial response to the question, we will continue to promote and support programs that do encourage female participation in nontraditional areas.

ONTARIO PLACE CORP

Mr. Philip: I have a question of the Minister of Tourism and Recreation. When this government appointed Patricia Starr to chair the board of Ontario Place, we were assured that the annual litany of mismanagement, a litany coming out every year by the Provincial Auditor, would soon end.

Can he now explain how, under this new, reformed management, we now see that no tenders were called for on the leases on 10 restaurants at Ontario Place?

Hon. Mr. O’Neil: First of all, I would like to thank the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale for the question and to say that he is not correct. Mind you, I appreciate his interest in this.

I can tell him that, first of all, he is talking about a new board that has cut the deficit by approximately $1.5 million this year.

In this particular case, he would also be aware that when the government goes for tender, there are two types of tender that can be used, either invitational tenders or advertised tenders. In this particular ease, the board decided that it would go to invitational tenders and people expressing interest and/or invited to present proposals amounted, I am told, to 36 different firms or companies.

Following the 36 that had shown interest, those proposals were looked at by a subcommittee of the board consisting of four board members and three officers of the corporation, then they went to a full board meeting and if there were any questions in the ease of some of these tenders and the board needed advice, the firm of Laventhol and Horwath was consulted or will be consulted for those that have not been awarded.

Mr. Philip: Having talked to the auditor this morning, I can tell the minister that he will have some serious questions that perhaps his board of directors was too incompetent to ask about these tenders.

Last year, the revenue from Ontario Place restaurants was $1,075,358. There are clear requirements under the manual of administration that large contracts be tendered. In this case, even some of the previous lessees did not receive an invitation to tender.

Is the minister willing to dissociate himself with the remarks of his deputy minister, who rationalized this closed system of government that they have created by saying, “What we were asking for was a substantial investment, and we don’t want to waste people’s time with public tenders”? Is that the kind of system of government the minister is running?

Hon. Mr. O’Neil: Again, I think the member could hardly agree that there has not been interest when we have that number of people who have shown interest through the invitational tenders.

I can also tell the member that one of the areas the board is very intent on correcting is the utilization in making income from the restaurant side of it. This has been very neglected in the past. In fact, there have been some leases that were for long terms where there was very little money made out of it and very little service given. It is one of the directions the board has been given, to really correct this problem, and this is what it is attempting to do.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mrs. Cunningham: My question is for the Premier. When it comes to quality of life and Sunday shopping, he compares Ontario with the American model, British Columbia and Alberta.

Let’s look at another province. The Premier is aware that New Brunswick has now decided to retreat from the local option with Sunday shopping and the resulting domino effect. Is the Premier aware of the negative impact the New Brunswick local option legislation has had on the families and communities of that province?

1420

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Is my honourable friend aware of any negative impact in Sault Ste. Marie on families? Is she aware of any negative impact in Fort Erie? Is she aware of any negative impact in Goderich?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: And South Dumfries.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: In South Dumfries, in the town of St. George? St. George is the repository of every good value in this province, as represented by the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon). I say to my honourable friend that she is a trifle alarmist.

Mrs. Cunningham: As usual, the Premier makes fun of this issue. This is just the kind of issue where we should learn from other people’s mistakes rather than making our own. Sunday shopping is a drastic move for Ontario, one which will have a tremendous effect on the quality of life of our citizens, especially those who will be forced to work on Sunday. Let’s face it, we are talking mainly about working women.

Given the experience in New Brunswick, can the Premier tell us, in preparation for the implementation of this legislation, what impact studies his government has done to determine the social and economic implications Sunday shopping will bring to Ontario’s communities, and will he table those studies today?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I can assure my honour-able friend I do not make fun of serious issues. Sometimes, in fairness, I do make fun of silly approaches to serious issues or unsubstantiated claims or a lot of alarmist political rhetoric that does not make any sense. If the member is prepared to stand up in this House and say that the quality of life has fallen apart in Sault Ste. Marie, then go ahead and say it. If she is saying that they are all godless in Vancouver or Edmonton, then go ahead and say it. I think Mr. Vander Zalm would not agree that Vancouver is a godless city or that, in fact, British Columbia is a godless state.

When she penetrates through this nonsense and this, shall I say, emotional reaction not based on any substance whatsoever, I think my honourable friend will end up far more comfortable than she is at the moment.

IMMIGRANT SERVICES

Mr. Faubert: My question is to the Minister of Citizenship. I commend the minister on his announcement yesterday to provide additional emergency funding in the amount of $276,000 to 14 immigrant service agencies to help them in assisting refugee claimants awaiting a determination of legal status in this country. Indeed, I am sure that most immigrant service agencies are pleased with the minister’s initiatives.

However, yesterday the response by two of our colleagues in this House to the minister’s statement announcing this special funding left the impression that the government lacked a systematic approach in providing support to newcomers in Ontario. Will the minister assure this House that he will develop or is developing a more systematic and comprehensive plan to assist newcomers to participate fully and equally in our province?

Hon. Mr. Phillips: I agree fully that there is a need for a systematic approach to helping newcomers to Ontario to adapt to the province. In fact, as the Premier (Mr. Peterson) just said, this province is blessed in that well over 50 percent of all immigration that comes to Canada comes to this province. I want to assure the member and the House that we do have a systematic approach. I will just outline a few things that we do.

There are, I think, about 80 community groups that we do fund on an annual basis: core funding to community groups to help them settle immigrants. We also have in this province five of our own, what we call, welcome houses: four in Metro Toronto and one in Hamilton. We had over 60,000 newcomers to Canada take advantage of the services of our welcome houses. We provide about $14.5 million to community groups to help them with settlement services. So it is extremely important that I think we do, in conjunction with community groups, a good job of developing a systematic, annual, ongoing program to help newcomers adapt to this province.

Mr. Faubert: Yesterday the member for Markham (Mr. Cousens) raised another concern. He was concerned that newcomers, after initial settlement in their new homes, should receive additional assistance so that they can participate equally and fully in the life of the province. Can the minister advise this House if he will be developing assistance programs to ensure this full integration of our newcomers?

Hon. Mr. Phillips: I think it was a good point the member raised yesterday, which this member has reinforced; that is, the need to help our newcomers to adapt and participate fully in this province as quickly as possible.

As a matter of fact, it was about a year and a half ago that this government changed its policy to say that is the responsibility of every single ministry and not just a ministry such as the Ministry of Citizenship. As a result of that policy change about a year and half ago, I am pleased to say there is not one single ministry in this government which does not have responsibility for ensuring that we provide equal opportunity and equal access for our newcomers to participate fully.

In fact, I think we had in the last year about 76 new initiatives designed to help our newcomers to adapt. I would just say that it is occurring in virtually every single ministry. I agree with the member who said yesterday that it is important that we have a program to help our newcomers as quickly as possible to participate fully and equally in all of the life of Ontario. I am pleased to say that, in my opinion, we have made good progress on that in the last 18 months. There is more to be done, and we will continue to do more.

DEATH OF PIERRE POULIOT

Mr. Mackenzie: I have a question for the Solicitor General. On June 28, Pierre Pouliot, a resident of Hamilton, a boilermaker, was killed working on top of one of the furnaces at the Copper Cliff smelter. To date, there has been no inquest called in this death. I wonder if the minister can give us some information about why it is taking this inordinately long time for an inquest to be held into this death.

Hon. Mrs. Smith: I do not have information on the particular case, but as I am on my feet, I am glad to inform the member for Leeds-Grenville (Mr. Runciman) that the results of the other forensic tests have now been forwarded to the Ottawa police --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. Supplementary.

Mr. Mackenzie: Apart from the delay in holding the inquest which, as I say, is taking an inordinately long time for a mining death like this, the widow has been unable to get information she has requested about her husband’s death in this case. I wonder if the Solicitor General can tell us how we would go about making sure she gets the answers to some questions she has requested about the death of her husband.

Hon. Mrs. Smith: If the information on the autopsy has not yet been made available, it can hardly be given to the widow.

HOME CARE

Mr. Villeneuve: I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services. The riding I represent has a much higher than average senior population. They are spread out in many small towns and in rural sections of the riding, making it very offensive to deliver home services. This coming Monday, area residents will be rallying at a number of local Red Cross offices to demand the continuation of the homemaker service program.

Will the minister state specifically which groups have been contacted to see if they will provide this service in the rural areas of eastern Ontario if indeed he discontinues the Red Cross program?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: Let me make it clear to the honourable member that I have no intention of discontinuing the Red Cross service. My understanding is that the Red Cross itself will be holding a general board meeting on January 20, 1989, to make that decision, one way or the other.

In response to a question by his colleague the member for London North (Mrs. Cunningham) yesterday or the day before, I think it was, I indicated that we are continuing our review of the request to the Red Cross. We hope to be able to assist them in some way. Quite frankly, I am hopeful that a negative decision will not be necessary, but if that is the decision of the Red Cross, then part of my responsibility is to attempt to assist the local community to find alternatives.

Mr. Villeneuve: I would like to point out to the minister that I raised this matter in the House on November 29, 1988, and the Red Cross is not the only organization which may have to cut back homemaker services. The Eastern Ontario Health Unit, based in Cornwall, has been ordered to cut back on a number of seniors’ services in its homemaker program and has appealed to the province to fund, to just maintain the existing programs.

Is the minister serious about these cutbacks? How does he propose to care for these seniors and those in need if indeed these programs through the health unit are going to be cut back?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The honourable member will probably be aware of the fact that just in the last couple of years my ministry, with the assistance of the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon), has been able to put an additional $40 million into the homemaker services in this province which did not exist before.

1430

That obviously is not sufficient to meet everyone’s needs. We have no doubt whatsoever that if we are going to encourage and support people to remain in their own homes for as long as they possibly can, for as long as they wish to, we have to improve the homemaker services.

That is true. The member will be aware of the fact, though, that this is only one of a whole range of support services seniors and disabled people in this province want. We are certainly looking at how we cover that entire range.

Mr. Harris: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: A couple of moments ago -- I apologize that I was in the back and not in the chamber -- the Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith) gave an answer to a previously asked question. I suggest to you that the member who asked that question ought to be allowed a supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: I appreciate the suggestion. The Solicitor General tried to respond. However, I did not allow it and asked for a supplementary. The member for St. Catherines-Brock.

Mr. Dietsch: Mr. Speaker, if time permits, the member will probably get his question in.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr. Dietsch: My question is to the Minister of Financial Institutions. I know the rate hearings that are going on with the Ontario Automobile Insurance Board right now include industry, government and consumers. I want to ask him particularly about public consumer participation before the current board. Can he tell us how many members of the public are taking advantage of these hearings that are going on?

Hon. Mr. Elston: Over the past few days, we have been reporting that there has been keen interest in these hearings on the part of the public, and naturally so. As the member knows, there was a wide distribution of advertising by the board, in some 300 newspapers across the province, to ensure there would be publicity to alert everyone to the fact these hearings were being carried on.

In addition to that, there has been very thorough coverage at the hearings by the electronic and print media, and by members of the public as well. As I understand it, altogether there have been about 4,000 telephone inquiries at the board.

The honourable member will want to know there are 37 members of the public who have participated in the hearings to this point. Some 80 witnesses have appeared, including, as I have related before, expert witnesses representing the Consumers’ Association of Canada, others representing the industry the representatives of the board themselves. There has been very good public participation at that level.

In addition to that, there has been a number of pieces of correspondence, together with some 17 petitions. As reported, there is currently a petition of some 50,000 names awaiting delivery at the board. The participation has been quite active.

Mr. Dietsch, I am receiving calls from my constituency, St. Catharines-Brock. Along with others in this House, I feel, as you do, that it is important consumers get their say. Can he advise this House if members of the public are still going to be able to participate in these hearings, and if so, how will they be able to participate?

Hon. Mr. Elston: Public participation is, as I said, quite active already. In fact, the public interest is represented not only by the consumers’ association, individual public representatives and the mandate of the board, but there is also representation still able to be made by people. For instance, tomorrow morning -- that is, Friday morning, January 6 -- is set aside for public representations, as so described.

I think it will be of interest to everybody in the province to understand that for the first time in the history of rate-setting for automobile insurance, the rates will be structured after a full public discussion of those items that are included in setting the rate. I think that will provide the consumers of Ontario with a unique opportunity that is not available to people in other parts of the North American continent, and probably throughout the world. They will be armed with the information that will allow them to compare the rates as marketed among the various insurance companies.

I can tell the honourable gentleman as well that contact ought to be made directly by any person from his constituency or throughout the province if he or she wishes to be heard at this particular time.

MUNICIPAL-INDUSTRIAL STRATEGY FOR ABATEMENT

Mrs. Grier: I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. For some time now, I have been attempting to obtain from the Minister of the Environment an updated schedule for the municipal-industrial strategy for abatement regulations. During discussion of the minister’s estimates, I asked if we could have the new timetable for the monitoring and regulation of industrial discharges and the minister said, and I quote from Hansard, “We can provide that.” That was November 24.

As he did not provide it to the committee, I wrote to the minister asking the same question on November 28, reminding him of his commitment. I have had no response and I raised it again in this House by way of a question on December 12. Can the minister tell the House what he is hiding?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I do not know if I have enough time in question period to answer this in the appropriate fashion.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I just wanted to give the opposition a chance to do some hollering. Seriously, I think I signed just about 400 letters last night. I finished signing letters at 2:45 a.m. the members might be interested in knowing. One of them was to the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore, so she should be getting that through intergovernmental mail at the earliest opportunity because I know she was extremely interested at that time.

What I wanted to do was to provide a very up-to-date list of each of the regulations as it had been promulgated or the stage it was at. For that reason --

Hon. Mr. Scott: Comprehensive, too, Jim.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Comprehensive, as suggested by the Attorney General. I expect she will be getting that very soon.

Mrs. Grier: It is not just myself as member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore who has been interested in this information. Normally, it has been provided in the annual report on industrial discharges for the ministry. I take it by the fact it has been so hard to obtain that the minister is prepared to admit to this House that the MISA program is seriously over schedule, that it is at least 18 months behind schedule in implementation of any of the regulations, that the complete program is not going to be in place for perhaps another two years, and that in the meantime there is no effective monitoring of industrial discharges to waterways of this province and no effective enforcement of the environmental protection regulations.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The member would perhaps know that the premonitoring aspect of the MISA program has been going on for some period of time. She would know, for instance, that in the area of the St. Clair River where we have petroleum refining industries, one of the things that was suggested was that we would find no specific kind of dioxin in any of the discharges or sludges. In fact, the pre-MISA monitoring discovered that.

She would know, for instance, that there are problems with the sewage treatment plants, which I have said for some time do not have the capability of dealing with the various toxic substances that are put into them by industries that discharge directly into the sewer pipes of the province. We put out a report of 37 plants that had been done.

All of this has been going for some period of time. She would also know that I get nothing but criticism from her friends in the municipalities and others over the rate at which we are going. They say we are pushing too quickly. They say we are rushing into this.

I am attempting to meet the legitimate needs of those who want to have public input and the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore on many occasions -- and very legitimately, I say -- has said, “We should consult with the public on all of these.” I have provided that mechanism for consultation and as a result the kind of monitoring regulations we are going to get are going to be the very best possible.

CONSERVATION AUTHORITIES

Mr. Pollock: I have a question for the Minister of Natural Resources. In a recent statement in the House and in a letter to the minister, our party has asked for public hearings and a government review of the conservation authorities. Can the minister tell us today whether he is going to sponsor a public forum for interested people to exchange their comments and criticisms of the Burgar report?

1440

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: The report that was brought down by Mr. Burgar to look at 40 years of conservation authorities in the province, and how they might be improved and how they might be brought into what you might call the modern kind of assessment we need by conservation authorities is, I think, a document that is widely distributed to anyone who wants to see it. We are looking for meaningful input and that is the reason the document is out there, for study and for reports.

On the degree we would have public forums to examine it, I am not sure I could make that commitment here, because every possibility is available to the individuals, the groups, that would like to examine the report. I would like to say that the report is a very good move forward, that it was asked for by the conservation authorities themselves. We are just responding to the conservation authorities’ request to have a good overview of the conservation --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Final supplementary.

Mr. Cureatz: Good ruling, Mr. Speaker. We’re on your side today.

Mr. Pollock: Thanks, fellows. I did not hear a reply to my question. Is the minister actually going to have a public forum and let people express their views on the Burgar report? I think it is very important. The Burgar report actually --

Mr. Speaker: I believe the member has asked the question again.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: It is obvious that while the member was thinking up his supplementary, he did not listen to what was being said. I said I did not feel that was necessary at this time because of the widespread ability of people to study the Burgar report. I have already got back some substantive reports on people’s consideration of the report. To have widespread public involvement at this point in time does not seem necessary.

Mr. Speaker: That completes oral questions and responses and an extra supplementary.

PETITION

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION FUND

Mr. Hampton: I have a petition that is submitted by a group of retired teachers.

“To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows:

“To amend the Teachers’ Superannuation Act, 1983, in order that all teachers who retired prior to May 31, 1982, have their pensions recalculated on the best five years rather than at the present seven or 10 years.

“The proposed amendment would make the five-year criteria applicable to all retired teachers and would eliminate the present inequitable treatment.”

I have affixed my signature to the petition.

MOTION

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

Hon. Mr. Conway moved that the standing committee on finance and economic affairs be authorized to meet following routine proceedings on Tuesday, January 10; Wednesday, January 11; Tuesday, January 17, and Wednesday, January 18, 1989.

Motion agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Conway: Before orders of the day, I would like to take the opportunity to report to the House this afternoon on discussions at the House leaders’ meeting this morning concerning the business this afternoon.

As members know, Orders and Notices today calls for resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for the second reading of Bill 124. I want to inform the House that following upon an agreement by the House leaders this morning, in the event we complete that debate, assuming we complete the second reading debate of Bill 124, we will then by consent proceed with second reading of Bill 188, An Act to amend the Juries Act, and time permitting, second reading of Bill 4, An Act to amend the Metropolitan Toronto Police Force Complaints Act.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

CHILDREN’S LAW REFORM AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 124, An Act to amend the Children’s Law Reform Act.

Mr. Speaker: I believe the member for Hamilton Mountain adjourned the debate. He may wish to continue.

Mr. Charlton: I do. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. When I concluded my remarks yesterday, I was dealing with the question of litigation and the appropriateness of the court as the place to resolve practical, emotional, family-related problems. The court is a good place to determine the splitting of assets in a marriage breakup. The court is also perhaps an appropriate place to determine whether or not access of the noncustodial spouse is appropriate at all; in other words, if there are serious problems that would warrant disallowing access of the noncustodial spouse, then the court is the appropriate place to make that decision.

But the court is not the appropriate place to try to sort out the practical, emotional problems people face in trying to arrange access and to make access work in practical terms. As a number of my colleagues have said during the course of this debate, the question of problems around access -- access orders that are not lived up to -- usually relates to a fear on the part of the woman, because of abuse that has gone on in the marriage, for her own personal health and safety, or perhaps for the personal health and safety of the child or to an emotional inability to face that former spouse and partner on a regular basis.

I think we have all learned over the last 20 or 25 years that emotional problems can have a very serious impact on the lives of individual people, and the courts are not an appropriate place to try to resolve those emotion-based problems.

If you read the sections of Bill 124 -- I guess it is even clearer in the explanatory notes than it is in the sections. It says, “If an existing court order provides for access to a child at specific times or on specific days (or if a separation agreement containing specific access provisions has been filed with the provincial court (family division) or the unified family court), a person who claims that he or she was wrongfully denied access to the child may make a motion to the court.”

Again, I ask members to think back to the dilemma we faced with support payments, the regular recurrence of failure to make support payments and the mechanism we had to set up in an attempt to resolve that problem. We are walking into the same trap here. We are saying that where there is an access order and there is a failure to live up to that access order, the wronged party has the right to go to court, but we all know that if the problem is an emotion-based problem, going back to court and ordering the access yet again is not going to resolve that emotional problem. The wronged individual is going to be back into court and back into court.

If we, as a Legislature, as not only the body responsible for the creation of the laws but also the body responsible for attempting to ensure they are workable, think seriously about that not only in the context of the inappropriateness of that constantly repeating process, but also in the context of the costs we are already faced with in our court system and the escalation of costs that will result from that kind of use of a very expensive process, at the same time as we stand in this Legislature and deny funds -- very minimal funds compared to the cost of our legal system -- to the kinds of agencies that can provide the mechanism to deal sensitively with the kinds of emotional problems that confront families that have broken up, families that have lost the love, that through abuse or just through new relationships, disinterest, changed attitudes, any number of things, are no longer compatible and no longer want to be confronted by each other for a whole range of reasons that we have set out so many times, the kind of mechanism we need in place is not a court procedure which costs the wrong party money every time there is a denial of an order, a failure to live up to an order for access.

1450

That court process also just heightens whatever the emotional impasse is. It is a process that cannot help but foster an ever-increasing growth of whatever resentment and emotional inability to confront the situation has caused the problem in the first place.

The kinds of agencies that we are talking about here, the kinds of agencies that to date the government has, on the one hand, applauded and, on the other hand, refused to fund, are agencies that will in the long run cost this government a lot less money than what this kind of a litigation proposal will ultimately impose on this society.

Let’s just for a moment think about what it is we are trying to deal with here. There are exceptions, but in most cases child custody is awarded to the mother. In most cases, it is the father who is seeking access; and as I have said, there are some exceptions to that.

The father who is seeking access may have been one of those fathers who abused his wife and perhaps his children as well. That is not to deal with the question of whether he loves those children or not, though, and whether or not some access in a parental way to those children is appropriate. The courts will decide that and the courts will order the access if it is appropriate.

But is a constant appeal to the courts an appropriate mechanism to ensure that that access, once it has been ordered, in fact happens? I am suggesting no, because it simply does not deal in a personal or emotional way with whatever has created the problem.

The kind of agency that we have, and we have heard the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore (Mrs. Grier) talk about it in her own riding, is the kind of thing that, as a Legislature, we have to be looking at and be prepared to fund. It is the kind of agency that not only can separate the access to the child from a confrontation between the two parents who, for whatever number of emotional reasons, do not want to confront each other, can provide that neutral ground between those two ex-spouses or separated spouses or whatever the case happens to be, but also can provide the mechanism for supervision when in fact the court has deemed that supervision to be necessary.

Again, I ask members to think about what it is that courts do when they award access. The court not only sits down and listens to both sides, to both spouses and often to many other witnesses, family witnesses, neighbourhood witnesses and so on, in terms of questions of violence and abuse, but also the court ultimately determines that there should or should not be access.

If the court determines that there should be access but that that access should be supervised, what mechanism do we have in place in this province to see that that occurs? What mechanism have we, as a Legislature, put in place to make that court order workable? We have none. There are a few in existence because they exist in their own right, but we are trying to impose a law here for which we have not provided effective implementation. The sections here which deal with the right to go back to court when an access order has been violated or denied put forward a right that perhaps should exist, but a right that would be unnecessary if the mechanisms were in place to make the original order workable in the first place.

In large part, what we as a caucus are saying in this debate is that, as a Legislature, we not only have an obligation to create laws which would appear to be fair and just, but also have an obligation to ensure that there is some practical way of applying those laws, so the fairness and the justice that the words imply can be gained in reality by the people who are out there trying to, for themselves or for others, have access to a law or a protection which they see written on paper.

If there is no real or effective or practical mechanism in place by which the law can be implemented and the orders of a court can be implemented, then in our view we have failed in our job as legislators to provide the fairness and the justice which the law implies.

Before I wrap up, I want to deal with the question of mediation for a few moments. I think the parliamentary assistant and the minister will find, both through the comments of those from our caucus who have spoken and those discussions which will go on in the committee, that we are not opposed to mediation as one of the potential mechanisms for the resolution of access problems where it is appropriate. On the other hand, we are opposed to mandatory, imposed mediation in all cases.

I go back to what I was saying earlier. If the state imposes mediation on two people who do not want to deal with each other or if the state imposes mediation on a father who is seeking access and a mother who is emotionally afraid, because of physical abuse that has occurred, to have anything to do with that man, then the mediation process will likely mediate a solution in some fashion.

But I think that even the parliamentary assistant would agree that if someone is forced into a mediation system about which he or she is emotionally terrified, there is no question that the person will be intimidated by that process and will therefore likely be the loser in that process in some fashion; that some of his or her rights will go unprotected; that some of his or her abilities to have a say in an appropriate way will go unexpressed.

By the same token, mediation cannot be something that is imposed at the demand of one of the two parties. Mediation will only work, as it is intended to work, when all of those who have reached an impasse agree that perhaps sitting down with a neutral third party and talking it through might be the best way to go.

1500

We have absolutely no objection to mediation in that kind of a setting where all of those who are part of an impasse agree that talking it through with a mediator is an appropriate opportunity to perhaps find a solution they have been unable to find in their emotional dilemmas. That is fair and that is appropriate in that kind of a situation.

I want to emphasize to the parliamentary assistant and through him to the minister that that is the only circumstance in which we see mediation as a workable route to a solution. In the rest of the cases where there are serious emotional fears involved, they are likely going to have to be resolved through other mechanisms, the kind of agency mechanisms we have talked about for some months here in this House; something that can provide a solution while allowing the parties involved to deal with their emotions and their fears in isolation from those they do not want to be party to, confronted with or in any kind of contact with. As we all know, those kinds of situations are going to be fairly significant in terms of numbers in the kinds of circumstances we are trying to deal with in this piece of legislation, Bill 124.

Just in wrapping up my comments on this bill, it is a very emotional one for a lot of people. It is a very emotional debate from the point of view of women of broken marriages, from the point of view of men of broken marriages and I guess, most specifically, from the point of view of the children of broken marriages. It is our obligation, because we all understand the hurts and traumas that broken families go through, to provide the best, most sensible, most sensitive, most workable legal solutions to the kinds of problems that evolve in this sector.

It is our view that although the courts have a role to play in that and a very important role to play in some aspects of that, in the final analysis, in terms of the day-to-day practical working of the emotions of a broken family, the court is probably the least appropriate place to resolve those kinds of disputes.

Mr. Morin-Strom: I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on Bill 124, An Act to amend the Children’s Law Reform Act. This is a bill which is purported to improve the relationship governing separated parents and the access and enforcement that will be provided to parents to their children after separation agreements have been made and court orders are in place.

This bill, though, has the potential for doing serious harm to parent-child relationships and for putting, in particular, women and their children at risk in many situations. Most fundamentally, this bill does not take into consideration the primary interests of the child. This bill is designed under a premise that what is in the best interests of the parents is automatically in the best interests of the children.

We have, in the original statement of the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) on this bill, a final conclusion that he made that we have a bill that recognizes and supports the right of a child to access. However, I say no, we do not; we have a big omission in this bill. This bill in particular does not recognize a child’s right to refuse access. In this bill, children are being used as pawns to satisfy the noncustodial parent’s self-interest

More damage will be done by this bill than it hopes to remedy. The minister has admitted that it is only an exceptional case when a custodial parent refuses access. Ensuring access for a child may not be in the child’s best interests for many reasons Which I am going to detail this afternoon.

Ensuring access and the best interests of the child are not included in the provisions of this bill. The provisions of this bill include gross oversights. Obviously, this bill was developed by persons not well informed on the subject of custody and access. Custodial parents, women particularly, were not consulted about the possible ramifications of the bill.

I would like to go through some of the aspects of this bill which cause serious concern for many people across this province, I start with just the first section of the bill. Subsection 1(4a) says “each shall, in the best interests of the child, encourage and support the child’s continuing parent-child relationship with the other.” In fact, this may not be in the best interests of the child. There is no mention made about the child’s other relationships; relationships for example with step-parents who may be functioning as primary or secondary care givers.

There is the potential for unhealthy emphasis on biological parents particularly and on the maintenance of ties with their biological children, on the assumption that this is what is best for the child. The assumption is that the biological parent is responsible enough and caring enough to maintain such contact.

In fact, we know in family relationships that in many cases the primary care giver, the person who is most concerned about the children, is not the biological parent but a step-parent or a new adult who has come into the household. This focus on the needs of the biological parent does concerned disservice to the children we are so concerned about.

Further into section 2, at clause 2(2)(h), we have again the emphasis on “the relationship, by blood or through an adoption order, between the child and each person who is a party to the application or motion.” This emphasis on blood relationship should not be given paramount importance in comparison with those who in fact are the care givers and are providing the primary relationship with the child.

In subsection 2(3) we have a major problem, because the provisions of restrictions on access are provided: “the fact that the person has at any time committed violence against his or her spouse or child.” However, there are many types of violence. The emphasis on physical abuse or violence as the sole means of restricting access is a limiting factor in this bill which is completely inappropriate

A major problem with this section is that it does not include verbal and emotional abuse, which is now recognized by experts to be at least as devastating as physical abuse and violence, although admittedly not potentially life-threatening for a child or adult in a physical sense.

1510

In this bill, if we look under section 6, there are a number of amendments to section 35 of the Children’s Law Reform Act and there are various provisions under section 35a of that. In clause 35a(2)(c), we have requirements which would require the reimbursement from a parent demanding access back to the parent receiving support of reasonable expenses incurred as a result of wrongful denial of access.

The idea that parents who are not the custodial parents may be able to demand moneys back from the parent who is the primary care giver puts a real financial hardship upon the primary care giver and the child himself or herself. Reimbursements would most likely put a custodial parent, often women who are living on meagre incomes as it is, into financial hardship.

Upon divorce, on average a woman’s annual income decreases substantially while a man’s annual income increases, thus promoting an already imbalanced situation. The idea or concept that the woman, who is typically making much less, should pay a fine or penalty back to her former husband, who is not the primary care giver, is a completely inappropriate provision in this bill, one that penalizes not only the woman, obviously, but the children as well, who are often living in situations where they do not have the levels of income and the provisions of life that they may have had if the family unit had stayed together.

In this bill we have a number of provisions. One of the main objectives of the bill is to speed up access in cases where a parent demanding access has been denied, and this bill provides for a very quick court process for allowing that access. For the motion, under subsection 35a(7), as proposed by this bill, the courts would have to provide a speedy hearing within 10 days after it has been served and not more than 30 days after the alleged wrongful denial or failure had occurred.

This idea that the motion for enforcement of access rights will be heard between 10 and 30 days after it is served is really an inappropriate one in comparison with the kinds of speed women have in terms of court process for getting support payments. The Support and Custody Orders Enforcement Act in fact has no minimum time limit in which a hearing for default on support must take place.

Obviously, this could be seen as blatantly favouring men since most custodial parents are women and parents making support payments are most often men, for support default takes usually four to six weeks before a hearing takes place.

Why is it that this government wants to make access enforcements take priority over custody and support? When support payments are not paid, children could become the innocent victims if their homes could not be paid for and there was not enough money for food or clothing in the household. Surely this is a much more serious situation that has direct harm and direct effects on the children involved and the government’s priority, in terms of our overtaxed court system, a court system where we do not have enough judges in place, where we cannot get court process to occur quickly enough, its emphasis should be on ensuring that the incomes come into the families, come to the parent who is the primary care giver and that she or he can provide that kind of care that is needed for the children. That certainly should take priority over the parent who is demanding access but is not providing that day-to-day care.

These situations are very real for the many women who are single parents and live below the poverty line. Ten days does not leave nearly enough time to obtain medical evidence, if needed, or to retain or instruct a lawyer under such a court proceeding.

Other important child protection measures take at least two weeks after a child apprehension to be heard. As well, interim custody and support hearings have to wait two to three weeks to take place. Clearly this is a case where this government would rather favour, in most situations, the man who is not providing the daily care but wants access to his children over the woman who is providing that daily care but is not receiving the funds that she should be receiving under the custody orders.

In some of the other provisions of the bill, we have unreasonable limitations in situations such as the time the children should be expected to wait for the parent demanding access to arrive and take the child. Under paragraph 35a(4)4 the party demanding access has one hour from the time specified to arrive and receive the child to whom access has been granted.

For children this is a very long waiting period. It would be much more reasonable to allow a limit of something on the order of 15 to 30 minutes for a child to wait, wondering if this second parent is going to show up to pick up the child.

Under the provision just before that, there are provisions allowing a woman to restrict access if the other party has been impaired by alcohol or drugs at the time of access. However, there is nothing here about impairment or drug abuse during access time, or about the parent who returns the children while under the influence, possibly even after operating a motor vehicle with children in it. We would have to ask whether the custodial parent can deny access at a future date if he believes the same situation might happen again. This bill does not provide for that type of restriction on future access.

Again, in terms of what rights the woman has to restrict access, the woman can if she has reasonable grounds to believe that she may “suffer physical harm if the right of access were exercised.” This government is preoccupied with the aspect of physical harm. It is not concerned about types of mental and verbal abuse and harm that can be done to the custodial parent and her children.

Only physical harm is mentioned as a reason for refusing access. What about emotional and verbal abuse, such as the commonly experienced threats, belligerency, destruction of property and, in general, cruel behaviour that custodial parents often face?

Most fundamentally, under section 35a(4), which gives a listing of the various provisions that constitute legitimate denial of access, we do not have any provision for the child’s wishes. There is no recognition of the child’s point of view or the child’s desire in this bill. No mention whatever is made of the child’s wishes in this subsection 35a(4).

1520

Often, children will demonstrate a reluctance to be around a certain individual before they can admit that the person may be sexually abusing them or abusing them in other ways. A child who is fearful to speak up about such a potential situation must have his wishes respected. Custodial parents should not have to force a reluctant child to visit the other parent. Children are not pawns to satisfy either parent’s self-interest. From an early age, even preschoolers have distinct likes and dislikes, and before they can verbalize well, their instincts and feelings can tell them when to avoid situations and people who make them uncomfortable, for reasons which may not be clear to them.

It is incumbent upon us to take the child’s wishes into account. If the child feels uncomfortable and does not wish to be with the second parent, the child should not be forced to satisfy the whims and desires of that parent against his wishes and have to spend time with that parent.

In many eases, what is happening is physical and emotional abuse in those situations. The children are in a position where they will not admit what is happening in that relationship, but they will be indicating what their wishes are in terms of not enjoying the experience, not wanting to have to undergo that access.

Finally, the change under subsection 35a(9) in respect to access is “shall be determined on the basis of oral evidence only.” One has to question why only oral evidence is to be included in the judge’s decision. In many cases, we have women who have been in an abusive relationship, who are intimidated by their former husbands, and if they are forced to make a presentation or a statement in front of a court or a judge with the husband present in a court proceeding, they will be intimidated to the point of not being able to be open and forthright about the situation they and their children are facing.

Women should have the right to provide evidence other than strict oral evidence, and we should also have the provision for the presentation of evidence from other experts who have had the opportunity to analyse the child’s wishes and make testimony on behalf of the child’s interests in these kinds of situations.

We can look at what the Attorney General said in some of his statements upon introducing this bill last year. I quote the Attorney General: “Children should never be used as pawns and this bill underlines that principle.”

Well, this is just not true. This bill encourages the use of children as pawns. Their refusal to visit a noncustodial parent is not considered a valid reason for the custodial parent to deny access. Surely, this is taking away the rights of children to decide and to indicate their wishes and have them heard.

The Attorney General went on and said, “Children have the opportunity to know and to learn from both of their parents.” However, this statement fails to recognize that children can know and learn how to abuse and control women by forcing them to be witnesses to their father’s abuse of their mother during access times. If the man has a problem with abuse, he may also be abusing his children -- not positive learning experiences or knowledge for these children.

Again, high priority is given to the two biological parents when, in fact, step-parents and adoptive parents should have as much of an opportunity to pass on knowledge to their children as the biological noncustodial parent.

In fact, I think most would agree that those who are the primary care givers, who are with the child hour after hour, day and night, are the ones who should be the prime educators, the prime people making the decisions on behalf of children and the ones who are providing the learning experiences to those children. The concept that a biological parent should have the same access as another parent or primary care giver who is providing the care is one that just does not make common sense.

The Attorney General went on in his statement and said “access can be legitimately denied, either by the court or, in exceptional cases, by the parent who has custody of the child.” If the cases of denial of custody are so exceptional, why the need for further seemingly needless legislation such as that being put forward here today by this government?

The Attorney General in his remarks went on to say, “We also want to avoid the situation where wrongful denial of access has led to courts suspending the requirement for child support payments, or to parents simply refusing to pay support until access is granted.” However, compensatory payments by the custodial parent also have the potential of forcing children to suffer materially. Surely the child should not be the one to bear the penalties of court action in such cases.

The Attorney General went on to say, “parents shall encourage and support the child’s continuing relationship with both parents.” But it should not be a priority if the children are at risk themselves from psychological or physical harm or are at risk of being forced to witness the abuse of their custodial parent during access periods.

That is the situation today in Ontario. The province has not provided for access locations in communities across this province. Custodial parents do not have the right for an independent location where their emotional and physical state can be protected at the time of the transfer of the child to the parent who is demanding access.

We have to have a government committed to providing the process so that the court orders which are in place can be dealt with much more effectively than they are today.

One of the most serious aspects of this bill has to do with mediation. In this bill courts are given the right to order mediation between the two parents in cases of dispute. However, a mediation process is not necessarily a fair process. In fact, in a situation in the state of California, which had moved towards enforced access, a major study has been done in recent years of the results of this type of mediation process.

I would just like to quote briefly from the final report on the California state Senate’s task force on family equity with respect to forced mediation in California on these kinds of agreements. Their document states:

“The basic premise of mediation is that parents’ voluntary settlement rather than litigation of custody and visitation disputes serves children’s best interests. The purpose of mediation is to provide a nonadversarial process to assist parents in developing these voluntary agreements regarding child custody and visitation. Mediation is intended to promote parental ‘self-determination’ as an alternative to litigation where the state, via the judge, makes the decision and imposes it on the family.

1530

“The mediator does not act as a judge or advocate. The role of the mediator is to serve as a neutral facilitator in this process of parental self-determination and settlement. Unlike a judge, the mediator is not supposed to impose a decision on the parents. And, unlike the attorney, the mediator is not supposed to protect or advocate the position of one parent over the other.

“Certain safeguards are necessary if mediation is to fulfil its purpose. First, parents must have equal bargaining power since they do not have advocates on their behalf involved in the process. Second, the mediation process must be confidential so that the parents can freely and voluntarily come to their own decision without fear that disclosures and decisions made during mediation will affect litigation should mediation fail. Third, there must be some protection to safeguard against possible mediator bias.

“The ability of mediators to make recommendations to the court rather than maintaining neutrality can undermine the nonadversarial nature of the mediation process and permit coercion of parties to enter into agreements which are not in their children’s best interests.”

This is the fundamental result that has come about from this type of mediation process and the study of the effect it has had in California. I quote further:

“The ability of mediators to make final recommendations can discourage parents from negotiating in good faith without fear of impacting on court proceedings. For example, parents may fear being candid in mediation and may not reveal relevant confidences which could be used against them by the mediator in his or her recommendation.”

It goes on:

“Furthermore, mediator recommendations may be based on evaluation of the negotiating skills of the parents in the mediation process rather than an independent evaluation and assessment of each party’s parenting abilities and the child’s needs. How parents negotiate or conduct themselves during mediation does not necessarily reflect their parenting abilities. The fact that a parent is willing to compromise or appears reasonable and co-operative in mediation does not mean that the parent is necessarily fit or competent for custody, and vice versa.”

In many cases, what happens is that the father, who may be better educated or better coached by his attorney, is able to convince the mediator of his concerns while the mother, who in fact is the one who is caring for the child, is not as good a negotiator but is a far better care giver and the one who should be given primary consideration in the mediation process.

The task force recommendation goes on:

“The task force recommendation will protect children by discouraging agreements based on undue coercion of the parents, rather than the children’s best interests. This recommendation does not interfere with and in fact promotes, the underlying premise and goal of mediation to assist parents in working out a voluntary agreement regarding custody and visitation.”

This recommendation of the task force is that restrictions be placed on the mediation process and that the wide-open encouragement of mediation, as had been the case in California previously, should be changed back to a more restrictive ability to enter into mediation.

It goes on:

“Mediation assumes an equality of bargaining power between the two parents. In cases where there has been a history of spousal or child abuse, one party has exerted continuing control over the other by violence or threats of violence. Victims of domestic violence are intimidated by the abusing spouse or parent and may be incapable of asserting their own interest during mediation for fear of later retribution. In some cases, the battered spouse is forced into mediation with the abusive spouse only days after a beating.

“Thus, victims of domestic violence are particularly vulnerable to coercion in the mediation process. They may agree to inappropriate arrangements that actually endanger their physical safety and that of the child, such as joint custody or unsupervised visitation.

“Domestic violence experts and advocates recognize that mediation is inappropriate and dangerous in cases involving a history of spouse and child abuse. A preliminary Canadian study found a significant difference in post-separation violence when victims used an adversarial divorce process instead of a conciliatory process; 57 per cent of abused wives suffered further abuse after use of the conciliatory process, as compared to 35 per cent of wives who used a more adversarial process. The New York Legislature recently rejected mediation legislation, in part because of its failure to expressly exclude domestic violence cases.

“Under current California law, victims of domestic violence are required to go through mediation. The statute does not even permit a court the option of exempting such cases from the process. The task force recommendation would grant the court the authority to protect domestic violence victims by exempting those cases from mediation or, in the alternative, precluding face-to-face mediation. This recommendation is necessary to ensure that all possible safeguards have been provided to protect the fairness and balance of power of the mediation process, and to prevent further danger to domestic violence victims who enter this process.”

I think this report from California quite clearly lays out the problem with the proposal of this government, which in fact is going in a direction that has proved to be so unsuccessful in other major jurisdictions. The state of California, in which we already have the test case, is moving away from enforced mediation while Ontario is moving towards it.

Surely no one expects that a woman who has been subject to physical and mental, emotional abuse, when in a face-to-face mediation process, is going to have the same power and the same ability to negotiate and to get what is in the best interests of her child when faced with a former spouse who has been so abusive.

Finally, as a personal note, I just provide an example of the kinds of problems that have been faced by one individual in my community who wrote to me and provided an example of the kind of abuse that she and her children had faced. Her statement is as follows:

“I can vouch for the last statement. When I was separated from my ex-husband, my child, who is two years old, witnessed 10 times more frequent and severe abuse during access periods than all the time when her biological father and I lived together. At two, she was even able to verbalize that she was ‘scared of her dad.’ The evening he threatened to really hurt her because she was crying too much was the night that I obtained a legal separation. The worst part is that my ex-husband’s abuse was minor compared to most other women’s experiences.”

I want to protect the identity of that individual, but it is very reflective of the kinds of situations that women are facing across this province. They have extreme difficulty in having to face their former spouse who has been abusive to them and in fact is becoming much more abusive after the separation. In these periods when the access is being provided, when in particular there are no supervised locations in Ontario for that access in almost all communities of the province, that access is providing a new opportunity for the abusive spouse to continue with verbal and mental abuse against the custodial parent and against the children; abuse which is continuing in this province, which will be further promoted by a bill such as this government has provided for us today.

1540

I think that, as responsible legislators, we should look at what this government is trying to do and put in our minds, first and foremost, the interests of the children. The children are the ones we should be primarily concerned about. We should be doing what is in the best interests of the children in relationships which have broken down where separations are in place. The priority in terms of these court orders should be placed on the wishes and the best interests of the children involved.

I suggest that this bill does not do that in the least. The government should go back to the drawing board. We must have open hearings on this bill, so that full representation is permitted for the women of this province and for everyone across the province who is concerned with the Children’s Law Reform Act. I hope we will have wide-open public hearings and come back to this Legislature with a real bill that provides for the best interests of all the children of Ontario.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I am pleased to have an opportunity to rise and speak on this bill. The members will be pleased to know that I have obligations in committee as well and therefore cannot stay and give one of my long, rambling speeches. Instead, I will give a short, rambling speech and amaze them as much as I can.

There are many pieces of legislation that come before this House which have emotional value: the Line Fences Act and various matters around ditches and other kinds of things which we deal with from time to time. Then there are bills like this, the Act to amend the Children’s Law Reform Act, which are highly emotionally charged and incredibly, viscerally important in very specific ways in the lives of many people in Ontario who are in very troubled emotional times themselves. It is the kind of bill which deserves a long and serious debate. I am a little disturbed to see that there have not been many members from the government side who have chosen to speak on it at this point.

I think it is important to look at this in the context of changes in the last number of years and to recognize the role of members of all parties who have been concerned about the need for some changes and the need to reflect upon the balances which are there to do with custody and support payments on the one hand and access provisions on the other. Over the last number of years, I have been involved in many discussions about the need to have reform of this legislation, and I am pleased that action has been taken.

I should recognize the role that has been played here by the member for Etobicoke-Humber (Mr. Henderson) and his private member’s initiatives, and by the member for Markham (Mr. Cousens) and his attempts to deal with the question of mediation. I think each of the attempts we have had before us, the two private members’ attempts and now the Attorney General’s approach with Bill 124, have indicated that this is a very difficult area to legislate.

It is an area where, no matter which kind of approach you take, you are going to attract flak and fire; you are going to be charged with distorting the balance of rights in one way or another, and perhaps most dangerous of all, with endangering the rights of the children who are often the victims of our present divorce and separation legislation.

It is my opinion that this particular act is unsuccessful. It is my hope that the Attorney General and his parliamentary assistant, the member for Mississauga North (Mr. Offer), will take the hearings process very, very seriously and will perhaps rethink some of the premises behind this act.

If they will not go that far, we hope they will look at some amendments to and clarification of things such as mediation which are involved in this present piece of legislation, look at the question of grandparents’ access more specifically than is done in this piece of legislation and look outside the legislation at ancillary services, which are the real key to making any of these things work.

I think it is fair to say that we have made some major steps of progress in the last number of years on the question of support payments for women in the province. We are all familiar with the fact that for years and years a huge percentage of women who expected to receive support payments were not receiving those support payments as they had been court-ordered or agreed to by separation agreements or divorce settlements.

The action taken by the government following the lead of the government of Manitoba a number of years ago in taking a role by the state to ensure the enforcement of those support orders was a very positive step to take, but it also brought with it reactions, mostly from the men who predominantly pay the support payments in the province, that they were not getting their quid pro quo, which was a better guarantee of access. A lot of us over the last number of years have had many deputations of people coming before us saying, “It’s time to recognize the fact that access is not guaranteed as one would hope either.”

We have here in the gallery today people who, from the perspective of other members of the family, specifically the grandparents, have been saying “We should not be excluded from this either.” Especially where it is a question of being the parent of the noncustodial parent involved, that grandparent has no real entry into the system, no real means of being able to be sure that he can keep a relationship with that grandchild.

I am glad, therefore, that the government, as is always the case when these imbalances start to take place, has responded with legislation; but it seems to me that the government has not dealt with it in the best way that it might.

I think the member for Rainy River (Mr. Hampton) pointed out what is probably the most serious dilemma posed by this legislation: it suggests that swift court action following a breach of an access agreement be the primary means of dealing with the problem at hand.

In his speech the other day, which I have had the chance to read over very carefully, and from his experience as a lawyer who has dealt with cases, the member talked about his concerns about that kind of a process being the fundamental block upon which the rights of access would be dealt with.

He talked about the difficulties with this 10-day period which is allowed for in this act: that there is not time to develop appropriate response to a motion that might be brought forward by an aggrieved party.

He talked about the fact that having these kinds of oral presentations which are required in the act, rather than the full sort of litigious approach that is often taken, with stacks and stacks and pounds of paper by the lawyers of the province, is an approach that will not work, that will in fact cause a number of problems.

One of the problems the member pointed to, which I think in commonsense terms is one that we really have to think about, is that after you have an agreement and the courts have already made that settlement or the couple has come to its own agreement through mediation or on its own in the past, to bring in a confrontational methodology as the means of settlement is a dangerous kind of thing to do after the fact.

Especially if it is going to be done on the basis of oral evidence given, it has the potential for inflaming the situation. It has the potential for placing people -- specifically, in this ease, women who have been in a battered situation -- in a very dangerous, subservient position going into the court situation; for raising great fears of retaliation that they may have felt will come because of their past experience with the spouse. It is just fraught with dangers as being the building block.

I think one of the main reasons for our taking this out to committee is to have a look at that fundamental premise and to have people come into the committee from the various perspectives that are out there and talk about that.

1550

Even though it seems to be a fundamental principle of the legislation, if the word we hear back from those people practising, whether it is from the people from the Canadian Bar Association, who seem to have some difficulties with that, whether it is other practising family law solicitors around the province or whether it is people who have been through the system and say that they really worry about that, I hope the Attorney General will hear them and be prepared to make appropriate amendments, if necessary, to that fundamental premise.

Another problem I have with the act, which I hope, again, the Attorney General will be open to amendment on, is that clause 2(2)(a), going into the “best interests of the child” definition, which is much taken from the Child and Family Services Act recently passed in this province and seen there to be guaranteeing that the best interests of the child must be taken into account during the motions, is in contradiction -- and I think the member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Morin-Strom) raised this issue -- with subsection 35a(4), which lays down the terms in which a denial of access is wrongful unless it meets a number of things.

In that list of things, there is no mention of the child having a say. There is no mention of a child saying, “I did not want to go to see daddy, because.” As I think the member for Sault Ste. Marie was saying, perhaps it is an abusive situation that the child is afraid to go back to and is yet unable to speak about, as is often the case. That should surely be consistent with the preceding subsection, 24(2). That should be seen to be an addition that is required in that section. I hope the parliamentary assistant and the minister will look at that whole question of the role of the child.

In the Child and Family Services Act, we spelled out continually the role of the child, to have a role in decision-making, whether it was around adoption or other kinds of concerns, the definition of a child in need of protection. I think it would be important to think about it in the light of this act as well, and the government may look at that other act for guidance in terms of how it might be brought forward.

I have some considerable concerns around the mediation aspect. I have a general sympathy for the use of mediation. Generally speaking, for a large number of the cases that are out there, I think it has a major role to play. What I find disappointing in this act is that there seems to be a move towards enforced mediation under subsection 35a(6), without any kind of controls on the mediation process that we have in Ontario at the moment.

As members know, it is a largely undisciplined area at this point. We do not have strict standards We do not have strict definitions of who can be a mediator. We do not have a body of law developed as yet to deal with the role of a mediator.

What I see here is a move towards a system which, as the member for Sault Ste. Marie and others have said, is being challenged now in places like California as being a dangerous kind of model -- enforced mediation -- because of the way it can work as a bargaining chip by somebody who feels a lesser amount of power in the relationship, whether, again, it is because of violence or other kinds of economic constraints that might be felt by one party or another.

What we have done here is move to this fact that a court can order, under clause 35a(6)(c), that a mediator be appointed and the costs of mediation can be attributed to one or both of the people involved. But we do not know, as yet, what we want from mediation. We do not know what standards we will set.

I am somebody who has actually been through the mediation process and found it very useful in my own particular case. I had great concerns when I realized just how little there was in terms of legislative backdrop to the whole question of the role of mediation in these kinds of family disputes.

I would say to the parliamentary assistant and to the government on this that the flaw around this is a seeming holus-bolus move towards enforced mediation without any kinds of controls that might be very importantly put in at this stage, and that the abuses that are possible are very dangerous.

Again, when we are dealing with these balances, dealing with this sort of question, legislating here is like trying to have the wisdom of Solomon. This is an area where they may be opening themselves up to an abuse. I would hope again that in the open committee hearings we will be having we will focus a lot on the role of mediation and that perhaps there is some room for changing what is laid out here.

I want to just talk a little bit here again about the absence of respect for the grandparents within this whole question of access. I think it is something which we have to finally come to grips with. I understand the difficulties that governments -- not just this, but other governments -- have had with the concept of what other members of the family have as rights in terms of this whole question of support or in terms of access.

I would just say to members in the most emotional terms, to place themselves in the position of grandparents who had developed a bond -- as we know grandparents do -- with a child for five or six years, let’s say, a very special a cumulation of Christmases, birthdays visits events and baby-sitting hours, and because of the divorce or separation of the couple find themselves torn away from that child with no rights of access, no mechanisms for entry, especially again if they are the grandparents of the noncustodial parent’s child.

I think, before we put in this kind of legislation, we must this time try to come to grips with finding a role there for their using this system. Clearly, in my view, the court is not necessarily the most appropriate mechanism. If we look at rulings that have been made in the past, we can clearly see that the courts have been afraid to deal very aggressively with affirmative action in terms of the roles of other members within the family around access. The whole business is so thorny just between the parents that the court just does not want to open up all the rest of it. At least that is my interpretation of how the family court judges have been ruling. Therefore, we need to look again at that premise of just going to the courts first rather than looking at another mechanism.

The final thing I would say is about the plea that I know was made by the member for Rainy River and by the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore; that is, that we must look at ancillary services in conjunction with this kind of legislation or -- my preference would be, and I know their preference would be -- as a replacement for this kind of legislation. But let’s say that the government is wedded to bringing in legislative mechanisms as well. Then I say to members that programs like the Access for Parents and Children program that has been operated out of the Lakeshore Area Multi-Service Project and the experiment that is being done in Kitchener have to be fostered at the same time as we bring in this legislation.

If parents who have had real trouble with each other through the split have finally come together and agreed on access and support payments or have had them ordered on them by the courts and if they had a place to go -- a neutral ground, where the question of access could be dealt with in a way that the mother, for instance, in a potentially abusive situation would know that there were people who were going to be supervising the role of the potentially abusive ex-spouse -- they would go there instead of going to court, and the children would get access to the parents in a way that was useful, helpful and nonthreatening to them and the extra battles or the extra conflict that the court system is bound to bring out in the parents could be avoided.

1600

I just say again to the parliamentary assistant that if we are bound and determined to go this kind of route, then we must place in here someplace another avenue for parents to go that is not the court. We must provide the services in communities all over this province where they can go and feel secure that access provisions the court has already ordered or which have already been agreed to are followed to the letter without danger to the child.

In conclusion, I would again say to government members that this is a very important piece of legislation, touching people’s lives in ways that most of our legislation never does. It is the kind of thing a government should not feel itself blindered on, that it has to stick to its guns and follow this all the way through when the area, in terms of experience internationally, is so fraught with dangers.

We can get examples from California, Europe or New York state and see how various legislative bodies have struggled with this issue. We can learn together, I hope through the hearing process, ways to right the balance without offending the parties, to open things up more to other members of the families. We might see legislation brought forward to our next sitting which would be greatly changed from this and much more responsive. If we do, we will be serving the people of this province very well.

The Acting Chairman (Mr. M. C. Ray): Are there any comments or questions? Are there any other participants in the debate? Would the parliamentary assistant to the Attorney General care to reply?

Mr. Offer: Mr. Speaker, just to he clear, this is not a reply but a wrapup to the debate.

The Acting Chairman: Yes, that is what I mean. I would remind members that the speech by the parliamentary assistant will conclude the debate on this motion.

Mr. Offer: First, I would like to thank all the members who have taken part in this debate and have given this Legislature the benefit of their thoughts on what is, without doubt, an extremely important issue and an issue of great emotion.

When I spoke on this bill on second reading, I indicated, and I will reiterate, that the amendments to this act as proposed by this bill are designed to assist both the custodial and the noncustodial parent to enforce access rights and obligations. I think it bears some repeating, as do the goals of this bill, which we must always keep in mind when discussing the legislation at hand, the goals being: to minimize the use of children as pawns in disputes between their parents; to provide a speedy and inexpensive means by which access difficulties can be determined by the court, including the guidelines for the determination of a wrongful denial of access; to emphasize that the best interests of children are met through ongoing opportunities to learn from both parents, as is each child’s right; and, last, to provide the court with enforcement tools other than jail sentences and fines when enforcing access orders.

During the debate, a number of points have been raised. I would like, in the wrapup, to meet some of those points. Before doing so, I indicate at the outset that I believe the committee hearings which are going to take place after this debate are going to be of extreme importance and use in determining the final outcome of this legislation. I look forward to dealing with all of the members on the committee when going through that particular process.

I think we should realize at the outset that this bill is the culmination of a great deal of thought, a great deal of analysis, a great deal of investigation and it has been followed in its entirety in Newfoundland. It has basically been followed in Alberta and, for many of the sections, followed in Manitoba. As well, this bill is under very serious consideration in Australia.

This bill is one which is not only important, not only carries with it an emotion, but has also, through the Ministry of the Attorney General, been given a great deal of thought, time, effort, commitment and determination to make this the absolute best bill that it can be.

On second reading, the point was made that the process is bad enough, and that was, I think, a quote from the member for Rainy River. I think we have to keep in mind, when we talk about the process, that the court is the one that is considering all the evidence on the initial hearing. All this bill does, all these amendments do, is to enforce and to provide an inexpensive and quick remedy to enforce an order already made.

It has also been indicated that this bill, Bill 124, and its predecessor, Bill 60, are very different. In fact, they are not. There are really only two significant differences, and that is that this bill before the House places a greater clarity and a greater pointing to the question of domestic violence than Bill 60 did, and as such, this bill, in that one aspect, is extremely important.

Also, it does not include the question of posting of security.

Concerns were raised that only oral evidence is to be used and that is a problem and that should and must be followed by affidavits, but it is important to remember that oral evidence avoids the affidavit, avoids adjournments, avoids cross-examinations, avoids the whole question of transcripts, all taking place while more access is being denied. The question of affidavit evidence, the adjournment and the cross-examination would fly in the face of an expeditious, inexpensive remedy available to those involved in an enforcement-of-access dispute.

One point that was brought forward which I must comment on is the whole question of the duty of separated parents to co-operate, and it was recited from the amendment. These are words or statements of desire to have parents co-operate when to do so would be in the child’s best interest. It is not the so-called friendly parent rule, which could be used to punish parents who do not co-operate, but this statement is an underpinning, it is a foundation, it is an essential matter, an issue for the custodial parent’s remedy because it creates the duty for the noncustodial parent to exercise access, to show up, to exercise the access which has been given to that person through a court hearing, and that is of extreme importance in building together the whole question of a child’s development.

1610

Concerns have been raised on the basis of the question that more litigation will result, but we cannot, as a Legislature, let an entire category of orders made by our judges go unenforced simply because the courts might be used. In fact, it might be that courts might be used less because of these very provisions. We absolutely cannot let these enforcement orders, these access orders, go unenforced simply because the courts might be used.

I think about some of the concerns that have been raised in terms of recovery of expenses; that was an issue that was raised on the basis of it being a potential hardship. I was taking a look at the legislation because there is now the ability of a person who has been denied access, or on the basis of a person who was giving access and the person did not show up, to recover reasonable expenses which have been actually incurred. That is extremely important for both parties.

Regarding some of the points which were brought forward in terms of the noncustodial parent having a single hour; maybe it should be 10 minutes, maybe it should be 15 minutes. I think we will probably be discussing that issue in committee, but we should realize that one hour is a fairly reasonable period of time. Surely, the child will be waiting, but it is a fairly reasonable period of time taking into consideration the realities of traffic and the like.

We must always remember that in dealing with matters of this nature, in dealing with issues of such emotional import, in dealing with matters such as this which are so important, it is under this legislation -- and one that should not be forgotten -- that the best interests of the child are of paramount importance and override everything else.

It is the best interests of the child that will be taken into consideration by the court on these and other matters and all other sections fall secondary to that determination. It is that determination which will make certain that in any question of access, of denial of access, of failing to exercise access, the child’s best interests are always of paramount importance and are always the major item, the major factor taken into consideration by the court.

I think this bill is of extreme importance. It is of extreme importance because it does address, specifically, this government’s concerns about domestic violence in families in Ontario. This bill, as I have indicated earlier, does specifically draw to the attention of the court on each and every application or motion concerning custody to or access of children, the question of domestic violence, and this in itself is of extreme importance.

In conclusion, I state once more that I look forward to discussing this bill in committee. I look forward to working with all members of that committee in terms of this legislation, but this is a bill that recognizes and supports the rights of children. I have enjoyed this debate and I close this debate.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for standing committee on administration of justice.

JURIES AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Offer moved, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Scott, second reading of Bill 188, An Act to amend the Juries Act.

Mr. Offer: The purpose of this bill is to amend section 3 of the Juries Act in order to remedy a drafting oversight in the Equality Rights Statute Law Amendment Act, 1986.

The effect of the proposed legislation will be to extend ineligibility for jury service to the common-law spouses of judges, justices of the peace, lawyers, students-at-law and persons engaged in the enforcement of the law. At present, only persons who are married to these individuals are exempt from jury service.

It was the intent of subsection 21(1) of the Equality Rights Statute Law Amendment Act that the reference to “husband” or “wife” in section 3 of the Juries Act should be expanded to include persons of the opposite sex living in a conjugal relationship outside marriage. This section, however, could not be proclaimed because of a drafting error. This bill gives effect to that intent by amending the Juries Act directly.

The Deputy Speaker: Questions or comments?

Mr. Hampton: I have no comments.

Mr. Cousens: With regard to –

Interjection.

Mr. Cousens: Aren’t you mean? Just very special people have that pleasure. The Speaker, of course, does not like to have any of those interruptions from other honourable members.

The Attorney General (Mr. Scott) is finally catching up on some of his homework. Through this bill, we are going to see an oversight corrected that will certainly allow for something that has been neglected in the past to be corrected now through the revisions to this bill, which will extend the ineligibility for jury service to the common-law spouses of judges, justices of the peace, lawyers, students-at-law and police officers. This is becoming such a possibility within our judicial system that this only makes sense. So we will be supportive of this bill.

Mr. Offer: I just want to thank all the members for their contribution to the debate.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for third reading.

Hon. Mr. Conway: We are on a roll, Mr. Speaker. The member for Mississauga North (Mr. Offer) is leading us at a great pace. With that in mind, I call the second order.

1620

METROPOLITAN TORONTO POLICE FORCE COMPLAINTS AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Offer moved, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Scott, second reading of Bill 4, An Act to amend the Metropolitan Toronto Police Force Complaints Act.

Mr. Offer: Since 1981, residents of Metropolitan Toronto have had the benefit of an impartial review of complaints they may make against the Metropolitan Toronto Police Force. At the same time, the police officers against whom unfounded complaints are made can be cleared in a process which is both open and visible to all members of the public. This legislation will make this system available to other municipalities which so desire it.

As members will know, the system in place in Metro Toronto is founded on the twin principles of oversight and openness. Investigations into civilian complaints of misconduct are, in most cases, conducted by a special bureau of the police force. This ensures that the specialized expertise and knowledge of officers of the force can be deployed in response to civilian complaints. Such investigation is open to active and continuing oversight by the office of the public complaints commissioner.

Under this system, the police are required to provide monthly investigation reports to the complainant, the officer and the office of the public complaints commissioner. These reports indicate the process which is being made on the case and permit errors or omissions to be corrected at an early stage. Additionally, at any time after the first 30-day report, the public complaints commissioner can launch his own independent investigation of the complaint. In special eases, the commissioner is empowered to conduct his own investigation from the outset.

These twin principles of oversight and openness in relation to the investigation process continue once the investigation is complete. At that time, the complainant, the officer and the commissioner are given copies of the final investigation report. The commissioner may request that further investigation be done before the matter is submitted to the chief of police for a decision.

Following a decision by the chief, the complainant may ask to have the matter reviewed by the commissioner. In the review process, the commissioner goes over the record of the investigation, obtains whatever other information he thinks necessary and decides whether to appoint an independent board to hear the complaint. Where a board is appointed, the case is heard in public and according to the normal procedure in evidentiary rules applicable to administrative hearings.

Police officers have the benefit of a high burden of proof, the criminal standard of proof -- beyond a reasonable doubt. The board has the full power to determine whether the complaint is justified and to impose discipline. Discipline can range up to and including dismissal of the officer from the force.

In the view of the government, the Toronto model has proven itself over the past seven years. It has injected a kind of openness and oversight which makes a major contribution to public confidence in policing. We feel this model commends itself to other parts of the province. The government could respond to this in two ways. First, it could establish the system on a province-wide basis or, second, it could permit municipalities to opt in.

Members of this House will know very well how different police-community relations are across the province. It is the government’s view that this wide variety in local circumstances is best addressed by letting municipal councils decide whether they wish this Toronto model to apply to them. The system in Toronto originated from a request of six Metro mayors, and we feel that expansion of that system should take place on that type of basis.

Under the bill, a municipality which wishes to opt in to this Toronto model must pass a bylaw making that request. The matter will then be considered by cabinet, which will decide whether the opt-in is appropriate. For example, if a very small municipality adjacent to a larger municipality decides to opt in, it may be the view of the cabinet that the wishes of the larger municipality should be determined. If the large municipality were also interested in opting in, then it might be desirable to co-ordinate the timing of the two opt-ins in order to facilitate the administrative arrangements.

Once a municipality has opted in, the public complaints commissioner will establish an office in that municipality for the reception and supervision of the investigation of complaints. Officials of the commissioner’s office will work with the local police force and exercise the same kinds of oversight functions as are exercised in Toronto. Review requests and policy issues will be dealt with by the commissioner, whose jurisdiction will extend to all parts of the province which have opted in.

It is the government’s view that it is vital to have a consistent standard of decision-making across the province on policy issues and in terms of whether and when public boards of inquiry are appropriate. If a board of inquiry is appointed, it will include persons nominated by the local council, by the local police force and by the police association.

This legislation provides local sensitivity to the investigation and oversight process, province-wide standards for the appointments of boards, followed by local sensitivity and knowledge in the ultimate adjudication process.

Municipalities which wish to avail themselves of the benefits of this new system will be expected to contribute to its cost. In Toronto, the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto pays 50 per cent of the total costs of the system. Similar arrangements will be negotiated with opting-in municipalities in order to properly allocate the costs among the provincial government and the various municipalities which have opted in.

I look forward to hearing the views of members opposite on this very important legislation and hope they will join the government in giving this legislation speedy passage.

Mr. Cousens: I would ask the honourable parliamentary assistant whether there are any other plans the government has with regard to the Metropolitan Toronto Police Force Complaints Act. He has indicated strong and total support for the process as it is working now, and I just wanted to know whether the ministry has any other plans to make any modifications or changes to this bill, either in the planning stage or within the next year or two. I am generally satisfied that the legislation has been working within Metropolitan Toronto, but just did not know whether the government had any other twists or changes which are going to be brought out on that.

The other concern I have is that consideration was given earlier to the fact that municipalities could opt in to the process. Has there also been some consideration given to opting out? It was an amendment our party was considering and had discussed with the Attorney General. I wonder if the government has given further consideration to that as well.

Mr. Offer: Very briefly, in response to the member for Markham: At this time, I am unaware of any changes to the Metro Toronto setup as it is now. That system has now been in existence for, I believe, seven years. It has proven in very substantive ways to be a success in a number of areas and it is the intent of this legislation to carry on with that success of the past seven years and to permit other municipalities to opt into a system that has been in large measure a very, very successful project or commission.

1630

The Deputy Speaker: Do other members wish to participate in the debate?

Mr. B. Rae: First of all, I might say that I am somewhat surprised the bill was not introduced in the House by the Attorney General himself.

I think this is a bill that is of very real importance in light of the events in the last number of weeks and months in this province. It is a question that should be one of fundamental government policy. This question of the civilian review of our police forces is a question that has been, if not at the centre of debate in this Legislature, certainly an active subject within this Legislature for more than a decade.

Indeed, if you look back at the history of legislation proposed and discussed by royal commissions, special inquiries and task forces dealing not only with policing matters across the province but also policing matters in particular provinces, it is an issue that has achieved a great deal of attention for nearly 20 years in this province.

Yet what is surprising to me is that despite the growing consensus in our society as to the importance of the principle of civilian review of the police, the importance of our taking some very definite steps to see that the principle that if a citizen has a complaint about the conduct of police, he has the right to have that complaint heard and considered by people who are not directly involved with the police, governments have been extraordinarily tentative in their response to this growing public consensus.

Relations between police and the public are obviously at the very foundation of a democratic society and indeed at the foundation of any society. It was my good friend and former colleague, the late Jim Renwick, who on many occasions in this House would expound with great feeling and great learning on this subject, and I want to borrow a couple of expressions of ideas that Mr. Renwick put forward because I think they are so fundamental to this discussion.

The first is that the hallmark of the distinction between a democratic society and a nondemocratic society, to a considerable extent, is our relationship as citizens with the police.

When we go to a society that is a police state or an undemocratic society, we can feel it and taste it because we know that the police are the direct extension of the state and that citizens in that state have no control over those people who are imposing their will and the will of the state on them without any recourse by citizens.

Of course, we have the second and very special problem in any society -- it is not a new question because it was perhaps first posed in Latin -- of who will guard the guardians. Who will, in a democratic society, have some control over those to whom we have given such extraordinary power, such extraordinary responsibility and such an extraordinary role in our society and in our community? We come back to this question, who will guard the guardians?

We have, over the years, created a structure in this society that is intended to do that. Looking at it as a citizen, I suppose you would see that it is composed of some parts.

First of all, we have confidence in the criminal law and in the people who enforce that law because the criminal law makes sense to us. Our consent to it is voluntary because it is entirely logical. We accept the fact that the police are doing their job because there is a logic to what they do because we accept the logic of the criminal law. That is a first foundation.

Logically, thinking about it for a moment, the basis of our consensus and our support for the police depends on our support for what the police are in fact being asked by all of us to do. We support them and we make sense of it for the most part. There will always be laws that are scoffed at and there will be always be laws that are vigorously opposed and are very hard to enforce. When that happens, policing becomes very difficult, and when that happens, the relationship between the public and the police becomes that much more difficult.

The second protection we have as citizens, I suppose, is the common law itself, the laws and statutes we pass, our access to the charter, the Constitution of the country, our access to courts and our access to lawyers to take complaints, but this was seen as insufficient.

Of course, the third response to a problem a citizen might have with respect to policing and conduct of the police would be not only to take a tort action or a private action or launch a criminal action, all of which are very difficult to prove and prove very expensive and very prohibitive, but also for the police to set up, as they have across the province, indeed across North America and in fact across the world, complaints bureaus, places where people can go and complain about the police.

The police have internal ombudsmen and they have some internal processes everybody has to go through. Those were deemed to be inadequate by Mr. Maloney when he looked at this situation in his comprehensive report on behalf of the Metropolitan Toronto Board of Commissioners of Police, which he submitted in 1975.

In 1975? It took this Legislature some time to even agree to a tentative pilot project for Metropolitan Toronto to go beyond this notion of the police themselves handling all their complaints. Look at the legislative debates in the 1970 to 1975 to 1976 period and between 1976 and 1980 and 1981. Finally, a pilot project was established for Metropolitan Toronto and then we had nothing for the rest of the province.

We have had some history of the work of the complaints commission with respect to Metro Toronto, a confirmation of the permanency of the role of the complaints commissioner prior to the defeat of the Tory government, and then, early on in the life of this new administration -- perhaps I should characterize it in two phases. In the first phase of the post-Conservative era -- the best period, I might say -- the Attorney General brought forward a bill, but it was never discussed and we never extended anything beyond Metropolitan Toronto.

It is quite interesting to go back. I see the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney) is here. I am delighted he is here because I have just finished reading a speech he made almost 10 years ago on the subject of the original bill that was brought forward by Roy McMurtry.

What is quite fascinating is that members of the cabinet -- the member for Kitchener-Wilmot (Mr. Sweeney), the member for Brant-Haldimand-Norfolk, as it then was, who is now the Deputy Premier (Mr. R. F. Nixon), and the member for Huron-Bruce, as it then was, who is now the Chairman of Management Board (Mr. Elston) -- were all particularly critical of the Tories’ initial approach. I suggest to the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) that if he ever feels lonely in cabinet, he should have a look at what his colleagues were saying back then, because he may have more allies than he thinks in this regard.

I say to him, in all seriousness, to look back at what the consensus in the Liberal Party was 10 years ago. The Liberal Party was far more determined to extend the principle of civilian review across the board and across the province; that is the first principle. The second principle is that it should, for the most part, by and large, replace the internal complaints process within a police department.

What was objectionable to the Deputy Premier at that time was that there was too much power being given to the police and not sufficient power being given to the civilians with respect to this complaints process. He gave a very interesting speech in which he emphasized, as only he can, in a way that really reflects the marvellous sense we have of the Deputy Premier, “I come from a part of the world where everybody supports the police, even the people being arrested.” I can almost hear him saying that as he says it, and I think he is right.

1640

Most of us come from communities like that. Even in Metropolitan Toronto there is very substantial confidence in the police, by and large and for the most part. Even those who are critical of the police are critical of the police not because they believe we live in a police state, but because they think it could be better and because they want to have more confidence in their police force than they feel they are able to have right now.

The Deputy Premier went on to say -- this is some time ago, in 1980; he is speaking of the original bill which this bill now is intended to extend – “I feel the bills for me as an individual -- and believe it or not, as a philosophical Liberal -- does not go far enough to make it clear” --

Mr. Breaugh: Using two words inappropriately.

Mr. B. Rae: That is right. That is what he said, “a philosophical Liberal” -- I am trying to think of what that means – “does not go far enough to make it clear” – I think a philosophical Liberal is one who has lost as many elections as the Deputy Premier had up until that time – “that the complaints are going to be heard by civilians, they are going to be investigated under civilian control, and they’re going to be judged by civilians.” That is what he said back in 1980.

What did his colleague the member for Kitchener-Wilmot say? The whole thrust of his speech was, what is so special about Toronto? This is a question many people ask. In fact, more people probably are asking it today than were asking it before. He says, “Why should Toronto be the only place in this province where you can take a complaint against a police force if you have got it?”

I think we are finally dealing with a bill, in principle, on second reading, that I hope most people in this House would feel we should have been dealing with a long time ago. The first thing I want to say, by means of comment on this bill, is simply this: I know, from having talked with a number of police officers, members and officials of the police union, and from obviously having discussed with policemen over time in the last number of years, the sense of vulnerability that exists on their part to any system which allows citizens to complain about their behaviour when they have a very difficult job to do. They put their lives at risk.

We have just come through a very difficult situation, which I am not going to comment on in any detail because it is now before the courts. I am sure that in the comments that are made by me and were made by me and made by others in the course of it, there are many policemen who would watch those comments and say: “Doesn’t he understand what we are up against every day? Don’t they understand our lives are on the line and his is not?” I think those are fair comments, fair criticisms and fair feelings to have.

The reality, however, is that the process of our insisting on civilian review is absolutely fundamental to a democratic society. It is particularly fundamental to the kind of society we have become, not only a democratic society but also a multicultural one and a multiracial one, and one in which, I must say, many of our institutions have not been sufficiently quick and sufficiently sensitive to respond to the changing nature of our society.

I was surprised -- and not only surprised, I was shocked -- to learn, as I have this week, that in the Ontario Provincial Police, which has over 4,400 officers, 10 of them are members of a visible minority community; 10 out of 4,400. There are 26 special constables who are native people and there are over 200 women who are constables.

When your police force bears no resemblance to the makeup of your society, you have a real problem. I am not suggesting it is easy to solve, because no institution -- I might add, no trade union, no political party -- can point to itself and say, “Look how much better we are doing than anybody else is.” We cannot say that either.

As a society, we have to wrestle with this reality: We are a democratic society sharing many values in common with other countries. In particular, we are a multicultural, multiracial society in which the principle has to be in place that whatever we can do through the law to maintain the confidence that the public at large, the general public has and individual citizens have in the administration of justice is what must be done.

If that means citizens will lodge complaints against officers that officers themselves feel are unfounded, unfair and unjustified, then I can only say that is the cost of living in a democracy. It is a price we all must pay and must be prepared to pay in terms of how we administer justice.

My major criticism of this bill -- it is not intended to be anything other than constructive at this stage of the game because we are hoping the government will accept amendments -- is that the bill is still much too tentative.

However, I would say this bill is preferable to another approach I have heard suggested, which is that the Ontario Police Commission would be given its responsibility for this area and that it would essentially be taken over by police commissions generally and would not be administered by a civilian review board.

I would say to those who are keen on that option as an alternative that it makes no sense to me at all. If you accept the notion of civilian review, you have to understand that the police commissions themselves are not, in a genuine sense, seen by the public as being a totally independent place where they can go to have their complaints heard.

I want to say to the government that the approach it has taken in being so tentative is this: First of all -- I am glad Mr. Lewis is here because of his experience and because I know he will have much to offer all of us at the committee stage when we discuss this question, that he will be a very important witness in front of the committee -- I think the government may have missed an opportunity to look at the act itself and to see where the current problems are in Toronto and how we can improve the act as we extend it to other parts of the province.

The second thing I would say is that I think the notion that you can opt into justice is absurd. I am supported in this by the Canadian Bar Association’s brief to the government, which will no doubt also be the subject of our committee discussions. They make the case that under section 15 there would be a very effective section 15 challenge under the Charter of Rights if citizens in one part of the province had access to a review process and citizens in other parts of the province did not. There is a very real problem.

I might say in light of the Morgentaler decision that I think there is a problem. I think you look at the impact and the meaning of the Morgentaler decision by the Supreme Court of Canada in the sense of what it said about the need for the administration of a law to be seen as being fair and effective across the country. We have a problem with the unfairness of it with regard to the fact that some places will opt in and some will opt out.

I am also a political realist. There are those who might be surprised at hearing me give this description of myself. There are those who regard me as a political fantasist of some sort, but I am not.

Mrs. Grier: That is better than being a philosophical Liberal.

Mr. B. Rae: I am not even a philosopher. I would say this: There is going to be enormous resistance in some parts of the province from local police forces to the notion of opting in, and enormous pressure on local councils not to let that happen.

Frankly, I am not prepared to let the question of opting in be determined by the ability of that kind of pressure on local councils to have an effect. I think that if we as a Legislature feel the time has come for civilian review, then the time has come for civilian review across the province.

We have lived with it in Metropolitan Toronto. It has been difficult; it has not been easy and it is not easy right now. There are very substantial differences of opinion between the police union, for example, and the police commission and others about how the process should be, and is, working. Those questions are very real, but we do not resolve those differences by saying that extending the right to opt in is going to be adequate.

1650

Let me put it to members in very real terms. Does anybody really think that the right of the Lawson family to lodge a private complaint against the police should depend on whether or not Mississauga council, the council for Peel or the regional area or whatever it may be, has determined that it is going to opt in or opt out? I cannot justify that kind of position. I do not think many of us can justify that kind of position and I know that there have been many arguments at the local level, the provincial level and within cabinet about this bill. I know that it is a bill of considerable controversy. I know there is very substantial concern about its life, but I say to members that improving and extending this bill is essential.

The final point I might make on this question of extension is with regard to the Ontario Provincial Police. Where do we go if we have a complaint about the OPP? Why is the OPP not specifically included in this review structure? The Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith) has some idea that this can happen through the public complaints commissioner. But I say to her that if a public complaints commission structure is not good enough for any other group of citizens who are policed by a local police force -- and that is what the government has determined -- how could it possibly be good enough for the people whose normal policing is carried out by the OPP or for people who are stopped by a police officer on a highway and feel they have been badly dealt with by the police officer and want somewhere to take their complaint?

In summary -- and I want to give other people a chance to participate in this debate as much as I can -- I do want to register my concerns and the priority that I place as leader on the importance of our establishing some clear rules and guidelines for policing in this province. I think the Solicitor General has a real responsibility to come up with some better guidelines on the use of force; she has some clear responsibilities to come up with some guidelines on the use of police chases and their abuse.

This issue goes back decades in this House and in this province. The government has to come up with a better plan with respect to civilian review, a plan that includes everybody in the province, that says that a citizen who is abused by the police in Sudbury has just as much right to have a complaint heard as a citizen who is abused on the corner of Bloor and Yonge streets.

The time is past for pilot projects and dangling our feet in the water to see if it is too hot or too cold. We have taken this approach for 10 years in this House, and we have an obligation to make it clear that those days are over and that we are going to be very careful about how it is done and listen to everybody about how it is done. But the principle of a province-wide, comprehensive approach to the notion of the priority and the primacy of civilian review has to be in place. That will be our approach in the hearings, which will no doubt be important ones as they are held and that will certainly be our approach as we get this bill passed. That is the last thing I want to say.

There was enormous reluctance on the part of this government to move on this legislation. It has been on the order paper for a long, long time -- not just months, but years. But I do not simply say in a facilely partisan way, “That’s their fault.” I say there must be something endemic in the legislation and in this subject which causes all governments -- or at least the only governments we have known in this province so far -- to be so tentative and to be so concerned about not moving ahead. Roy McMurtry was just as slow and just as reluctant to move ahead and to take some decisive steps as was his successor -- and I use that word in every sense -- the current Attorney General. In fact, there is a remarkable similarity between the approaches taken by the two Attorneys General, and I think that in itself is a sign of the times. It is also a sign that those of us in opposition have an obligation to make it very clear that we want to move ahead, we want to see a better bill and we want to see the principle of civilian review clearly established once and for all in the province. Thank you very much.

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. Questions and comments?

Hon. Mr. Scott: By way of comment, let me begin by saying that though I guess I am a philosophic Liberal, I agree with almost everything the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. B. Rae) has said. In the most nonpartisan way, and I think he has tried to be nonpartisan in the debate on this issue, I simply say two things.

This is not the ultimate bill. With that, I entirely agree. But it is a bill which I believe is urgently required to be passed in Ontario now, this month. I implore all honourable members, though they may regard it as incremental and in that sense hopelessly unsatisfactory as a matter of principle, to participate with us, if they can, in passing it now, because this kind of development is needed right now, this very month, in Ontario.

Having said that, I give my commitment to the honourable member in whatever forum can be arranged to canvass the third stage of this process about which he and I, I think, clearly agree. I simply draw to his attention what Sidney Linden, who founded the Metro police complaints commission, had to say when he was confronted by this incremental approach. He said he thought it was not only appropriate but wise to do this exercise in three stages, and we are now at the second.

I very much hope the Leader of the Opposition will join with us, if he can, in saying that while the bill is not, from his perspective, perfect -- it is not, from my perspective, perfect -- it is the best that can be done now and it is required in the interest of the public to be done now; if possible, this very month.

The Deputy Speaker: Does the Leader of the Opposition wish to respond?

Mr. B. Rae: I do want to respond by saying to the Attorney General that I am a very democratic fellow. I think it is important for us to talk further about what exactly the government is saying. If the government is saying this bill should pass with no amendments and there should be no opportunity to amend it -- I do not think that is what the Attorney General is saying -- then obviously, I cannot accede to that.

But if he saying that the government is willing to discuss with us and with our critics the kinds of amendments which I have discussed, which I do not think are terribly difficult to understand, then obviously I think there is room for passage of this bill provided, of course -- and I have not discussed this with my colleagues at all -- that there is a very specific commitment, with a timetable, to a broader process of review of the Police Act and some other questions which we have.

These are things that can be readily discussed. I appreciate, as I am sure he will realize because of the involvement I have had with a number of cases, very much the need for us to move ahead, but I think we have to have some further discussion as to what conditions are associated with our moving ahead.

Mr. Cousens: As we look at this important bill, I appreciate the fact that the Attorney General has appeared in the House and is showing personal interest in the debate. There have been a number of important bills which have been under consideration and I think it is important that the Attorney General show his presence in the House. I know he is a very busy man but this one is an example of a process that is still in action and is far from reaching its state of completion.

I am pleased the Attorney General recognizes that and indicates that there is going to be openness to modifying it, amending it and moving forward as we reach a state where everybody is satisfied that there is a balance between what the public perceives to be happening and what the government is trying to do with its police forces,

This has been an interesting seven years since the Metropolitan Toronto police complaints system has been in effect, In fact, it has helped relieve a great deal of the tension that existed for some time, especially during the 1970s when people were looking for a system that could address their grievances with police forces.

I think the kind of thing I would like to see, again, is that balance which exists between the police force, whose responsibility is very real and very important, yet with that opportunity for the public at large to know that when they have a concern or a grievance of any kind there is a procedure available to them. They can take it forward, have it heard, have it understood, and then if there is a grievance, there is a follow-through on it.

1700

I would like to say that certainly in my own experience in York region, having seen how the old system has worked, it has worked extremely well. What has happened is that when people have a complaint, they have been able to take it to the police force. The police force would have it reviewed through the chief of police or the police commission. Then there would be a discussion, dialogue and resolution of those concerns that had been raised by the public at large. It is a very important process.

I have sensed, certainly in my own region, that level of compassion, concern and empathy that tells me that the people within the system are trying their best to address those concerns.

That is where a complaints procedure will be very useful in the future for those who have to go outside the existing system as we have known it. Certainly, we never want to cut off that opportunity where people can deal directly with the chief of police and have an explanation as to what has gone on. It will not always be necessary to escalate their concerns and grievances to another level.

I think it is so important that our police forces, our government and our system have that open-door policy. There are words that we have heard from this government. It starts off with good intentions. I think we have to constantly remind ourselves that the public at large has to be served and we in government have that responsibility to it, and certainly the police forces do in the way they fulfil their functions.

Therefore, when they come forward with Bill 4, I see real problems in it. It is unfortunate that there has not been some of the craftsmanship that goes into the creation of a bill. Instead of looking at the Police Act, we are seeing just another amendment to the Metropolitan Toronto Police Force Complaints Act of 1984. I guess it is easier to do it this way. I am going to accept that, because the intention of the government is obviously one of “Let’s get on with it.” So I am going to give the benefit of the doubt there.

What is paramount is that we as parliamentarians address the concerns of the public at large throughout the province. Having seen how the system has worked in Metropolitan Toronto, we are now giving that opportunity to areas outside Metropolitan Toronto to have a way of addressing those concerns that we are talking about.

I am most anxious that we do everything possible everywhere throughout the province to avoid any kind of police-community confrontations. I just have to believe it is incumbent upon all of us to instil in everyone that sense of trust, but also, when that trust has been somehow jeopardized through whatever action has taken place, to instil a sense of satisfaction that their concerns are going to be heard. What we are going to have here is that independent investigation by someone who is in a position to hear their complaints and to follow through on them.

I think this bill will inject a substantial degree of civilian involvement into the complaints process throughout the province. I do not think there is any doubt that if someone has a complaint, he has to have a way in which he can deal with it. This will make that option available to those communities that invoke it.

I guess things do not happen as fast as we would like them to happen. I heard the Attorney General say that he wants to see this passed as quickly as possible. Then what happens is that if the New Democratic Party or our party or anyone else starts raising questions, he is going to say that at long last, when he has brought this legislation in, we are slowing it up, delaying it and so on.

I hope, indeed, that we will have an opportunity for amendments. Our party certainly has a number of amendments we are going to want to bring forward on this bill, because we see it as needing certain changes to be made to it. Also, I would hope there would be an intention that, as it is refined in the future, we will have that opportunity to come back again.

I just have some worries about comments that were made by the parliamentary assistant to the Attorney General, the member for Mississauga North (Mr. Offer), because when I asked him specifically about the satisfaction level that the government has with the act as it pertains now to Metropolitan Toronto and whether or not there were going to be any changes to the bill, he indicated that to his knowledge there is no plan to do anything of that kind right now. Yet, if I am not mistaken, within the last two years there has been a certain amount of criticism by the Metropolitan Toronto Police about just some of the problems with the complaints procedure. That having been the case, are we satisfied that there is not some way of satisfying the concerns that come from the police force itself?

I guess it is the balance that we have to have. On the one side, we want to make sure that the public is protected and that people have a process by which they can state their concerns and they can be properly and duly heard, but on the other side, within the force itself, there has to be a recognition that there has to be someone there who understands their needs and their concerns.

I was surprised that the parliamentary assistant is totally satisfied with the bill as it is now. I would have thought that there may have been something in the works to change the bill. Maybe there is something where, when this does go out to committee or when there is further discussion, there will be a chance to find out if that is the case.

We are dealing with a very important bill. I think the whole idea of our expanding the service that has been available within Metro to the rest of the province, and for the public to have a chance to express its complaints and to have them heard and dealt with properly, is indeed a progressive step. I would hope that the people in this province understand that even if in the meantime there is a system that has been working very well, in fact, there are many communities that may well not want to opt into this.

I am glad it is not something that is going to be compulsory all over the province, yet I can see that there may be certain areas which will be very quick to take advantage of having the opportunity of opting in. Those same communities, once it has been in operation, might decide for whatever reason that they may want to opt out of this process.

All of what we are doing costs money. I would hope that the province has some way of helping to compensate the local municipalities for what they are doing and that there is a level of compensation that is coming through in the statements that have been made by the parliamentary assistant. I just have to say that every time I turn around, anything that we do in this Legislature costs money. It is something that has to worry all of us. Yet we are dealing with such an important area that I can recognize we have to be prepared to put our money where our mouth is. Therefore, it is so important that the province not just expect municipalities to carry the full cost.

Indeed, I know it is progress as we are dealing with it today. I hope that as it does become law in the not-too-distant future, with amendments that are going to be made to it, the people in Ontario will have an increased and renewed sense of trust and sense of knowing that we at Queen’s Park and the Legislature are not only concerned about what is happening within our police forces, but we are also concerned that they who are the people we are elected to serve are being dealt with in a fair and equitable way at all times by their own police who are there to serve them, as well.

I see this as one of those fundamental things that we are dealing with. It is not something that we can at all take lightly. I would hope that there is going to be more discussion on this than just a few short minutes this afternoon. Our party is generally in support of the intent of the bill. It was our party, when we were in power, that brought it forward in the first place. I think it is something that was overdue then. What we are bringing forward today is overdue again as it becomes something that is available to the rest of the province.

1710

May we continue to work to strengthen that relationship that exists between the public and its police; and may the police have a mechanism through this independent complaints system that will allow people who have their trust questioned to have that resolved and addressed in a fair and equitable way.

I look forward to hearing what other members in this House have to say and I certainly look forward to seeing us all working together to maintain a high level of confidence in the police force. I know that we have something to be proud of in this province, and so many people are very quick to draw conclusions about the police without having considered how much they do to keep the peace and to protect all of the people of our communities.

I know, as we have seen some of the tragedies that have taken place in recent days -- it just seems to happen all the time -- we are very fortunate in Ontario that we have the commitment of so many dedicated men and women who are part of the police system, both in local municipalities and in our Ontario Provincial Police, and certainly in the federal forces.

We therefore have to make sure that we are continuing to build upon what we have had in the past, that we respect the heritage that comes out of those who serve the needs of all the community and that, as we move into the future, we do nothing to undermine that sense of importance they have had in the past and that role they will have in the future.

Mr. Philip: I had an opportunity to study the basic issues at considerable length in 1981 when, as chairman of the standing committee on administration of justice, I had the pleasure of conducting the hearings for the original bill and indeed spent a great deal of time meeting with various groups as well as listening closely to their presentations before the committee.

I also had an opportunity at that time to study the literature considerably, and indeed entered into some considerable debate with the then Attorney General, Roy McMurtry. I think part of the issue that perhaps some members may not be prepared to look at or deal with is that, if we look at a lot of the arguments Mr. McMurtry was able to present in defence of the original bill, the Metropolitan Toronto Police Force Complaints Act, they dealt with the problem of the American cities and the way in which that society had generated into a very polarized type of society with the police on one side and the advocacy groups and the minority groups on the other side.

At that time, both we and the Liberal members in this House argued that this was a different society, that we were a society that had less polarization in the sense of that kind of polarization, although the polarization economically might be broader; that in Metropolitan Toronto at least, but also in the province as a whole, we could move farther than some of the American cities had moved; and indeed that a more independent kind of system, particularly independent investigation, would be more acceptable than it would be in even a city like Philadelphia, for example.

We were fortunate in some ways, I guess, that at the time this bill was originally introduced in 1981, the government was wise enough to appoint as the first commissioner Sidney Linden, who is generally respected, and when I say generally, I mean respected by all people, regardless of political persuasion or ideology or views on the particular mechanism of this bill.

We also had the event that the Solicitor General and the Attorney General happened to be one and the same person over a period of years. Therefore, the kind of opposition one might expect from the Solicitor General in defence of “the Solicitor General’s people” or in defence of the police was less evident because the Attorney General and the Solicitor General were the same person for a period of time.

I think that lessened some of the problems that might have happened, and that was probably a positive thing. There were a lot of negative things with having the one person as both Solicitor General and Attorney General, but I do not want to review that.

Some of you, no doubt, have probably read the speeches of my former colleague, Patrick Lawlor, member for Lakeshore, who gave some considerably learned accounts on those matters.

It seems to me that what we are doing in this bill is that we are developing the same kind of problem that the Liberal members of the standing committee on administration of justice at that time argued against and that members of the New Democratic Party were concerned about, that is, two kinds of justice.

At that time, we argued that while Metropolitan Toronto might have been unique in the sense that we had large numbers of visible minority groups that had immigrated more recently into the city and had centred in Metropolitan Toronto, many of the kinds of problems that existed also existed elsewhere and that, therefore, to restrict it to Metropolitan Toronto just did not make very much sense at all.

We now see this legislation, instead of developing a kind of uniform justice across the province, perpetuating the same kind of dual justice system. I think that one would not have to be a sociologist to hypothesize that in those municipalities where local authorities were perhaps less sensitive to the problems of complaints about the police, we would have less of a chance of those municipal councillors, municipal people, opting in to a complaints system.

It stands to reason that the people who are the most sensitive to a certain set of needs would probably be the most anxious to develop the system and that those who were least sensitive would probably be the most defensive. What I am saying is that with this legislation, the government is taking a route which may be exactly contrary to what the previous speaker said: It may actually create more polarization, because the areas where there are the most problems are the areas probably where the local authorities will be least likely to want to opt in.

Let me take it one step further. Let me suggest an argument which I think has been made in numerous ombudsmen’s circles -- and the chief of police complaints I think is an ombudsman -- and that is, it strikes me that where you have ombudsmen, where you have an independent investigative role, you tend to have less need for advocacy groups or advocacy positions. The Lord only knows, I am a person who has advocated the sponsoring of advocates in various forms where they are needed.

What I am trying to say is that where you have an independent investigative ombudsman, you have actually less polarization and less need for an advocacy kind of system because the advocacy system is there to argue on behalf of the complainant, no matter what happens, whereas the ombudsman system is there to have an independent investigation and to dispense justice in an economical way.

If we go back to some of the early studies on these matters -- I will not quote the American studies -- if we look at the report of the Morand Royal Commission into Metropolitan Toronto Police Practices, page 184, if anyone wants to look it up, the report states:

“A system must be developed for prompt, impartial, vigorous and independent investigation of such complaints, incorporating appropriate safeguards for the rights of the police officers. Such a system must be highly visible and manned by personnel who command the respect of the force and the public.”

1720

It further states, “The design of such a system is beyond the scope of this report,” but goes onto recommend that “a citizen complaint procedure must have as its central aspect an independent investigation.” If the members want the precise page in the Morand report, it happens to be page 188, for their reference. Justice Morand, in his study, says you have to set up an independent system and it also has to have an independent investigation. You cannot be a judge without also having an independent investigation.

The Maloney commission came to the conclusion that it was important that the investigators be well qualified and well trained, that they be expert in the investigative method. No one is suggesting anything to the contrary. No one is suggesting that by having an independent investigative system, somehow you are going to go out and hire a bunch of social workers or, as some of my more conservative colleagues might label them, do-gooders who are going to bleed all over the place on behalf of the complainant. No one is suggesting that.

No one is suggesting that an independent investigator should not be trained. As I suggested so many times during the last debate on this in 1981, retired police officers or police investigators or people who had immigrated from other countries perhaps and who had been trained in the investigative process in those countries indeed might make ideal investigators.

I think what we see in all the various reports over the years, if we look at them, is a historical attempt to develop a system which will be accepted by both the police and the various groups which are most concerned about it. I do not question that the Attorney General and his parliamentary assistant are interested in that.

But what I found interesting as chairman of the standing committee on administration of justice in 1981 was that if you looked at all of the groups which came before the committee at that time -- indeed, we went further than that, as our very excellent clerk of the committee, who is now sitting at the table in front of you, Mr. Speaker, will testify. We even solicited and wrote to groups and said, “Do you have an opinion on this bill?”

Not one group from any visible minority group was in favour of the bill at that time with the kind of investigative process. They all argued that in their communities only an independent investigator directly responsible to the chief Ombudsman would have the confidence of those groups. If we look at statements by members of the Liberal Party at that time -- I do not want to be provocative by reading them into the record, although I do have them in front of me -- they essentially believed in that kind of thing. That is why they supported an amendment I moved at that time which I think expresses the essence of what the Jamaican Canadian Association and so many other groups were asking for.

The amendment read: “The public complaints board shall establish and maintain for the purposes of this act an investigative branch to be known as the public complaints board complaints investigation bureau. The public complaints board shall ensure that the bureau is supplied with sufficient staff to efficiently receive, record and investigate the complaints.” That is where the struggle over the original bill lay with Mr. McMurtry, who said, as the Attorney General, “We’re not quite ready for that yet.”

One of the interesting things is that if you read through all of the Hansards -- and if you read it, it will make a beautiful historical master’s thesis or maybe even a PhD thesis for someone eventually, 30 or 40 years down the road, to trace the development of this legislation -- I think the essence of what Mr. McMurtry was saying is:

“Fine. We admit that we may not be Philadelphia. We admit that we may not be the United States” -- as it was then, and I think it may have cooled down somewhat since then as a result of the growth of the various human rights movements and so forth, but as it then existed, “None the less, we still cannot at this time go so far as a completely independent investigation. Take this at this point in time, this is all we are prepared to do, but somewhere down the line we will grow into something that is better. We will grow into something that is more acceptable, so vote for this. Don’t hold it up.”

Indeed, he did not go so far as the Attorney General just earlier did, to indicate, and I hope he was not indicating this: “Don’t amend it. Take what you got and somewhere down the line we will get something better. We’ll get something that is more saleable to both sides.” That was the argument the Liberal Party bought at that time. That was why the Liberals supported our amendments. We had similar amendments at that time that called for independent investigation.

I simply point that out by saying that one would have thought that the government would have been more consistent in government with what it was in opposition. If the arguments in that society in 1981, when I think historians will probably conclude that society may have been more polarized at that time between the police and minority groups than it is now -- I do not know for sure. I think if it is taken in a broader sense, leaving out perhaps the last few weeks and some of the unfortunate events that have happened recently, it was probably more polarized at that time.

The Liberals at that time said, “Let’s go farther,” and now we have legislation where they say, “Well, take this, because we’re not quite ready for even this.” One has to ask: If they were ready for it in 1981, in a society that was even more divided perhaps than it is now, why are they not ready for it now in a less divided society? I hope my conclusion that we are less divided is a correct one. Some historians will have to decide, I guess, in 20 or 30 years whether I am right or not.

At the time when I voted against this bill, I outlined the position of our party. I said: “Mr. Chairman, it is with some regret that our party feels it cannot support the bill. We have stated over and over again 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.”

There was no question at that time. The Liberal members and the New Democrats felt that was the essential issue of the bill, and now we are told by the successors to those Liberals -- and there are still some of those Liberals in the House, but not as many as were active in that debate.

1730

Some of the leading proponents, with perhaps the exception of the now Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) have gone on to other positions, larger salaries, whatever, but that was their position then and that is why they said that was the guts of the bill. I say that is still the guts of our problem with this bill. I think it is the problem fair-minded people still have to see.

I think you cannot have two types of justice; otherwise, you are creating an injustice by omission. I think justice has to be respected and viewed as independent. It is not good enough that it is independent; it also has to be understood and believed to be independent by those who feel an injustice is being done to them. If we do not do that, I suggest we create disrespect for the law, and in this ease disrespect for the police, and I do not think we accomplish all we are capable of achieving, in this year, at this point in our history. That is why I am somewhat disappointed with what I consider to be a backtrack by the Liberal Party in this province on this issue.

Mrs. Marland: In rising this afternoon to speak to Bill 4, An Act to amend the Metropolitan Toronto Police Force Complaints Act, 1984, I want to say at the outset that I respect the fact that every one of us in this Legislature would concur that this whole area is one which is very sensitive. It is also one that in everyone’s best interests we must all address very carefully. I say that on both sides of the extremities of the subject of complaints against police forces.

In the kind of society in which we live today, we obviously have a far different community from that of our parents, grandparents and great-grandparents. In fact, I think if we only go back two generations we probably would find that a lot of the law enforcement was done by people who those within the communities knew very well on a personal basis.

We had smaller communities. We had the opportunity for the law enforcers within those communities to walk the streets, to get to know who the ambitious, aggressive, rebel-inclined individuals were in a community. They also got to know who it was they would never have to worry about. The people responsible for keeping law and order in our communities developed what was generally always perceived as being a positive image. It was an image most people looked up to with a great deal of respect.

Now that we have grown into a less law-abiding society and we have larger communities and many different sophisticated elements within our cities, towns and villages, we have many influences that are so sophisticated that those influences themselves no longer necessarily come from within our own communities, let alone our province and in a lot of instances even our country.

We are dealing with kinds of sophistication in the enactment of crime today, crimes of violence, crimes of coercion, crimes of personal and petty assault -- any type of criminal offence at all that the law enforcers are faced with today -- that are a very different challenge to those people responsible for keeping law and order in our society than they were a number of years ago.

With the kind of sophistication of communication, it is much easier today for outside international influences and organizations to affect the opportunity for us to live in a state of freedom and safety as citizens in our everyday lives.

The fact is that I can stand here on January 5, 1989, and tell members that when I came to Queen’s Park almost four years ago, I did not hesitate to go out to my car in the parking lot outside this Legislative Building at night. Even four years ago, I did not hesitate to go into an underground parking garage in a city of two million people like Toronto. We were Toronto the Good. We have always boasted the fact that we are one of the safest cities in North America.

Unfortunately, some of the very strong elements of influence on our city are now becoming more and more prevalent to where today, in 1989, I no longer go into underground garages at all, unaccompanied. I certainly do not go in at night. I do not go in during the day unless I am accompanied and I do not drive at any time at night or during daylight hours anywhere in this city without my doors locked.

The reason I give that little scenario about where we are today in our society is because I am looking for protection for myself, my family, my friends and my associates in this Legislature from a body that is responsible and whose job and mandate are to protect us. When I look to the police forces to protect us, I recognize that I give them a great deal of responsibility because of the kind of sophisticated crime that is far too quickly becoming a way of life in our North American communities.

It stands to reason that if in the enforcement of law and in order to protect us, the police are faced with far greater challenges than they were a number of years ago, it also follows, very logically and in common sense, that their job is far, far more difficult than it ever was a number of years ago.

I also recognize that in a police force, as in any profession -- I emphasize the word “profession” because I think on the whole the calibre of police officers who are trained today in the police forces in this province and this country is of a very high professional level. But I am not so naïve as not to recognize that in every police force, as in every profession, there are always those who are less than at the level of being professional or responsible in their activity.

We have politicians in this world today who are less than perfect. You certainly can have any professions you want to name, whether it is lawyers who are disbarred or doctors who are removed from practising medicine; I may even say dentists who are removed from practising. Architects, engineers, accountants -- no matter what professional group of employment you look at there are always to use the very old description, bad apples in every barrel.

1740

However I think it behooves all of us to very responsibly recognize that because there are exceptions, where we have people who are not perfect -- because we are not a perfect world or a perfect society -- we should not very quickly tarnish the rest of that profession with the same brush.

Frankly, I feel that in today’s society it is very important we have a process through which the public, if necessary, can lay complaints against a police officer or officers in the execution of their duty, but I think it is equally important we ensure that those officers against whom those complaints are laid are given equal justice. I wonder whether the process that is presently laid out provides that equal justice.

If an officer, in the execution of his duty as a police officer, is exploiting his power, his authority, his strength, his equipment, in any way against the public that is unnecessary at all, then that officer certainly has to be called to task and whatever consequences would follow, depending on the degree of the misuse of his position, must follow -- most definitely and without any question.

But I have to say, on the other hand, that we cannot have a society where it evolves that complaints become a way of defence of the accused in a criminal case by way of putting down the responsibility of the police in executing their job by bringing to the attention of a police force false accusations in the form of complaints. If we have valid complaints, it will follow that there will be valid processing of those complaints, because we have that act today.

What we must be careful of is that while it seems sometimes to be a very popular position to be down on the police, we have to be very sure that we are not down on them as a whole but where there is individual, documented evidence of cases where the police officer has not acted appropriately to his or her responsibility. It is only in those cases that we deal with those individuals.

I would not want to serve as a police officer in any police force today in any country, nor would I want any of my family to do so. Quite frankly, as things evolve -- and certainly we have seen some examples of it, unfortunately, in the last six months in Ontario -- it seems that as soon as the public gets on the back of the police officer or officers, the judgement is made, and it is made without any evidence even being heard. Suddenly, the police are totally wrong and the complainant is totally right.

Until the case is heard, I think it would behoove all of us to execute our responsibility in not joining the throng of what is a popular mode with the public today: “Let’s damn the police because they really are just brutal people who do not really know how to be professional in dealing with some of the people with whom they have to come in contact.” I have to say that without the evidence and the facts being before any of us, we are very irresponsible to join a throng of support on one side or the other.

I think one of the problems with the Metropolitan Toronto Police Force Complaints Act is the fact that at the moment we do not have a judge who heads the panel of inquiry in order to ensure that rules of evidence or a judicial fairness takes place. We should have a judge who heads the panel. We should make sure we do not have what can occur now without a judge. With no judge, there are no rules of evidence, and without any rules of evidence, what we are saying is that someone can be guilty with very weak evidence and in some cases with just hearsay.

If this system is flawed, and it has been proven that it is in some areas, and requires some further changes, then I wonder about the fact that it is really counterproductive to foist this existing system on the rest of the province.

We are talking about a professional’s career when we talk about a complaint against a police officer. Since we have wrongful dismissals, goodness knows, of civil servants whose cases end up in a court of law -- wrongful dismissals today are a very commonplace form of hearing in a court of law -- how is it that the future of a police officer’s career is not heard, debated, discussed and decided upon with some basic rules of evidence? I think it is important that these hearings are conducted at a higher level of professional procedure.

I think also there should be a ban on publication for privacy in these matters; an impartial decision cannot be made if the public and the media have already decided the case.

I also think we should have a statute of limitations placed on the complaints. It hardly makes sense that complaints more than two years old are sometimes brought forward. How difficult, in fact almost impossible, it would be to investigate claims of two years ago. Whose evidence, whose recall would be the most accurate? What was being said could be challenged very easily.

Yet here again, we are dealing with the future of an individual and his family. We are dealing with the future of a police officer. If you lose your job as a police officer on unfair grounds, what other job could you get? Where could that police officer go? What is the future for him in any job market? Certainly, what is the future for his family? To be damned without a proper hearing in this day and age would be regressive.

I understand the police would prefer that complaints were made by those involved, for example, witnesses or victims. Quite frankly, I did not know that complaints could be made by people other than people involved. If you are not a witness or a victim, how can you make a complaint? Are you making it on third-party hearsay? On that basis, possibly more than two years later, are we going to strip an officer of his uniform, his future and his livelihood? Based on what? We do not treat anybody else that way, so I do not see why we should treat police officers that way.

There has been a suggestion that the chief of police should have a say or at least some input -- just a say, perhaps -- into the final decision in the discipline of police officers when they are convicted. I do not think there is anyone who knows better than the chiefs of police in this province what kind of discipline should be best applied to a convicted police officer.

1750

My goodness, with the level of professionalism that those police officers in this province hold today, do members think that it is possible that any chief of his force wants to have somebody on his force who has been convicted and will tarnish the reputation of his force? Surely they, above anyone else, know what kind of discipline should be deemed appropriate for those officers.

They are certainly not going to be light on that discipline because they have forces to administer. I was going to say manpower, but they have other people power, goodness knows, men and women -- this silly terminology we have got into -- but there are other members of their forces and the standard of their performance is the most important thing to that police chief. As a member of the public, I want to tell members that the performance of that police force is the most important thing to me; that I and my family can be safe in today’s society in Ontario.

I feel that it is far too easy for criminal charges to be laid against police officers without the ground rules being equal to those of other people. I think that today when criminal charges are finally laid and that officer is brought into court, at least they have their day in court and at least then the public can hear the facts.

Perhaps when there is sufficient evidence -- and that can only be decided if we have some rules of evidence with these panels of inquiry that enforce the complaints against police officers -- only when all of those things are equal are we dealing humanely with the professional police officer and, as importantly, are we dealing humanely and fairly with the public.

It is very unfair for us to suggest to the public that a fair process exists if it does not. The public should be able to complain, as I said at the outset, when they have a legitimate complaint against a police officer in the execution of his or her duty, but we better be sure that there is an equity of opportunity on both sides of those hearings of those complaints so that we do not have unequal judgements being made based on unequal evidence.

Any one of us would not wish to be found guilty in the media, guilty outside of a courtroom, guilty by third-party hearsay, without the kind of evidence that is needed in any other crime. If we, as individuals, cannot be found guilty of assault without a proper court procedure and hearing and laying of charges, then how is it possible we might consider making a decision about an officer who is risking his or her life every single day, minute and hour of their time on duty to protect us, the public?

I just want to say in closing that the enforcement of law and order in today’s society has to be the most difficult job that anyone can be committed to. The fact that we still have people who want to serve the public by being professional police officers in Ontario today is something I think we have to be very grateful for. I am proud of the police forces in this province. I am proud of the men and women who elect to serve in those police forces. I know that each and every one of them wants to be proud of the members of their individual forces.

They, above all, do not want any of the so-called bad apples within their forces to go undetected, undisciplined and without a fair and judicial hearing. They are not the professionals they are today without wanting to maintain that level of professionalism.

As they serve all of us, with the minute-by-minute risks in today’s society that they do face, I think we should thank them for the job they do publicly, instead of being so willing to damn them on information that is suddenly blown out of proportion through our electronic and print media which today supposedly sophisticates our communication. In fact, sometimes I wonder if it complicates our communication, because we do not always get all the facts and, suddenly, someone is guilty without the facts being known.

I am simply saying that it is right that we have a process that protects the public against the bad apple in a police force, but we better be sure that we recognize that it is the police force and its professionalism that protects us.

I recognize that the bill now gives an option to the municipalities around the province to opt out, as a result of a request by my colleague the member for Carleton (Mr. Sterling), and we appreciate the fact that the option for municipalities to opt out of this particular act and have their own hearings is now before us.

I just hope that before this act becomes province-wide, we can look for the kinds of improvements that I have outlined this afternoon in my comments. Basically, the bottom line of that is that we ensure equity on both sides of a complaint issue, so that the professional officer is protected and the public is protected too.

The Deputy Speaker: Any questions and comments on the member’s statement?

Mr. McClelland: It being so near six o’clock, I want to make a few introductory comments prior to adjourning the debate for this evening and resuming when this comes up next for discussion.

At the outset, I want to associate myself with some of the concluding comments made by the member for Mississauga South (Mrs. Marland). I want to be very clear and say that for the police force in the region from which I come and which I represent --

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I asked for questions and comments on the member’s statement.

Mr. McClelland: Pardon me, Mr. Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker: Since there were none, will somebody wish to adjourn the debate? Is that what you wanted to do? Did you want to adjourn the debate?

Mr. McClelland: Mr. Speaker, with your direction, having regard to the time, I will adjourn the debate at this present time and proceed at the next appropriate occasion.

Mr. Ballinger: Oh, we were getting all excited to hear from you.

On motion by Mr. McClelland, the debate was adjourned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Conway: Hearing from the member for Durham-York (Mr. Ballinger) reminds me that we must be very close to adjournment. I will, pursuant to standing order 13, indicate the business of the House for the coming week.

On Monday, January 9, we will deal with the adjourned debate on Bill 4. We will then consider second reading of Bill 69, An Act to amend the Education Act; Bill 186, An Act to provide for the Allocation of Certain Payments or Grants in Lieu of Taxes made by Canada to Municipalities in respect of Lands that are Exempt from Taxation, and Bill 194, An Act to restrict Smoking in Workplaces.

On Tuesday, January 10, we will deal with second reading of Bill 70, An Act to amend the Education Act; Bill 199, An Act to amend The Ryerson Polytechnical Institute Act; Bill 149, An Act to amend the Trespass to Property Act, and Bill 187, An Act to amend certain Acts as they relate to Police and Sheriffs.

On Wednesday, January 11, we will continue the adjourned debate on Bill 147, An Act respecting Independent Health Facilities.

On Thursday, January 12, in the morning, we will deal with private members’ business standing in the names of the member for Peterborough (Mr. Adams) and the member for Kitchener (Mr. D. R. Cooke).

In the afternoon of Thursday, January 12, we will consider the estimates of the Ministry of Housing.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.