Hansard Transcript 1988-Dec-08 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Mr. Epp: It is my intention to reserve approximately four minutes for the windup. I also hope, since a number of the members have prepared to speak, that enough time will be allotted so that each of the other parties will have an opportunity to have two speakers for a certain length of time. I know that each of them will not have 10 minutes, but I know that one of the members would at least like a few minutes at the end, and I hope that will be allowed.

At the outset, I want to give credit to all members of the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly which is represented by all three political parties. They have worked long and they have worked hard on this bill. Although this bill comes under my name and I have chosen it as my private member’s item, in fact, it is a bill that emanates from the Legislative Assembly committee and therefore I want to give credit to the members.

In looking at this bill, I find that there are basically two things that it does. One is it removes the word “molestation” because of its ambiguity and because it can either be interpreted in a very narrow sense or a broad sense, and there has been confusion regarding that matter in the past.

Second, section 38a is installed in the Legislative Assembly Amendment Act and it says, “No person shall make a personal service that is required or authorized by law in a civil matter upon another person.” I want to emphasize that it says “upon another person” because it means not only members but also people outside of the member constituency here, the people who are working in this building. It includes everyone in this building and in other buildings that are incorporated in this act. It says:

“(b) in a room or place in Ontario in which a duly constituted committee of the assembly is meeting; or

“(c) in an office of a member of the assembly, other than a constituency office, that is situate outside the Legislative Building, and that is designated by the Speaker for the purposes of this section.”

In other words, it includes everyone in this building. It includes everyone in the Whitney Block who is associated with the members, as I understand it, on two floors there. It includes the various ministries where we have ministers, whether it is the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) on King Street, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Sorbara) on University Avenue, or the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) on St. Clair Avenue. It includes all the ministers, ministry staff in that particular office and the parliamentary assistants who are usually located in the immediate vicinity of the minister.

It is a fairly broad interpretation of the areas that it covers and I want to emphasize the fact that it covers these places and it does not limit it to the members themselves.

The question then arises as to why this particular amendment is necessary at this particular time. I want to go back to 1978 when the case of the member for Huron (Mr. Riddell), now Minister of Agriculture and Food, came before this House and he was served with a notice of action under the Libel and Slander Act at his Queen’s Park office. The Legislature was in session at the time and the matter was referred to the standing committee on procedural affairs after the member complained that the service constituted a breach of section 38.

If we look at section 38 of the Legislative Assembly Act, it says, “Except for a contravention of this act, a member of the assembly is not liable to arrest, detention or molestation for any cause or matter whatever of a civil nature during a session of the Legislature or during the 20 days preceding or the 20 following a session.”

A session, as members know, starts with the throne speech. If the current session winds up somewhere in January, as might be predicted by some, then it would be either 20 days before that throne speech, which we had earlier this year, or 20 days after next January -- whatever that day happens to be. It incorporates those times.

The counsel to the committee that was hearing the case of the member for Huron, Burton Kellock, concluded that section 38 did not create an immunity from the institution of civil proceedings nor did it create an immunity from service of process. In arriving at this conclusion, Mr. Kellock noted that it is clear from the debates at the time the Legislative Assembly Act was passed in 1876 that the member did not intend blanket immunity from civil proceedings.

Mr. Kellock also pointed out that the word “molestation” was used in section 38 in conjunction with the words “detention and arrest,” and principles of statutory construction suggest that molestation should be interpreted as being analogous to detention or arrest. An actual interference with the person was required, he felt. By extension, he felt an actual interference with the member for Huron did not take place.

Mr. Kellock then referred to the express prohibition in section 37 against civil actions arising from statements made before the assembly or a committee and he argued that it should be presumed no further immunity from civil action was intended unless specifically stated elsewhere in the act.

1010

The member for Huron, when he came before the committee, argued that service process amounted to molestation. He noted that the Ontario Legislature, in 1876 and thereafter, specifically included the word “molestation” in its legislation and did not simply content itself with adopting the United Kingdom position which specifically negated immunity from civil proceedings.

The member also noted that section 45 of the Legislative Assembly Act, relating to privilege and contempt matters, provides a separate paragraph for molestation. That is paragraph 45(1)11. If you read section 45(1) it says, “The assembly has all the rights and privileges of a court of record for the purposes of summarily inquiring into and punishing, as breaches of privilege or as contempts and without affecting the liability of the offenders to prosecution and punishment criminally or otherwise according to law, independently of this act, the acts, matters and things following.”

Then paragraph 11 says, “Causing or effecting the arrest, detention or molestation of a member of the assembly for any cause or matter of a civil nature during a session of the Legislature or during the 20 days preceding or the 20 days following a session.”

Paragraph 2 refers to “Obstructing, threatening or attempting to force or intimidate a member.”

Therefore, molestation must mean something different from physical interference with a member. This is what the member argued at the time. It is important that in its report the standing committee on procedural affairs, the predecessor to the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly, rejected the conclusion of its counsel, Mr. Kellock, and found that the member’s privileges had been breached. It did not, however -- and this is important -- recommend any further action by the Legislature.

Another case that we have to look at is one that occurred in 1986. It occurred in the standing committee on public accounts. I was a member of the public accounts committee at the time. I was there at the time it occurred. A summons was put in the hands of the former member for Brantford. He was called away from the committee proceedings and it was given to him in the back of room 151. As a result of this particular matter, questions of privilege arose and the matter was referred to the standing committee of the Legislative Assembly. It held several days of hearings and subsequently wrote a report which was dated April 29, 1987.

The committee found that there had been a breach of privilege, but that no action should be taken against any individual involved in the matter. The committee went on to recommend that the Legislative Assembly Act be amended. It also recommended that an educational campaign related to contempts of parliament be undertaken. Repealing section 38 and re-enacting it in the form set out in my bill was recommended. I want to quote the statement which came out of the Legislative Assembly committee hearings at the time:

“The committee is of the opinion that sufficient uncertainty exists with respect to the interpretation of section 38 of the Legislative Assembly Act that the section should be repealed and provision made to specifically prohibit the service of civil process” -- I want to emphasize civil process here as opposed to criminal process – “upon any person in the Legislative Building, in any room in which a properly constituted committee of the House is meeting while the committee is meeting away from the seat of government, and in the legislative office of a member which is not located within the Legislative Building. In the latter case, such an office would not include the constituency office of a member but would include a member’s office in the Whitney Block or a similar office assigned to a minister of the crown or a parliamentary assistant. Such an office would be designated to be an office for the purposes of this section of the act by the Speaker.”

In looking at this, I want to emphasize the fact that it also would include, as was pointed out in this section, the travels of a committee. As members know, the committees from time to time travel to other parts of the province, and rightly so. They might travel to Thunder Bay, Windsor, Oshawa or wherever in the province and have hearings. As a result, wherever those committees are meeting those rooms could be designated by the Speaker beforehand and a civil process could not be placed on a member in those particular areas.

To go a little further, I want to look at the contempt aspect of this bill and the fact that someone might be found in contempt if he violated the act as it now states or as the amendment would have it. Subsection 45(1) of the Legislative Assembly Act gives the assembly the power to punish those who commit acts that breach parliamentary privilege or that amount to contempt. Paragraph 45(1)11, as I have read, provides that the molestation of a member falls within the category of breach of privilege and contempt.

Section 46 of the act provides that “Every person, who upon such inquiry, is found to have committed or done any of the acts, matters, or things mentioned in section 45, in addition to any other penalty or punishment to which he may by law be subject, is liable to imprisonment for such time during the session of the Legislature then being held as is determined by the assembly.”

If we look at some of the other parliaments or assemblies in the country, we find that the Canadian House of Commons or the Senate “may commit a person found to be in contempt of Parliament to jail until the session is prorogued.” The commitment can be revived in the next session and even in the next session of Parliament. If someone were held in jail after prorogation or dissolution, that person could be released by the court by means of a writ of habeas corpus. This power has not been used since 1913. That is in Ottawa.

Just by looking at some of the other legislatures in Canada, we find that in Manitoba molestation is included. I presume that serving a summons on someone in a civil matter could be constituted as a contempt of the House. In Saskatchewan it is included, and imprisonment for any period of time determined by the assembly is the penalty. I am not sure how long that might be. In Alberta it is imprisonment during the session and a fine in an amount fixed by the assembly, and molestation is included. In British Columbia, molestation is included and imprisonment during the session.

Although in its history this House has had someone at the bar of the House for violating the rules of the House and of the building, the person apologized and was not put in chains or put in jail or anything of that nature.

Mr. Wildman: Do you advocate that?

Mr. Epp: A member asked whether I advocate it, and I am not advocating it.

If we look at the service of process in some of the other parliamentary precincts -- and by speaking about parliamentary precincts we are speaking about this building and two floors of the Whitney Block, as I indicated, which are usually referred to as the parliamentary precinct -- according to some of the history on this, the best information I have been able to gather on it, “The House has jurisdiction to keep order and maintain decorum within its precincts and may make rules with respect to the conduct of strangers admitted to the precincts.”

The matter of service or delivery of documents within the precincts of the House is not specifically mentioned in the Legislative Assembly Act or the standing orders. However, the principle is well established by parliamentary precedent and tradition that it is a contempt of the House to serve or to attempt to serve a civil or criminal process within the precincts of the House on a day on which the House or any committee thereof is to sit, is sitting or has sat, without having obtained the leave of the House or its chief officer, the Speaker.

1020

A member of Parliament as such is not privileged from service of process. In other words, a member of Parliament can be served but must be served outside of the legislative precinct. However, if a member is immune from service of process within the precincts of the House while the House is sitting, it must be in virtue of a privilege enjoyed by the House in its corporate capacity. This privilege is enjoyed by the House in its corporate capacity on the ground that the service or attempted service of the process of an inferior tribunal in the presence, actual or constructive, of the House is clearly a violation of the dignity of, and an insult to, Parliament.

This was the conclusion that was reached in Australia, and it is also one that is concurred with by the Parliamentary Privilege in Canada on page 145, which was stated some time ago: “It follows that as the privilege is enjoyed by the House while sitting, service of process within its precincts must constitute a contempt or breach of that privilege regardless of whether the person served or attempted to be served is a member or another person.”

In other words, it does extend everything to beyond the members themselves, and I am very pleased that everyone in the building is protected. As a person indicated to me not very long ago, this individual was served in this House with a summons and was not a member. Under this particular amendment, that person and every other person would be protected from service because it is the privilege that extends to the House and not to the members.

We could go into a number of other examples, but I do want to say at this point, and I am going to leave the rest of my time to wind up later, that I think I have made the case that we should make a change in the present Legislative Assembly Act, that we should clarify the word “molestation” and that we should clarify what is meant by serving a summons in the House on a civil matter. Although I do not for a moment pretend that this act is perfect -- in some years’ time, if it is adopted by the House, it may need some changes -- nevertheless, I think it will serve better our particular needs in this chamber, in this building and elsewhere than the present legislation does.

Mr. Breaugh: I rise to support the bill and I want to begin by saying that the member for Waterloo North (Mr. Epp) has brought forward this morning a private member’s bill that deals with a matter that the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly has struggled with.

The question of privilege and serving of papers on a member is perhaps not very interesting to most folks, perhaps not even to members here. But the committee itself that dealt with the matter has had similar questions before it on several occasions and knows that there is a bit of a problem with it; it sought to bring forward a bill from a committee, which is a kind of unusual approach to take with legislation. That did not quite meet with everybody’s needs, so we struck upon the idea that perhaps the chairman of the committee should bring the bill forward as a private member’s bill.

I hope frankly that this will be one of those rare private member’s bills that actually becomes law. I do think that, although it seems a bit arcane in trying to discuss it, it is something that needs to be done.

In my office, I can tell when there is trouble brewing around here because the copy of an old document called Erskine May goes missing. That means that there are foul deeds afoot or about to happen somewhere in and around these chambers. For those members who do not read this kind of stuff, Erskine May’s Parliamentary Practice is a collection of parliamentary precedents, a thousand years of devious political minds at work and what happened after they did their devious deeds.

The question of privilege is probably not widely understood, but it is pretty important in a parliament that members be free to speak. We sometimes forget, of course, that in the early days of parliament members did not feel quite free to speak, and while it seems to be stretching the point a little now to talk about it, in the very first days of the British Parliament the members met in secret, and for good reason. They were quite afraid, logically, and the fear was real, that the monarchy did not want these jerks hanging around forming a parliament and said so with great regularity.

In addition to the monarchy not being terribly happy with the idea of a parliament, there were a lot of other people around who did not like it either. So Erskine May is fascinating stuff, because members in this assembly in this day and age get a little threatened when somebody serves them with a piece of paper. In the early days of parliament, they used to beat them on the head and there was not much of a discussion about molestation, everybody knew what that meant: somebody was going to beat you up on the way into your parliament. They did this regularly. They would kidnap members and throw them into the Tower of London --

Mr. Wildman: That happened particularly to the Speaker.

Mr. Breaugh: The Speaker was often very threatened by all of this. Now when we elect a new Speaker, there is a joking motion where the leaders drag him into the assembly. In the early days, there was no joke about this. The Speaker was the person who carried the bad news of the parliament to the monarch and if the monarch did not like what he or she heard, off came the head; off he went to the Tower of London. So at the beginning of the process, it was not quite as --

Mr. Wildman: Our Speaker went for the scalp.

Mr. Breaugh: Speakers should remember that. We could revert to earlier practices.

At the beginning of parliament, all of these kinds of theoretical, airy-fairy, arcane problems were very real to members. Even these days, it is important that we retain the right of the members of the assembly to speak freely, and so we roughly confuse that term of privilege with a lot of other things; but it is not the privilege of an individual member to do what he or she wants. It is the privilege of a parliament to deal with matters, to speak freely, to not be inhibited by means of fear of getting beaten up, which was a very real fear early on. Perhaps these days, a more practical fear would be that someone would serve a member with legal papers on a civil matter and tie him up with litigation.

Most of the members in this assembly, I dare say, have not had this honour and privilege, but I have and so have several other members. On more than one occasion, we have said something in here or outside that somebody did not like.

Mr. Wildman: Oh, no.

Mr. Breaugh: This is hard to believe, I know, but even I have on occasion said something in the chamber or outside the chamber that someone took exception to.

I do not understand this at all and I must confess that the first time that some young, well-dressed person came up to me and handed me what is known as a process paper, I was a little disturbed by it all. I do not normally get sued by people for things that I say. They throw things at me and they yell at me a lot, but they do not normally take me to court. So on the first occasion when this happens, it becomes a little more real in your own mind about whether or not you can be intimidated by someone handing you a piece of paper. The truth is that you can.

As a matter of fact, this bill came about because of that very type of incident happening. I think it was the previous member for Brantford who had said something in here that somebody did not like. Where I come from, they would probably yell at you, and in other quarters it is quite a natural, normal thing that you call your lawyer and your lawyer serves them with pieces of paper and you threaten to take them to court; you are going to sue them for a great amount of money. Essentially, that is all this bill deals with. It says that you can do that, but you cannot stand outside the door of the chamber and do that. You cannot go to the member’s office and do that. You leave him alone while he is in the parliamentary precincts.

In other jurisdictions, they have worked out different ways of doing this. In most parliaments around the world, they agree with the notion that you cannot invade the parliament with your legal staff and threaten the members. Some of them will say, “But you could do that outside,” and they will name a street corner where papers of a civil matter can be served. There is no protection here, nor should there be, for any member who has committed some kind of criminal offence.

There has never been an intention to protect members from criminal prosecutions, nor should there be, but the bill itself, in a straightforward way, attempts to put into modern language and modern practice a very ancient tradition and one that I think is important to the workings of a parliament, to the workings of this assembly, and that is to provide the members with a reasonable amount of latitude in terms of what they can say.

1030

It would be wrong to go through this discussion this morning without pointing out that members of this assembly, like the members of any other parliament that has offered privilege to its members, have a special obligation. The fact that they should not be sued for things they say in the chamber -- that definition is expanded somewhat under this bill -- brings with it the obligation to be mindful that they cannot abuse that.

This bill does not offer members any protection at all, nor should it, if they do abuse it. It does not say that they can come in here and call everybody under the sun bad names. It does not mean that they can come into this chamber and accuse someone else of lying or cheating or fraud or things of that nature and carry on in a way that would be irresponsible. Members should not think that they have any protection in that regard, because they do not.

What it does say is that they have a right to come into the parliamentary precincts and do what they were elected to do, and that is to represent their constituents and the people of Ontario in a free and responsible way. If they abuse that privilege, they will suffer the sanctions that all parliaments have, and we have gone through that exercise here, where we think that a member has misbehaved in some way, not in a criminal sense perhaps but not behaved as a member should. We have our own little disciplinary actions for that type of activity.

At the heart of what is in this bill is a very simple premise, that a parliament does not work unless the members of that parliament have some measure of protection to speak freely. In the early days, this was a very real problem and there was a reason why the benches are supposed to be two swords’ lengths apart and why the symbol of Her Majesty’s power is on the table. It is the old equivalent of a baseball bat, called a mace.

Those traditions are very much a part of this assembly as well. They change in their nature. There are very few members who are beaten up on the way in here, but there are still members who are threatened and impeded from doing their job properly by means of someone either threatening to sue them or actually serving them with papers.

Once this has happened a couple of times to them, the thrill does evaporate somewhat. The members will know that people cannot threaten to sue them, and if they come in here and raise a point of privilege, the Speaker will enforce the traditions of this parliament. Usually, it is sufficient for the Speaker of the assembly to notify the lawyer that they should not have done that. Usually, process servers will know that they should not be serving such documents on members inside the assembly or in the precincts as they are defined here.

That does not stop a good lawyer from doing it, though. Good lawyers know that what you can do and what you legally should do are often two very different things, and although you may have no intention of ever carrying through with a lawsuit, it is not a bad practice to serve people with paper. It kind of gets their heads up and they start thinking about what they are doing.

This bill, I think, is supportable by all members. It is unique in the sense that it is the first time I have seen a committee put forward a bill and the chairman of the committee present it as a private bill. I believe it deserves members’ support.

Mr. Sterling: At the outset of my remarks, I would like to thank the member for Waterloo North for bringing forward this bill. As he mentioned, this bill is not only his bill but a bill of each and every member of the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly. The member for Waterloo North, like every other member, has only one opportunity each year to bring forward a private member’s bill, and I want to thank him for putting on the back burner some of his own individual pet desires in bringing forward a private member’s bill and taking on the mandate of the Legislative Assembly committee.

We have heard, both from the member for Waterloo North and the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh), the reasoning and the logic behind bringing forward this bill. I will only add that when the incident took place in 1986 with Mr. Gillies, I happened to be a member of the committee when Mr. Gillies was served in a committee room with civil documents relating to a libel and slander suit against him by someone who was under discussion that very day in that committee.

I am not dealing with the merits of whether members should be served or not served in their offices or staff should be served in this building or not served in this building, but what this piece of legislation will do is clarify for the public at large what they are to do when they have to serve either a member of the Legislature or someone who is on the staff of a member of the Legislature. If this bill does become law, which I believe it will, they will know that they have to do it outside these precincts and that normally that is done by phoning the member or phoning the staff member and arranging to meet somewhere outside of these precincts.

That way, we do not have the embarrassment of it happening here or the allegation that someone is being intimidated in his or her duties as a member of this Legislature in what he is elected to do, which is to represent his constituents. I think that is the whole idea behind all of these sections: A member of the Legislature, as an elected representative of his constituents, should not have his personal life, with regard to suit against him in a personal capacity, mixed with that elected duty.

I wanted to comment briefly on the process that we are going through today, because it is somewhat historic in that we have never before, to my knowledge at least, in the last 11 years that I have been elected, had a committee chairman bring forward a bill before this Legislature on behalf of his committee.

I want to talk about three kinds or levels of legislation that we deal with in the House. The first kind of legislation and policy that we deal with is legislation which has a wide-ranging effect on all the public of Ontario and has a very, very high profile. I would group into that kind of legislation and policy-making matters like Sunday shopping, auto insurance, the free trade debate, amendments to the Human Rights Code and those kinds of matters. Generally speaking, that kind of legislation is only brought forward by the government, with strong participation by the Premier and the chief members of his cabinet.

Then on the second scale I would put matters of medium significance. They may be of great significance to some people in our province or some groups of people in our province, but generally speaking, they do not affect the lives of each and every member of the province. I would put into that category a minister’s legislation, such as some of the legislation we are dealing with right now from the Ministry of Agriculture and Food. It is very important to our agricultural community, but probably of little general interest to the rest of the population of the province. Their interest is only general as far as the health of our farming community is concerned; it will not be touching them in a very direct manner.

Another matter which I would put into this medium-significance category because of its nature would be my involvement with the Niagara Escarpment plan, where it geographically only deals directly with a number of people, although environmentalists from across the province are interested in it in a certain manner. Generally, those kinds of pieces of legislation are brought forward by a minister and carried forward by him.

The third kind of legislation is the kind of legislation we are dealing with today, and this legislation concerns a relatively small number of individuals in our province and is generally of a procedural nature. It deals with inconsistencies in our laws and situations where it is unclear what the law is or is not. It is in this third category that I would like to see the leadership of the member for Waterloo North and the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly carried forward by other committees of this Legislature.

1040

I do not think that we, as members of the Legislature, should continue to write reams and reams and volumes and volumes of different reports on problems we encounter as legislators, recognize them through long hearings, put them in reports, let the reports sit on the shelf, and then because they are not of a high-profile nature, they are never brought down off that shelf and put into legislation.

We go through life in Ontario with unclear laws, procedures that are cumbersome and inconsistencies in our laws, when in fact a committee of the Legislature has recognized those inconsistencies, has recognized the lack of clarity and could bring forward a bill before the Legislature for us to consider.

At the present time, we have three types of legislation that can be brought forward to the House. We have government bills, which normally pass all the way through the Legislature. We have private members’ bills, which we are dealing with here this morning, which rarely pass through the Legislature, although I think Mr. Epp’s will be an exception because of the all-round party support on it. We have private bills, which deal with individual corporations and very minor matters.

I would like to see a fourth kind of legislation. I would like to see a committee-sponsored bill that would receive not only a passing glance, but a serious look by the government House leader, and would be brought forward not only for second reading, as we are doing today, but also for third and final reading. I do not expect the government to allow a committee to bring forward a huge, significant bill that is going to deal with changing the lives of each and every citizen in Ontario. I believe that is the prerogative of the government. That is what they were elected to do.

I see it as very distasteful in the legislative process that as we legislators sit on the committees and recognize there is a small problem here or a small problem there, yet we have no power to change that law, but only to note it in a report and hope that some time in the next 20 to 25 years the minister will be changing his legislation and will include this small change in that legislation.

I do not believe in the maxim, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” I believe that if you see it is broken even a little bit, you should rush to fix it. That is what we are doing here today. We are fixing a minor cloud in terms of the law in Ontario. I would like to see this government accept more and more committee bills, as I believe it will accept that of the member for Waterloo North. I congratulate him on his leadership in terms of the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly and give him my wholehearted support.

Mr. Campbell: I rise in support of the bill of the member for Waterloo North. I want to outline some of the jurisdictional situations that occur in other jurisdictions and deal a bit with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and its relationship to this bill. I understand other members wish to speak to this and I will not use up my full time so that other members may participate in this debate.

To start, I reiterate a couple of things that have been pointed out by a number of previous speakers. The first thing is that this bill deals with the ability of members to effectively operate and perform their elected duty. It ensures that the historic rights of parliament, which we have inherited as part of our legislative history, are protected. It does not allow members to avoid responsibilities and duties outside their lives as elected officials. Writs may be served for any private matter, but not within the precincts of the Legislative Assembly.

The House has jurisdiction to keep order and maintain decorum within its precincts, and may make rules with respect to the conduct of strangers admitted to these precincts. The matter of service or delivery of documents within the precincts of the House is not specifically mentioned in the Legislative Assembly Act or the standing orders; hence the need to try and clarify this situation.

However, the principle is well established by parliamentary precedent and tradition that it is contempt of the House to serve, or attempt to serve, a criminal or civil process within the precincts of the House on a day on which the House, or any committee thereof, is to sit, is sitting or has sat, without having obtained the leave of the House or its chief officer, the Speaker.

A member of parliament, as such, is not privileged from the service of process. However, if a member is immune from service of process within the precincts of the House while the House is sitting, it must be in virtue of a privilege enjoyed by the House in its corporate capacity. This privilege is enjoyed by the House in its corporate capacity on the grounds that the service or attempted service of the process of an inferior tribunal in the presence, actual or constructed, of the House is clearly a violation of the dignity of and an insult to parliament.

The immunity and protection afforded by the House may in exceptional cases be withheld, but to draw a distinction between members and other persons in this regard would expose the House to the reproach of stretching the compass of dignity too far and applying it to the individual instead of to the House. This has been recognized in two cases at the House of Commons in London -- the report of the committee of privileges in Inspector Henderson’s case, 1945, and the report to the committee of privileges in the case of Ray Carter, MP, 1972. Both dealt with and support these reasons for the role of parliamentary law that prohibits the service of a legal process within the precincts of parliament.

In 1972, a complaint was made to the Australian House of Representatives that a summons had been served on a member sitting in the precincts of the House while the House was sitting. At the time it was raised in the House, the Attorney General said he thought that when it was necessary to serve such documents, those concerned ought not to serve them while the House was sitting in any way that may be regarded as an interference with the movements of honourable members in the House, that those serving a process had ample opportunity to act without coming within the precincts of the House when sitting, and that it was a practice that was to be reprehended.

After looking into the matter, he advised the House that he was of the opinion that the case should not be further proceeded with because the person who had served the summons had not intended to commit a breach of privilege.

Committees of the House are microcosms and extensions of the House itself. The report of the committee of privileges in Inspector Henderson’s case had stated: “Indignities offered to committees of the House are resented as indignities offered to the House itself. It will, therefore, be a breach of privilege to serve process whilst the committees are sitting, even though the House itself is not sitting at the time.

“The breach of privilege should not be limited to service of process in the actual view of a committee. Unless each case is to be decided on its particular facts, it is difficult to see how this area, within which protection will be afforded by the dignity of the committee, will be restricted to anything less than the precincts of the House.”

In a number of these cases, it is clear right from the beginning of recorded parliamentary history that there is a certain need for allowing members to perform their duties in such a way that they can fully represent their constituents.

I would like to turn to a short discussion on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, just to remind members of the House of the parts of the charter that would apply in this situation. Section 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms “guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.”

Section 7 says, “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.”

Section 11 deals with a person charged with an offence and his rights. Section 11 states that, “Any person charged with an offence has the right,” and paragraph 11(d) which applies here says, “to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal.”

1050

Subsection 32(1) says, “This charter applies

“(a) to the Parliament and government of Canada in respect of all matters within the authority of Parliament including all matters relating to the Yukon Territory and Northwest Territories, and

“(b) to the Legislature and government of each province in respect of all matters within the authority of the Legislature of each province.”

The balance then, as I see it, is a situation where a member is not impeded in any way in performing his or her duties and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is adhered to as well.

A number of things happened in the cases that have been cited, and I will not cite them again. Members should be allowed to perform their duties without a sword of Damocles hanging above their heads or else the interests of the people in this province cannot be served properly.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: I too would like to rise in support of Bill 181. I would like to compliment the member for Waterloo North for bringing this bill forward. My colleague the member for Carleton (Mr. Sterling) mentioned this in his speech. I think it is most important to give credit to this member for devoting his private member’s time to the betterment of all the members of this Legislature. We should certainly give him credit for that. He is an excellent chairman of the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly and has always done an excellent job.

I might just mention that I had a personal experience this year when I was faced with the prospect of receiving a summons to appear at an Ontario Municipal Board hearing. I was notified that I would be served with a summons. I advised the young lady who was serving it that I did not intend to accept it in the Legislature. She asked when she could meet with me. I told her that Mount Forest on Friday would be an appropriate time, but that did not seem too convenient for her. I discussed the matter with the lawyer for the case who decided that rather than have a hostile witness, he would be better to leave me out of it. So the case was dropped.

During that period of time, I spoke to T. C. Marshall, director of the crown law office, Ministry of the Attorney General. He advised me that with regard to the service of civil process, summons or subpoena, etc., while the House is in session a member cannot be served within the precincts of the Legislative Building, that it is a breach of the member’s privilege.

That sounds well and good, but the unfortunate thing is that many of the members do not understand that. The member for Grey (Mr. Lipsett) was here earlier this morning and has left. I asked him if he had received a summons of the same nature, because it was the same 0MB hearing, and he said he had been served in the House. He said they had not served him personally; they simply left it in his office. I question whether that is legal, but the fact is members are being served in the House. That is just one example that has happened this year.

I congratulate the member for bringing this bill forward, because possibly it will clarify the situation for the benefit of all the members. I encourage members to pass this and then have the government, possibly through the Speaker’s office, notify all the members of their rights and privileges, so they will not have to go through the turmoil of making the decision themselves or appealing to the Speaker to determine if they have that right.

I had the opportunity to sit on the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly that made the determination to present the report to the Legislature, Report on the Service of Process within the Precincts of the House, April 13, 1988. I fully supported the recommendation made in that report.

Once more, in closing, I would like to compliment the member for Waterloo North, chairman of the committee, for taking the added responsibility, as I mentioned earlier, of taking his own time in private members’ hour to bring forward this very important piece of legislation. If it is not important to the public, it is certainly important to the members of this assembly so they can better serve their constituents.

Mr. Epp: I am cognizant of the very little time I have left. I just want to thank all members, particularly the member for Oshawa, the member for Carleton, the member for Sudbury (Mr. Campbell) and the member for Wellington (Mr. J. M. Johnson) who have spoken very forcefully in support of this proposed legislation. I ask all members to support it and I hope it will then be adopted by the government and become part of the Legislative Assembly Act of Ontario.

ANIMALS FOR RESEARCH AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Wildman moved second reading of Bill 190, An Act to amend the Animals for Research Act.

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

Mr. Wildman: At the outset, I would like to pay tribute to the legislative intern who is working with me this session, Brian Wylynko, to my research assistant, Carol Freeman, and as well to Tita Zierer, who have assisted me in the preparation of this legislation.

I would like to reserve some time at the end of my remarks for the windup at the end of the debate.

The purpose of Bill 190 is to prohibit the use of animals in nonmedical experimentation involving the Draize eye-irritancy test or the classical LD₅₀ acute toxicity test and similar tests. These are the two most commonly used tests involving animals.

Bill 190 prohibits the use of animals in these tests unless the researcher is granted a licence by the director of the veterinary services branch of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food. A licence shall be provided only in the event that the test is necessary for the advancement of medical research.

It is impossible to accurately identify the number of animals used in testing of consumer products and household goods. The Canadian Council on Animal Care estimates that approximately 200,000 animals are used in the testing of various products in Canada each year. In Canada, of the 23 commercial facilities that engage in animal testing, 15 are located in Ontario. United States congressional reports indicate that several million animals are used in similar testing in the United States each year.

In the Draize test, originally developed before the Second World War for purposes of chemical warfare, a concentrated substance such as bleach, shaving cream or deodorant is dripped into one of the animal’s eyes, the other serving as a control.

The damage to the rabbit’s or dog’s eye is measured according to the size of the area injured. The animals scream, claw at their eye and frantically try to dislodge the painful product, but are restrained from doing so. Needless to say, the animals’ eyes suffer ulceration, bleeding, gross destruction and ultimately blindness.

The lethal dose 50 per cent, or LD₅₀ test, is designed to indicate the minimum dose of a product required to kill 50 per cent of the animals used in the experiment. Introduced in 1927 as a means of helping doctors evaluate dosage levels of medical drugs, the LD₅₀ has been expanded widely and absurdly into the testing of every consumer and industrial product on the market.

The procedure typically involves force-feeding a given substance -- lipstick, shampoo, nail polish, shaving cream, ink, floor polish, oven cleaner, cloth fibre, pencil lead, furniture wax, plastic, paint, etc. -- to rabbits, dogs, cats or rats; or forcing the animal to inhale hair spray; or shaving a portion of the animal’s coat and applying the substance directly to the skin; or injecting the substance into the animal’s mane, muscle, abdomen or under its skin.

1100

Most tests last 14 days: two weeks of diarrhoea, gasping, loss of appetite, salivation, vomiting, excess defecation, bleeding from the eyes, nose and mouth, wheezing, convulsions, paralysis and, for some, death. Any survivors are then killed and examined or sometimes recycled for use in other tests. For each test, 60 to 200 animals are used, all with next to no pain relief administered.

But none of these tests are required by any provincial or federal law. No law exists which specifically requires the use of animals in cosmetic testing. Current legislation places the onus on proving product safety on the manufacturer, who may in turn supply the results of any type of recognized safety testing, be they animal or alternative tests.

Rather, noted scientists maintain that this testing continues simply because of industry inertia. Major manufacturers have no incentive not to test animals. The Draize test is often used to test compounds, such as oven cleaners, which are already known to be harmful to humans. Often manufacturers run excessive and unnecessary tests as part of product promotion. Moreover, these tests are requested by manufacturers as a supposed instrument of protection against consumer liability suits.

These tests are outmoded, unnecessary, impossible to accurately assess, irrelevant to the human condition and cruel. These tests are cruel and alternative methods of testing do exist, methods that are safe and more accurate; alternative methods including cell and tissue cultures using human skin or eye tissue, as well as computer and mathematical models, literature searches, etc.

New ingredients can be tested through the use of computer or mathematical models by comparing the test ingredient’s molecular structure to that of other known ingredients. A number of companies have developed software specifically for this purpose. The use of a battery or combination of tests would produce more accurate results than the use of animal testing.

There are thousands of cosmetic products, in addition, that are already known to be safe and require no testing. Some companies eliminate the need for animal testing by using natural food ingredients, such as avocado or almond oil, seed oil or fruit pulp, where safety is not an issue. Other ingredients are deemed to be safe by the ministry, simply because they have already been in use for decades. Over 200 North American companies produce a variety of high-quality products without resorting to animal tests.

Further, ambiguity of animal-based tests raises the possibility of risk to human health. Animal tests do not guarantee that products will not cause injury to humans. The reliability of the Draize test has been called into question and the LD₅₀ has been shown to be inaccurate in many instances. Indeed, there are many examples of personal injury, complaints varying from hair loss to death, as a result of using a variety of products which have previously been tested on animals. There are a number of problems establishing validity and reliability of animal tests, including the differences between species, the subjective nature of the tests and the difficulties in extrapolating the results to humans.

The usefulness of information derived from the LD₅₀ and Draize tests has been highly criticized by prominent scientists. They argue that the toxicity test is ultimately meaningless, providing no information that is useful to medical practitioners in emergency situations.

Consequently, an increasing number of doctors are supporting efforts to ban these tests. In Maryland last spring, Paul Berson, MD, Stephen Kaufman, MD, and Neal Barnard, MD, joined Dr. Ruy Tchao in explaining to the House of Delegates in that state that the Draize test is a cruel test with no applicability to humans.

A number of well-known American physicians are opposed to the continued use of these animal tests for cosmetic and household products.

This is an issue that has received widespread public interest in Ontario as well as other jurisdictions. An Angus Reid poll conducted in January 1987 indicated that consumer and household product testing of animals was an issue which the majority of southern Ontario residents -- 76 per cent -- are concerned about. And 44 per cent felt that the use of animals in these tests “should not be allowed to occur at all.” Also, 36 per cent said they think “animals are used too often and, whenever possible, researchers should be required to use other methods.” Furthermore, last week I introduced a petition into the Legislature which was signed by 20,000 Ontario residents requesting the banning of the use of animals for testing of such products.

The introduction of this bill has produced a great deal of interest and a good deal of concern among certain elements in the population. I emphasize that, if one looks at Bill 190 and the provisions of the bill, it is not designed to deal with any kind of testing other than a testing of cosmetic products and household products. It does not, in any way, inhibit medical experimentation and experimentation on pharmaceuticals which are being developed to try to alleviate human disease and suffering.

Under the bill, the director would have to license testing, and the researcher would be required to show that there was a medical application of the test. If he could show that, the director would be able to issue a licence. If the director deemed it was not for medical testing and simply a consumer product, the applicant would have the right to a hearing to be able to present evidence and to have the decision of the director changed; the director could indeed change or confirm the original decision.

There has been some suggestion that in some way this bill would impinge upon the treatment of farm animals either by veterinarians or by livestock producers. First, I do not know of many livestock producers who participate in animal experimentation as part of their breeding program. Certainly there are animal growth hormones that are used in some cases but, in my view and my interpretation, this bill does not in any way affect that.

I would hope that members of the House would consider the bill carefully. The reasons for the use of animals for testing is subject to a great deal of legislative concern in other parts of the world. Several current bills or resolutions banning animal testings have been passed or are under consideration in the United States, in such states as New Jersey, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, California, Hawaii and Illinois. In addition, federal Bill 1635 would ban the classical LD₅₀ acute toxicity test and encourage the use of alternatives to animal tests in the United States. Similar legislation has been passed in West Germany and Australia.

In summary, the Draize and LD₅₀ tests are barbarically cruel. They are not required by any law. They continue more out of industry inertia than anything else, yet many of these tests are entirely unnecessary. Many of them are entirely irrelevant, if not dangerous. More accurate tests already exist and are available; for our own protection, I believe they should be used.

Finally, much of the population supports this measure and precedent-setting legislation exists in other jurisdictions. For all of these reasons, it is clear that this is a measure whose time has come, and I hope that members of the House will consider it carefully and pass it for second reading. If it is successful we can refer it out to committee for hearings so that cosmetic and household products companies, laboratories and other parties interested in animal welfare would be able to present their views on the bill and how it might be improved and made more effective. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I reserve the rest of my time.

1110

The Acting Speaker: The member has reserved six minutes and 30 seconds.

Mr. Villeneuve: I rise to participate in the debate on Bill 190, a bill which, in my opinion, must not be the thin edge of the wedge which may ban outright the use of animals for research. I think it is of concern to a great many people, as was suggested by the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman), who is sponsoring this bill.

However, I have to quote from a very credible organization, the University of Western Ontario Health Science Centre. I believe it has some concerns to be brought to this debate and I will be quoting in part from correspondence recently received from that university.

“The letter that Mr. Wildman has circulated is a classical hallmark of the animal activists, and we suspect that they are the ones who wrote the letter for Mr. Wildman. It has a great number of ill-informed and grossly exaggerated statements.

“For instance, where did the figure of ‘200,000 animals’ come from, ‘subjected to immense suffering’? There are only about four businesses, to our knowledge, in Ontario involved and they generally function under federal contract and by federal requirement. Not much cosmetic and household-product testing is done in Canada. The number of animals, species not specified, bears no relation to the facts.

“The Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food and the Canadian Council on Animal Care carries out inspections and would not permit ‘immense suffering’ as stated in the correspondence.

“The intent of the act, Bill 190, is to prohibit the use of animals in the two specified tests, irritancy and toxicity, and similar other tests which are not specified, and this is alarming to the university. The testing is done to ensure public safety. Thousands of children swallow cosmetics and household products every year. The paint used on toys, etc., must be tested for safety. The consequences are very much medical. If such a bill is passed, it would create chaos in relation to federal law. Companies would not be covered and would move to Quebec or the United States.”

That is an observation by a very credible organization, the University of Western Ontario.

There are many reasons animals are needed in research and medicine and why animals cannot be replaced by tissue culture or computers. I will quote here again from a University of Western Ontario booklet, Why Do Animal Research?

“The benefits which animal research have brought to mankind are astounding. The extension of the average human lifespan from 45 years at the turn of the century to 70-plus now is largely due to research done with animals. Some of the countless examples of how research involving animals has enabled millions of people to live longer, healthier and happier lives include the production of insulin, penicillin, polio vaccine, smallpox vaccine, cortizone, etc. Short of experiments on humans themselves, animals offer the best hope for finding the cause and treatment and cure or the prevention of diseases such as cancer, Alzheimer’s, AIDS, multiple sclerosis, cystic fibrosis and muscular dystrophy. We must make sure that this is not the thin edge of the wedge.

“Tests on research animals are necessary to test chemicals being developed for use in agriculture. Such testing will have to continue and is necessary as long as consumers,” and we are all consumers, “insist on cheap food policies from their government and from agriculture. Cows, hogs, sheep, poultry are not the only animals used in agriculture; mice, rats, chickens, fish and ducks are used as test animals for basic agricultural research and for product development and to establish the various toxicity levels.

“The reality prompts the following questions: What are these test animals used for? Is it right to use animals in this way? Can the number of experimental animals be reduced by developing alternative testing procedures? Our opinions about the animal rights issue affects the way we think about animal testing.” There is a great deal of emotion attached to some of the statements that come from this organization. Toxicity tests are required for many commercial products used in agriculture. Before such a product is allowed to be marketed, Agriculture Canada, Environment Canada and Health and Welfare Canada have to review applications for permission to market.

“Products are tested for toxicity -- the ability to kill animals -- on mice, rats, ducks and fish. The product may also be tested for irritability on rabbits, on goat skin, etc. A company that produces herbicides carries out these tests or the company contracts out the testing to an appropriate firm.” Test results are supplied to and reviewed by the government agencies mentioned above.

Herbicides may also be tested by government labs in order to establish the ability to cause harmful changes in the genetic material of organisms. We use products and we want to be able to say that they are safe for both animal and man. Large animals such as cattle can also be used as test animals, of course. Recently, this became a matter of concern in Alberta where beef cattle were force-fed crude oil in order to test the ability of cattle to withstand exposure to oil in oilfield areas. Dr. Stephen Threlkeld at McMaster University in Hamilton condemned the experiments as impractical and inhumane, but we still have to know what would happen should we have the misfortune of having livestock contaminated in an oil well area.

Alternatives to the rabbit eye test, the test for irritation by chemicals, are being developed. These must be looked into. We always are concerned, particularly in the field of agriculture, that animal rights activists, who are very prominent in our society, make very emotional statements. This always creates a lot of nervousness in the agricultural community, not only affecting farmers directly but affecting the products that they use -- the herbicides, pesticides, fertilizers and some of the medication that must be used to keep a herd of animals or whatever, livestock or domestic animals which are being used in the production of income.

The type of test that most people object to, that is the use of research animals by cosmetic companies, seems to account for a very small portion of research testing on animals. A November 1985 article in the Economist, for example, found that in England only one half of one per cent of research animals were tested for cosmetic and toiletry companies.

The two tests mentioned in Bill 190, the Draize eye-irritancy test and the classical LD₅₀ acute toxicity test, came under criticism in the United States as far back as 1981. The US Food and Drug Administration had dropped requirements for LD₅₀ data for virtually all cosmetic and drug products. The Environmental Protection Agency also dropped its LD₅₀ requirements in favour of new acute toxicity testing guidelines.

Companies such as Du Pont, Dow Chemical, Avon, Colgate-Palmolive, Procter and Gamble, Union Carbide and many others have all adopted new testing procedures which either utilize fewer animals or which have replaced tests on mammals with tests on lower-order life forms such as earthworms. We just wonder what animal rights activists would say, indeed, if testing were to be done on earthworms as opposed to some of the testing that is done now. These steps represent clear progress, but are still unacceptable to many animal rights activist groups. Traditional supporters of animal welfare will support this bill, but it will probably not have the support of the real radical animal rights activist groups.

I, as a farmer, one who lives from the land, am very concerned about this bill, and as I said before the very real possibility that it is the thin edge of the wedge. I believe that if this bill does proceed successfully today, it should go to a committee where we could have a clearing of the air.

The facts have to be set straight. I think emotions can only go so far. We have to bring forth the facts, both from those who are concerned -- and I believe that is everyone -- and those who are doing the testing and providing us with the materials, particularly as agriculturalists and as humanitarians -- there should be assurance that the tests are indeed done in a humane fashion.

1120

Mr. McGuigan: If this bill is passed, it will prohibit the use of animals for consumer product testing. I just want to point out that among the consumer products are the products that keep our households clean and free from rats, mice, cockroaches and a whole host of biological items that prey upon and live with man. Of course, the people who use these and the children who live in those houses need to have animal tests to prove safety.

Under present federal regulations, manufacturers of cosmetics and household consumer products are required to prove that products are safe when used as directed, and in some instances this requires animal testing. However, cosmetics that use formulas and ingredients that have been used for many years are not tested.

I would like to say at the outset, just to lay it out, that as part of the hazardous material standards, the workplace hazardous materials information system repeatedly refers to the use of the LD₅₀ and the LC₅₀ tests for assessing the toxicity of chemicals to which workers will be exposed. Here we are talking about the hundreds of thousands of workers in this province who work with chemicals. Those chemicals must be tested and, unfortunately, they must be tested on animals.

Mr. Philip: Why?

Mr. McGuigan: To prove their safety.

The member’s presentation surrounding this bill contains flaws and errors which require clarification and further study. The member for Algoma claims that each year in laboratories across Canada, and particularly in Ontario, 200,000 animals are subjected to immense suffering when used to test cosmetics and household products.

Ontario veterinary inspectors maintain that registered research facilities in this province use less than 300 rabbits per year for skin irritancy and eye tests. About 1,700 rats and some rabbits are used for acute oral and skin toxicity tests on consumer products. It is obvious then that Ontario is not a major contributor to the member’s claim of 200,000 animals.

The member also maintains that testing of bleach is conducted by introducing the substance into the eyes of animals. Veterinarians responsible for inspecting facilities under the Animals for Research Act have never seen or heard of such tests conducted in Ontario. They consider this notion ridiculous, as a simple litmus paper check will confirm the harmful properties of bleach, without using such a substance on animals.

Quite a few years ago, the child of a neighbour of mine drank some bleach. I meet this person and he is still carrying the bad effects of it.

If the irritancy of a product such as baby shampoo or fabric softener cannot be classified as safe or as harmful through a nonanimal test, an animal may be used to determine a product’s safety for consumer use. If the testing of such a product calls for an eye-irritancy test, local or general anaesthetics are required to prevent unnecessary pain when there is a risk of eye tissue damage.

The member has focused on the Draize irritancy test, the classical LD₅₀ test and other similar tests. The bill is ambiguous on other similar tests and its description of the tests to be prohibited. This ambiguity must be cleared up. Moreover, the classic LD₅₀ test is not done frequently in Ontario. In a majority of cases alternatives are used, such as the repeated-dose oral toxicity test. This test requires fewer animals, causes less mortality and provides more information.

The nature of consumer products which can no longer be safely tested within this bill require more thought and definition. I am concerned that the term “consumer products” when used in this bill goes beyond cosmetics and everyday products to encompass preventive products such as sun blocks for sunburn and skin cancer. These are tested and can be classified as consumer products.

While I am in agreement with the principle of this bill, that is that we should not unnecessarily cause any pain or suffering to animals, its present form is unworkable, as the federal government and the courts have not yet accepted nonanimal testing alternatives. The Minister of National Health and Welfare, the Honourable Jake Epp, has stated that there is no alternative to the LD₅₀ test for toxicity assessment and that this test must continue in use until such time as an alternative can be found.

The chlorioalantic test using egg yolks to test the irritancy of products on tissue is still deficient in that it does not show the varying degrees of irritation. It simply shows irritation or nonirritation. Furthermore, the egg yolk test does not demonstrate healing. Once the egg yolk tissue is damaged it cannot heal.

Any information is important should there be a human accident with a substance. It is not possible to totally abandon the testing procedure involving animals in favour of nonanimal procedures until it is demonstrated that the latter produce results that are at least as reliable as those obtained from animals.

As part of the hazardous material standards, the workplace hazardous materials information system repeatedly refers to the use of the LD₅₀ or LC₅₀ test for assessing the toxicity of materials to which workers will be exposed.

The Minister of National Health and Welfare has also made it clear that the Draize eye irritancy test, for which there is no present alternative, is essential to determine the hazards to human eyesight which are posed by commonly used materials at home or in the workplace. How can we endorse legislation requiring such testing and then make it difficult, if not impossible, to carry out the tests in Ontario?

Alternatives are not sufficiently developed to replace animal testing. It will have to be phased in as progress is made. It is my understanding that the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Riddell) has asked his staff to work on a strategy to encourage the development, acceptance and use of nonanimal alternatives for testing.

Mr. Philip: Another study. You guys should apply for Ontario student assistance program grants. You do more studies than university graduates do.

Mr. McGuigan: That is why we do the proper thing. There is a chair at the University of Guelph designated to advance quality care of animals. The care of all research animals in Ontario is inspected by veterinarians under the Animals for Research Act. It is the only comprehensive animal care legislation for research animals in Canada.

An Act to amend the Animals for Research Act contains too many ambiguities in its wording that might prove detrimental to veterinary, scientific and beneficial product advancements.

Just on a personal note, I graduated from the Ontario Agricultural College in 1946, a time when a great many of these chemicals were coming on the market. I remember reading shortly after about a group of workers in one of the southern states who did not return from the tobacco field when their work was done in the evening. They sent out to find out what had happened. They were all dead, about 12 of them. They were all dead because they were using a product that had been recently put on the market.

I do not know whether the proper tests had not been conducted or whether the workers simply had not been given the proper instructions about using the chemical, but it was an indication -- I raise this as an extreme example -- of what can happen when we do not have proper testing and we do not have proper information. We cannot get that information to give out to people until the testing is done. Unfortunately, in some cases it does require some sort of animal involvement.

We have only a few seconds left, so I will relinquish the floor.

1130

Miss Martel: I am pleased to speak on behalf of my colleague the member for Algoma and in support of Bill 190, An Act to amend the Animals for Research Act. I know there have been several concerns raised from both sides of the House about the issue. My colleague has reserved quite a bit of time for a response and I will allow him to do that.

I do want to say that I support the bill and I support its aims. The bill, which is the first of its kind in any jurisdiction in Canada, is designed to ban the use of animals in nonmedical testing. Currently, we all know that animals are employed in a wide range of experimental research involving psychological and medical research and testing of food additives, pesticides, tobacco, drugs, etc.

Bill 190 does not deal with medical or psychological research or any of the above that I have mentioned. Let me repeat, it does not involve any of the above. What it does is concerned solely with those animals that are now used in testing of cosmetic and household goods and products. The use of animals for such testing is cruel and unnecessary.

It is not acceptable that animals suffer so that a product, in terms of cosmetics which are neither vital nor necessary, may be produced. Cosmetic and household product testing is a far cry from testing for medical or pharmaceutical research. Surely the former cannot be sanctioned merely to satisfy some notion of vanity, especially when alternatives to animal testing do exist.

Bill 190 proposes to prohibit the use of animals in nonmedical experimentation involving the Draize eye-irritancy test or the classical LD₅₀ acute toxicity test and similar tests. Note that these are tests used for cosmetic and household products and not for medical research.

In Draize or similar eye-irritancy tests rabbits are used because the structure of their tear ducts means that they cannot rid themselves of substances in the eye. Products such as shampoos or hair sprays are tested by dripping or spraying them into the eyes of conscious rabbits which are restrained by stocks. This can continue for up to seven days to measure the amount of damage done to the eyes.

The reactions that laboratory employees are looking for include the degree of swelling and the amount of blood, pus and irritation that form. Blindness due to corneal damage often occurs. Throughout, the animal is often tightly restrained to prevent removal of the irritant. Palliative treatment is often nonexistent and attempts to minimize the pain of the animal are token at best.

In the second test, the LD₅₀ or toxicity test, substances are tested to see how potentially poisonous they might prove to be. A group of animals is force-fed large quantities of a substance, such as lipstick or floor polish, until at least 50 per cent of the chosen group perish. If all of the animals die in the first test, the test is repeated with lesser doses of the materials being used each time on a new batch of animals until just 50 per cent perish.

It is estimated that 200,000 animals are used each year in Canada to test these products. There have been suggestions on both sides, from the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry (Mr. Villeneuve) and the member for Essex-Kent (Mr. McGuigan), that the number 200,000 is not correct. Let me explain where that figure comes from.

In 1980, Dr. John Gilman from the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies did a survey of 204 separate Canadian institutions that did testing using animals. Of those, 144 or 70 per cent responded. That included 71 of about 84 government agencies; 50 per cent of industrial labs or laboratories also replied. The total number, in terms of animals being used by the group that did reply, was 212,727 animals utilized for testing. I must say that, even though the survey was done in 1980, I would not think that the number of animals used in testing has decreased since then, given the proliferation of both cosmetic and household products on the market now.

The member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry mentioned that there were only four firms in Ontario that were using testing of animals for cosmetic and household purposes. The member for Algoma has pointed out to me that the executive director of the Canadian Council on Animal Care, Harry Rosell, has said there are at least 15 firms in Ontario that use animals for cosmetic and household testing. There are 23 across Canada.

The question remains why these tests are used. Cosmetic and household companies which use animal testing, for example, Avon, Procter and Gamble, Lever Bros. and Gillette, just to name a few, state that human safety is their prime concern. They want to ensure two things: first, that their customers can use products without any harmful side-effects; second, that workers in their factories are safe when they handle ingredients and products in large quantities. Industry officials claim that the most effective way of meeting these concerns and of complying with safety regulations is to test on animals.

The facts remain, however. First, neither the federal nor the provincial governments in this country require these tests. Government officials require only that manufacturers introduce products that are considered safe for public use. They do not specify the tests that have to be used to ensure safety. Second, the real reason that companies conduct these tests is to protect themselves from possible consumer liability suits. Proof of that is that many of the products that are tested, such as septic tank cleaner and oven cleaners, have been tested previously and are known to be toxic. Companies, however, can redo the tests so that they can be used as a fallback position in a court of law if necessary.

But now it also seems that some courts are no longer accepting these tests. Over the past year, when companies have produced the test results in United States courts, the judges have thrown the evidence out of court, ruling that it is impossible to extrapolate from results on animals to humans.

There are alternatives that can be used to avoid animal testing. To begin with, companies can use what is known as “GRAS ingredients,” that is, those that are generally recognized as safe. They include ingredients which have already been tested before through continuous human use or ingredients that are derived from plants and vegetables, which have been used for a long time without ill effect. The Body Shop, for example, particularly uses honey, beeswax or almond oil in all of its products.

Other tests which do not involve animal testing are also being perfected at this time. The Food and Drug Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Consumer Product Safety Association have accepted some of these tests as of September 1988. These include bacterial testing -- in vitro tests are used where, instead of testing on a live animal, cells are taken from an animal and preserved in a cultural dish for future testing -- and the use of computer analysis. Data about a substance can be fed into a computer to predict how it will behave when it is combined with other chemical substances and used on human skin.

Companies continue to test their products on animals because they believe this will protect them from any possible lawsuit. Industries are slow to adopt alternatives to animal testing because officials have no incentive, whether financial or otherwise, to do so.

The process of switching from animal testing to alternatives will cost money, but implementing alternative tests in the long run is going to save industry money. One company, the National Testing Corp. of Palm Springs in California, has claimed that it can test three concentrations of a chemical for $99.50, compared to a cost of more than $1,000 for a Draize test of similar scope.

I believe change to alternative testing is inevitable but, as legislators in this province, we have an opportunity to accelerate the process to avoid unnecessary suffering of animals and rid the province of this practice.

1140

The public wants animal testing to stop. In an Environics survey conducted for the Toronto Humane Society, two thirds of Ontarians surveyed indicated they would support a law to ban the use of animals for cosmetic and household testing. In a survey released by Cosmopolitan magazine in January 1987, 98 per cent of those who responded replied they were against the use of animals to test cosmetics.

As mentioned earlier, my colleague the member for Algoma tabled a petition with 20,000 signatures on it in this House last Thursday. I think that ought to be evidence enough of how the public would like to see this House act today.

Other jurisdictions, such as Australia and Germany, have already passed laws to stop the use of animals in product testing. Legislation on testing is also being debated in Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, California, Pennsylvania and Massachusetts, and there are two bills in the American Congress at present.

It is something to consider that, of the 23 Canadian commercial facilities which engage in animal testing for cosmetic and household products, 15 are located in Ontario. Is it not about time that we in Ontario took the lead in this issue?

Please consider what we have heard today: the cruelty of the tests involved, the lack of the need for them and the alternatives that are being presented. Also consider what the public has had to say on this issue.

We have a chance to implement changes that the public is in favour of and that companies are slowly moving forward to. I hope that everyone in this House will consider supporting Bill 190 so that it can go into committee where a more fruitful discussion on all of the alternatives and the entire situation can take place.

Mrs. Marland: In rising this morning to speak to Bill 190, An Act to amend the Animals for Research Act, I want to reconfirm for the record the explanatory note of this bill. The purpose of the bill is to prohibit the use of animals in nonmedical experimentation involving the Draize eye-irritancy test, the classical LD₅₀ acute toxicity test and similar tests.

As the mother of a child who died of leukaemia, I think I understand as well as anyone the necessity for medical research and the necessity to use animals in medical research. I want to make it very clear that I am not standing here this morning with any remote suggestion of support for this bill based on the use of animals in medical research. I support the necessity for the use of animals in medical research.

What this bill is addressing is the unnecessary use of animals in nonmedical experiments. The bill is not even general in its terms. The bill has specified two particular nonmedical experiments. In fairness to the public, it is important to put on the record exactly what those nonmedical experiments are.

One of the experiments referred to in the bill is the Draize eye-irritancy test. I would like to quote from a doctor of veterinary medicine by the name of Michael Irving:

“The Draize test has long been used in research as an indicator of the tissue irritancy of a chemical or combination of chemicals. It is performed by applying various concentrations of a product into one eye of the research animal, usually a rabbit, while using the other eye as the normal control. These animals are restrained and observed for 48 hours after this application. Because of the lack of similarities between the eyes of rabbits and humans and the subjective nature of qualitative analysis, this test has been refuted both medically and legally for years. Moreover, it is not required by law for the final marketing of any nonmedical product in both Canada and the United States.

“Furthermore, with recent technological advancements, there are multiple humane alternatives: the CAM test, cell cultures, Epi-packs and computer modelling software. The CAM test utilizes the outer membrane of the chicken egg without pain, at lower cost and with equal or greater accuracy. Epi-packs have been developed by tissue culturing animal and man and exhibit excellent parallels to previous animal tests. Health Designs Inc. has also developed a computer software package, Top Cat, that can extrapolate results as an alternative to both the Draize and the LD₅₀ research.”

That is an opinion of a doctor of veterinary medicine.

I also want to read into the record a letter from the Honourable Jake Epp, who is the Minister of National Health and Welfare:

“There is no requirement for premarket approval of cosmetics by the health protection branch. In order to sell such a product, it is sufficient for a manufacturer to have data available to him which shows his product to be safe when used as directed. This policy is based on the knowledge that materials commonly used in cosmetics have been tested extensively in the past and have been shown to be nontoxic. Thus, manufacturers of ‘pain-free’ cosmetics are simply saying that they have not tested the ingredients in their products. lean, however, assure you that they have previously been tested elsewhere.”

I think if the Minister of National Health and Welfare is saying that premarket approval of cosmetics by the health protection branch of this country is not a requirement, either we do not feel secure in the policies of the Department of National Health and Welfare or we accept the knowledge of the people within that ministry. I would suggest with respect that if the health protection branch of any department of the federal government is saying that there is no requirement for this kind of testing then who are we to argue? It certainly goes without saying that the people in that federal department are people with all kinds of background and experience and medical and nonmedical scientific qualifications.

I know we cannot avoid having people on both sides of any issue, but I do rather wonder if this debate would be the way it is if perhaps we were talking about using thoroughbred horses for testing instead of mere rabbits in some cases. If we were to use purebred dogs or a very valuable species of any highly bred animal, either domestic or otherwise, I wonder whether in fact we would think that it was okay.

Are we saying that it is okay to use dogs, eats and rabbits because they are not thoroughbreds? Are we saying we use animals based on their ability to understand the experience they are being subjected to? Are we saying we would not use thoroughbred horses and precious and valuable animals of any species because they have a higher intellect? I did hear a reference this morning suggesting we might next want to protect earthworms. I must say I did take rather strong exception to that suggestion.

1150

I think that when we are debating something, we had better be sure that we are debating what is before us. At the beginning of my comments this morning, I read what was before us in this private member’s bill. We are talking about a very specific area of nonmedical experimentation. We are talking about a very specific area of testing for some very specific reasons. I would not be standing here suggesting that I would support this bill if there were not alternatives. What I am suggesting is that where that kind of testing is necessary there is an alternative, and where there is an alternative it behooves all of us to be responsible enough to make sure that it is used.

I hope the members of the Legislature this morning will support this bill in its context, which is for nonmedical experimentation on animals.

Mr. Speaker: In view of the time reserved by the member for Algoma, there are approximately two minutes.

Mr. Mahoney: I understand the member for Algoma would like about four minutes to wrap up at the end, so I will try to work within that time frame.

It is interesting this morning that this is a unique opportunity for me, because I have had many chances to rise in this House following the member for Mississauga South (Mrs. Marland).

Today, I rise in substantial agreement with many of the comments that were made. It is a shock to many members perhaps, but there are issues that come along once in a while that are not clearly black and white, that are not simple, whether we are talking about capital punishment, on which side of the line we want to stand, or the abortion issue. This issue, frankly, is an issue that belongs in that category. As individuals elected to represent the people of this province and our own constituencies, there comes a time when we have to decide where we are going to draw that line and which side of that line we are going to stand on.

I understand the arguments from the farming community. I understand the agricultural people who say this testing is necessary. They feel it is pragmatic and should be done. I tried to listen with a certain amount of understanding and sympathy, perhaps relating to their background. But again I say, in the 1980s and 1990s, do we really need to subject other living beings to such incredible tests to determine whether or not it is safe to use a certain kind of mascara or lipstick or furniture polish? I find it barbaric.

The member for Mississauga South referred to a couple of tests; I also understand they have not been adopted by the federal government yet, but at least they are tests. Perhaps we need to work more towards refining those tests and coming up with something the federal government could accept. I do not think the fact that we would be out of step with the federal government and its recommendations should bother this House. In fact, we could show leadership in this area and try to work with the federal government and other jurisdictions to encourage them to accept other tests, and we could work with the technological industries to come up with better ways of testing, be they through computer-aided facilities or whatever.

I find, in the short time I have, that I have difficulty dealing with extremes on either side of this particular issue: the extreme of some of the animal rights groups who say, “Don’t test for any reasons,” and I quite agree with the previous speaker that we must test for medical purposes. In fact, one of the reasons I am able to support this bill is that by implication it clearly supports testing for medical reasons because it clearly says that it is only in the area of cosmetic and household products that this testing should be banned.

The other argument about its being the thin edge of the wedge is exactly the opposite. In fact, instead of being the thin edge of the wedge to lead to further banning of testing for medical purposes, it clearly excludes that sector of the testing industry, the scientific community. I think it serves the opposite purpose.

Let me just say that even though I do support this bill, normally I have found that policies and philosophies coming from the opposition party are somewhat ideological and based on emotionalism rather than coming from a pragmatic point of view, but I think this bill is very pragmatic and I congratulate the member for taking what I consider to be a very liberal, middle-of-the-road, understanding position on this issue.

Mr. Wildman: I thank all members for participating in the debate, particularly the member for Mississauga West (Mr. Mahoney), the member for Mississauga South and the member for Sudbury East (Miss Martel) as well as the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry and the member for Essex-Kent.

The member for Mississauga South explained very well the purpose of the bill and I appreciate her support, particularly in relation to her personal concerns about the medically necessary testing.

The member for Sudbury East explained exactly how many tests were found in the 1980 survey to be done on animals by 70 per cent of the institutions that responded in Canada to that survey. We do know now that there are many more than four firms, as was suggested.

I want to emphasize that I can understand some of the concerns of members of the farming community that have been expressed this morning, but I reiterate that this bill does not touch anything related to farming or to the kinds of studies being done which are related in any way to human health and the health of food products. Those are not touched by this bill at all.

We are dealing with cosmetic products and household products. If this bill passes second reading, as I hope it will, it is my intention to request that the bill go to the standing committee on resources development for debate and for hearings so that it can be amended to resolve some of the ambiguities some of the members have found in the wording of the bill to make it clear that it is for nonmedical experimentation. It is not designed in any way to inhibit testing that will be done to assure that human disease is ameliorated.

Now that the members have heard the debate, I hope their concerns will have been allayed, particularly by the members for Sudbury East and Mississauga South, so that they will now find it possible to vote for second reading, so that we can send this to committee for hearings and amendment, so that we can be one of the first jurisdictions in North America to ensure that we do not impose suffering, pain and death unnecessarily on other species in our jurisdiction on this planet.

Mr. Speaker: I believe that completes the allotted time for private members’ public business. It is so close to 12 o’clock, we will deal first with Mr. Epp’s motion for second reading of Bill 181, An Act to amend the Legislative Assembly Act.

1200

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Epp has moved second reading of Bill 181.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: So this bill goes to committee of the whole House?

Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, I understand the three party leaders and the whips are in full concurrence with this bill and I ask for unanimous consent that it be ordered for third reading.

Mr. Speaker: The standing order certainly states that a private bill shall go to committee of the whole House unless the majority wishes it to go out to committee. However, you have asked for unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent that this stand in Orders and Notices for third reading?

Agreed to.

Bill ordered for third reading.

1205

ANIMALS FOR RESEARCH AMENDMENT ACT

The House divided on Mr. Wildman’s motion for second reading of Bill 190, which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes

Farnan, Faubert, Hampton, Henderson, Johnson, J. M., Johnston, R. F., Kormos, Laughren, LeBourdais, Mackenzie, Mahoney, Marland, Martel, Miclash, Morn-Strom, Nixon, J. B., Offer, Philip, E., Ray, M. C., Reville, Runciman, Ruprecht, Velshi, Wildman.

Nays

Adams, Ballinger, Bossy, Brown, Campbell, Cleary, Collins, Cunningham, Daigeler, Elliot, Epp, Fawcett, Fleet, Leone, Lipsett, Lupusella, McCague, McGuigan, Miller, Neumann, Oddie Munro, Pelissero, Poole, Reycraft, Roberts, Smith, D. W., Sola, Sterling, Sullivan, Wilson.

Ayes 33; nays 30.

Bill ordered for standing committee on resources development.

The House recessed at 12:10 p.m.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1:30 p.m.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

LEAD IN DRINKING WATER

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Lead is a highly toxic substance that can affect the human nervous system at extremely low levels. Concerns over lead exposure were recently highlighted when levels of lead in the drinking water at several elementary schools in Ontario were found to grossly exceed the federal guideline.

At that time, the leader of my party and the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore (Mrs. Grier) asked questions of the Minister of Housing (Ms. Hošek) about the use of the lead solder and the banning of the substance under the Ontario Building Code. The minister announced the ban in response to our questions. That was on November 29.

The minister said, in part: “...this whole area has been out for discussion to the concerned groups, including environmental groups, since August. None of them have raised this issue of safety.” We wondered just who these environmental groups were, so we contacted the Canadian Environmental Law Association, a leading group on lead problems, and they had never been consulted.

We contacted the buildings branch of the Ministry of Housing to see which environmental groups had been consulted. The answer was -- just hold your breath now – “the Ministry of the Environment.” We would like to set the record straight for the benefit of this House and for the public. The Ministry of the Environment is not an environmental group. We would be happy to provide the Minister of Housing with a complete list of the real environmental groups in Ontario which could have helped her on the issue of lead in the buildings of this province, had she asked. It seems her only contact is the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley).

ABANDONED URANIUM MINES

Mr. Pollock: The subject of decommissioning the Madawaska Mines has been raised in this Legislature once before. It was to be terminated on November 30. It has not been terminated as of yet. The question still remains: Who is responsible for these abandoned mine sites?

Whether the Madawaska Mines is decommissioned or not, it at least has a gate across the entrance and keeps out the general public. There are two other abandoned mines in the area, Dyno and Bicroft. The public have open access to these uranium mine tailings and occasionally have the odd beer party on them and trespass on the site. What the immediate danger or long-term danger is, no one seems to know. Neither the federal nor the provincial government is accepting responsibility.

In a letter to the reeve of the municipality, Marcel Masse, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, stated that: The question of jurisdiction is a complex one and has not yet been fully resolved. This should be addressed before decommissioning takes place.

In the case of the Madawaska Mines uranium tailings, there is no grass over these particular tailings, and the wind blows them around. This will have to be addressed.

HUMAN RIGHTS

Mr. D. R. Cooke: This year marks the 40th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights proclaimed by the governments in the United Nations. It offers a vision of a world without injustice, without discrimination and without cruelty, but that promise has not been fully kept. Not only are the basic rights to food, housing and security denied to millions, but in some countries people are jailed for their beliefs, tortured or killed. Often, even these people who speak up peacefully in the defence of human rights become victims themselves. They suffer years in prison or are abducted and never seen again.

These abuses create a climate of fear. They are an affront to human dignity, and they must be stopped. Working towards that end is Amnesty International, a worldwide movement of people trying to ensure wider respect for the fundamental rights proclaimed by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Their petition has been translated into 58 languages, and copies have been sent to nearly every country in the world.

At 10 am. this morning at the United Nations headquarters in New York, more than 2,700,000 signatures from 120 countries were presented on petitions calling for urgent action to protect human rights throughout the world. Nearly 250,000 of those signatories are Canadians.

Group 71, one of four Amnesty International branches in the Kitchener area, contributed a significant number of signatures to those petitions and should be congratulated on its commitment to ensuring justice for all.

NORTHERN SUPPORT GRANTS

Mr. Hampton: When the auditor released his report, he mentioned on page 107 the need to re-examine northern support grants. It is a revealing statement. He says, “The northern support grant was established...to reduce property taxes below the levels prevailing in the rest of Ontario.” He makes the note, after some other comments, that he feels that perhaps the northern support grant is too large and gives too much benefit to communities in northern Ontario, and he makes some comparisons, specifically using the communities of North Bay and Thunder Bay in terms of housing prices.

I want to say to the House that I would be quite willing to take the auditor and his staff on a tour of what I consider to be at least part of northwestern Ontario so that the auditor’s staff might understand how usefully these northern support grants are put to work.

For instance, we would go to Ear Falls, where the mines have closed and there is a large degree of unemployment; or Atikokan, where the mines have closed and there is 25 per cent unemployment and the community has a great deal of trouble paying for its municipal infrastructure; or Ignace, where the mines have closed, throwing 200 people out of work, and the town must now find the money to pay for a municipal sewage system that was built some 15 years ago; or Rainy River, where the railroads have left; or Nakina, where the railroad has left; or Longlac or Geraldton -- many of the communities in northern Ontario that need these municipal grants.

EASTERN ONTARIO

Mr. Villeneuve: The Liberal government has ignored eastern Ontario for the last three years, drastically and dreadfully. From school and health unit funding to funding for conservation authorities, there has been nothing but neglect. Even the provincial government’s own operations have been scaled down.

One example is at the G. Howard Ferguson Tree Nursery, where employees of many years have been let go. At the time, the government pretended that these staff were not necessary and that their work could be done on a less regular basis. The facts, of course, are completely different. At this time, entire varieties of nursery stock are no longer available from the nursery for 1989 transplanting in eastern Ontario.

This coming Monday, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. Kwinter) plans to announce the government’s new initiative for economic development in eastern Ontario. It is difficult to take the Liberal government seriously when it talks about economic development in the region at the same time that the region is neglected in the government’s own operations.

Some members in this House will remember that it was the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party that began moving government operations eastward towards Kingston, and that is where eastern Ontario starts. However, the Cornwall area, in particular, has been neglected by this government. While the federal government has Parks Canada and the Department of Transport training institute at Cornwall, there is no comparable provincial presence.

If this government is serious about bringing growth to eastern Ontario, it should do so in a real and effective way.

ROBERT FOSTER

Mr. Kozyra: It is with great pleasure that I rise to pay tribute today to a new Rhodes scholar from Thunder Bay.

As members may be aware, the prestigious two-year award, now worth approximately $25,000, was established by the British colonizer Cecil Rhodes to honour scholars for academic, humanitarian and athletic endeavours, as well as strong personal character traits.

Robert Foster, age 23, of Thunder Bay, is an outstanding young man. Presently a fourth-year student at Lakehead University, he will be taking his masters degree in zoology at Oxford, England. No stranger to awards, Robert Foster last year was the first Lakehead University student selected to attend the Annual Conference of World University Services. He also spent six weeks in an intensive program in Mali, northwestern Africa, researching Third World development projects.

I am certain that the members of this assembly will join me in extending congratulations to Robert Foster and his parents, Joan and Brian. Robert Foster’s selection as one of only two in Ontario and one of 11 for all of Canada makes all of us justifiably proud.

1340

HOSPITAL SERVICES

Mr. Farnan: As the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan) will be aware, I have called for public hearings into the closure of outpatient laboratory services in Cambridge. These hearings were to take place next Monday evening.

The closure of the outpatient laboratory services have caused considerable concern to all of the residents of Cambridge, particularly those who make use of this service on a regular basis.

Today I am making a plea to the minister to direct that these services be reinstated in full to the residents of Cambridge, and to make these hearings redundant. It certainly would be a sign to the people of Cambridge that the minister is listening and I would ask that she take appropriate action.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

TEMAGAMI DISTRICT RESOURCES

Hon. Mr. Scott: This morning the Court of Appeal for Ontario considered the government’s application for an injunction regarding the blockade of the Red Squirrel Road extension and the threatened blockade of the Goulard Road extension. All parties were represented by counsel and argued their positions.

The Court of Appeal has adjourned the application to be dealt with immediately after the hearing of the appeal of the Teme-Augama Anishnabai from the judgement of the Supreme Court of Ontario dismissing their land claim, which appeal commences January 9, 1989.

The adjournment was granted by the court on the following terms:

I. The court ordered that the defendants be restrained from doing anything to interfere with or impede surveying or other preliminary matters related to the construction of extensions of the Goulard or Red Squirrel roads.

2. The court ordered that the defendants cease blockading the site of the proposed extension of the Red Squirrel Road.

3. The court ordered that no other work be undertaken on the road extensions until the motion is heard, other than the work referred to in paragraph 1, the surveying and other preparatory work.

HUMAN RIGHTS

Hon. Mr. Phillips: Saturday, December 10 of this year marks the 40th anniversary of the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It was on that day that the General Assembly of the United Nations passed a resolution -- the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. That declaration has become a strong force for human betterment in the world. It is a goal that is contained in the opening statement of that declaration which says, the “recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.”

On this special anniversary we can and should reflect on the advances that have been made in bringing us closer to true equality everywhere. But there is always more to be done. We cannot close our eyes to the fact that in certain places around this world there continue to be serious human rights abuses.

Canada is a charter member of the United Nations, and four decades ago our country’s representative cast our vote in favour of this universal declaration.

Here in Ontario, we can take pride in the fact that our province has played -- and continues to play -- a significant role in recognizing the importance of human rights. But we can never become complacent. We must all of us ensure that we maintain and enhance our commitment to human rights here in this province.

Human rights protection means much more than just a commitment to an abstract principle. It means individuals -- all of us -- taking steps to change our attitude and to change our behaviour, and it means that all of us must work together to bring about those changes throughout society.

I am pleased to inform the House that the Premier (Mr. Peterson) has declared December 10, 1988 Human Rights Day and the week of December 10-16 as Human Rights Week throughout Ontario. The observance of this week will encourage each of us to reflect on the fundamental right of all people in this province to be treated with dignity, justice and respect.

As we approach this 40th anniversary of the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, I would invite all members of this House to join me to mark the observation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. To commemorate this occasion, a plaque bearing the words of the declaration in the two official languages of Canada will be unveiled on Saturday in the foyer of the Macdonald Block. I would invite all members of the House to be present on that occasion.

COURT SYSTEM

Hon. Mr. Scott: There is widespread concern in the justice community and among the public about delays and backlogs in our criminal justice system, particularly for those who are out of detention pending trial. These delays are unacceptable to me, to the bench, to the bar, and, of course, to the public. Today, I am pleased to announce to the House that we have embarked upon a co-operative plan with the bench and bar to try to reduce these delays.

Members will recall that in his report on our court system, Mr. Justice Zuber recommended co-operative management as a means of dealing with some of the problems he identified. In the six communities in Ontario facing serious out-of-custody delay problems, my ministry, together with Chief Judge Hayes of the provincial court (criminal division), have established local delay reduction committees. These projects are now operating in Ottawa-Carleton, York region, Simcoe, Scarborough, Durham, and Peel.

The committees are composed of the senior criminal division judge, the court administrator and representatives of the crown attorney’s office, the defence bar and the Ontario legal aid plan. Together they will work at analysing the unique nature of the problem in their community and establish goals and timetables to reduce their backlog.

We are already, in a very short time, seeing some positive results. The Ottawa-Carleton committee, in less than two months, has taken steps to reduce the backlog in that area by at least two months.

We are also encouraged by the fact that this team approach has had positive results in other jurisdictions. We know from studies and experiments in these jurisdictions, particularly in the United States, that commitment to establishing and following a management plan can lead to results of major significance within a two-year period. We also know that there is clear evidence that court delays are not caused solely by a lack of resources. In fact, some of the evidence shows that adding extra resources without changing the case-flow management process does not cure but exacerbates the problems. The work being done in these six communities will, I expect, provide us with valuable information that can be used in other parts of the province which have backlog problems.

I also believe there will be another benefit. I believe these delay reduction projects, which are bringing together, often for the first time, the key people involved in the administration of justice, will prove the wisdom of Mr. Justice Zuber’s recommendation with respect to co-operative management of the system. I am confident that the participation of the committee members will serve to alleviate court backlog and delays.

CORONER’S INQUEST

Hon. Mrs. Smith: As the members of this House are aware, a number of questions have been raised concerning the progress of the inquest into the death of Bernard Bastien on August 14 of this year. Members will recall that Mr. Bastien died as a result of a shooting incident involving an Ontario Provincial Police tactics and rescue unit in a case of mistaken identity.

Recently, counsel for the family of Mr. Bastien alleged bias on the part of the presiding coroner, Dr. R. D. MacKinlay, and has instituted proceedings in the Supreme Court of Ontario to prohibit the coroner from carrying on with the inquest and for the purpose of quashing the inquest proceedings to date.

I have recently been advised by the chief coroner of Ontario that Dr. MacKinlay has denied the allegations of bias made against him. Dr. MacKinlay has indicated his distress over the allegations and his concern that the integrity of this inquest and the inquest process generally not be seen to be compromised. Accordingly, Dr. MacKinlay has advised the chief coroner of his intention to relinquish his position as coroner at the Bastien inquest and to discharge the jury.

In light of this, Dr. Ross Bennett has advised me that a new inquest will be convened at an appropriate time.

1350

Members of the House will be aware that the activities of the tactics and rescue unit of the Ontario Provincial Police involved in the death of Mr. Bastien have been subject to close public scrutiny during this inquest. The government is anxious to ensure these matters are examined in substantial depth and on a broader scope.

Therefore, I have asked the chairman of the Ontario Police Commission to conduct a hearing and review into all aspects of special police units such as tactics and rescue teams utilized by police forces in Ontario. The commission will provide as soon as possible a comprehensive report that will include recommendations respecting the need and rationale for and the training, operation and composition of such units or teams.

The Ontario Police Commission is an autonomous, quasi-judicial body enacted by statute. It has recently been reconstituted, and now it is the most appropriate body to conduct this review. I am assured that the process contemplated by the Ontario Police Commission will be an open and independent one, including a forum for public comment on these matters.

The hearing and review to be conducted by the Ontario Police Commission will ensure a thorough airing of the concerns that have been raised over these matters, and the public interest will be well served by this open process.

RESPONSES

CORONER’S INQUEST

Mr. B. Rae: There is much to comment on, and I would like to take this opportunity to say that we have many questions arising from statements that have been made today.

If I can say so in response to the Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith), just so she will have time to think about some answers, the critical question is: Is this inquiry that she is asking the Ontario Police Commission to begin, or the review she refers to, a public inquiry or is it a particular inquiry established under subsections 58(1), (2), (3), (4) and (5) of the Police Act?

If it is not, it is inadequate, because if she has not given the inquiry the capacity to subpoena witnesses, to cross-examine, to determine what has happened since the tactics and rescue units were established in 1975 and to inquire as well into all the events surrounding this tragic incident recently near Windsor, then she has failed in her responsibilities to get to the bottom of this question.

I did not see in her statement a clear indication as to whether or not this is in fact going to be that kind of inquiry, as my colleague the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. D. S. Cooke) and I asked in our letter to her, which is dated August 30 and which I am sure she received soon after we sent it.

We are determined to get to the bottom of this. I can tell the minister that our view is very strongly that it would be much more preferable to have a full public inquiry which would deal both with the particular incident in question and with the broader question of the use of TRUs. It would be easier to proceed by way of public inquiry to do that, and she would not have to have two separate reviews now ongoing at the same time. It strikes me as unduly cumbersome and, frankly, unfair to put the family through two separate kinds of ordeals rather than simply to deal with one inquiry, where an independent person, independent of the police and independent of the government, would have an opportunity to look at all these questions. In our view, that would be far preferable to the route that has been taken.

I will be asking questions, and my colleague the member for Windsor-Riverside will be directing questions to her today to try to clear up exactly what it is she intends to do.

TEMAGAMI DISTRICT RESOURCES

Mr. B. Rae: With respect to the announcement made today by the Attorney General (Mr Scott) on the court decision, I do have a couple of words to say, and that is simply this: I think when the full history of the exchanges between the Attorney General and Chief Potts are known and are widely understood, we will see, frankly, how unwilling this government has been to go the extra mile to reach a final conclusion with the band on the question of the land settlement.

The Attorney General has not told the House, but I will tell the House, that in his correspondence with Chief Potts he said that the offer was a 90-day offer. It was an offer that was put on the table and then withdrawn at a date established unilaterally by the government.

Hon. Mr. Scott: We are prepared to negotiate today. We will meet today.

Mr. B. Rae: I will read the correspondence out, which is more than you have done.

Hon. Mr. Scott: I am telling you we will meet today.

Mr. B. Rae: I will read it out, which is more than you have done before this House in terms of precisely what your position has been.

I say to the Attorney General that when the day comes that the Attorney General of this province and the government of Ontario seek, in the middle of a very difficult negotiating process, to cut off that timetable and say, “Here’s our offer; take it or leave it”; when the Attorney General writes to Chief Potts and says, “We are not prepared to negotiate under any other principles than the ones we have established in our letter to you of September 1986,” that, I think, is an action that speaks of a government which is more interested in getting a cheap headline than in solving a problem, a government which is not interested in solving this question, which is not interested in dealing with the question of environmental rights and which has simply come down on the side of the lumber companies, whose interests could far better be served by a government willing to take on other interests in seeing that they get a fair timber allocation.

CORONER’S INQUEST

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I was hoping that the minister’s statement today would clear up this matter on the Bernard Bastien tragedy; however, her statement has not answered all the questions.

I am not sure, as my leader has said, whether she has called an inquiry under section 58 of the Police Act. If the minister has not, I would say that the last six weeks have been difficult not only for our community but also for the Bastien family and that I cannot understand why the minister would reappoint another coroner’s inquest today after what has happened in the last several weeks: $600,000 of taxpayers’ money and the anguish that this family has been going through day after day after day.

We deserve better in this community and in this province, and I hope that this inquiry has been under section 58.

COURT SYSTEM

Mr. Sterling: I would like to respond to the Attorney General’s statement with regard to his project to reduce trial delays.

In this province today there are 35,000 cases to be heard with regard to trial for impaired driving charges across this province, and that has resulted from the fact that this ministry, this minister and this government have paid little attention to the administration of justice in our province.

In the area of Ottawa-Carleton, I believe that there are the same number of provincial court judges, criminal division, as there were in 1970 and 1971. The morale of the bench is low, or was low as recently as I talked to them. There are a number of judges who have retired over the past few months, and it seems that there are more and more judges considering retirement because there never seems to be an end to the docket.

I am pleased that the Attorney General is taking some small step with regard to dealing with the situation, but the fact of the matter is that we need more judges and we need more courtrooms in order to deal with the situation, at least in the area that I am familiar with, and that is Ottawa-Carleton.

CORONER’S INQUEST

Mr. Runciman: In response to the statement of the Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith), we want to indicate quite clearly that we believe the minister has dropped the ball on this matter. She has flubbed it from day one. There have been totally unconscionable delays in having any kind of resolution to this whole question.

Certainly, as the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. D. S. Cooke) indicated, it is placing that much more stress on the Bastien family. There are no explanations adequate to describe what this minister has done in respect to her mishandling of this whole matter. In respect to not resolving the concerns of the Bastien family, she has left a cloud hanging over the Ontario Provincial Police tactical force in this province.

Let’s see her get her act together and act on this matter as expeditiously as possible.

1400

HUMAN RIGHTS

Mrs. Marland: As I rise on behalf of our caucus today to share in the announcement of the International Human Rights Day on the part of the minister, we would like to quote the fact that, of course, we were the first province in Canada to establish a Human Rights Code, of which our government at that time was very proud, and we continue to be. Our House leader, the member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris), chaired the legislative committee that brought about the most recent changes to that code in 1981.

I think it is important today, as we reflect on the advances that have been made, as the minister has said, that we also reflect on the supreme sacrifice that has been made in the wars, on the wars that continue in this world and on the fact that we do have the opportunity to live in freedom and to exercise human rights.

I would like to read the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, made in the United Nations general assembly on December 10, 1948:

“All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.”

I think it is in that spirit today that we send with President Gorbachev, as he returns to his country this afternoon, our united expression of sympathy of this Legislature for the terrible loss of life that his country experienced in the earthquake of yesterday.

I think we should also, in the spirit of this announcement today, as we recognize human rights, be grateful for the speech of President Gorbachev yesterday in the United Nations general assembly in New York and recognize that finally, perhaps more than at any other time in the history of all the countries in this world, we are closer to world peace and unity, which would be the goal and wish of all of us.

Mr. Brandt: I would ask for the unanimous consent of the House to make a brief statement with respect to the Armenian earthquake.

Agreed to.

EARTHQUAKE IN ARMENIA

Mr. Brandt: Like all members of this House, I was shocked to hear of the devastating earthquake in Armenia. Although details are still sketchy, we understand there may be as many as 80,000 people who have died. I also understand that hundreds of thousands more are either injured or wounded as a result of the earthquake.

It is a tragedy beyond description, beyond belief. Our hearts and thoughts go out to all the people of Armenia and those of Armenian ancestry who live here in Ontario and throughout Canada.

As a government, we must be sure to respond in any appropriate way to assist those in Armenia who have been devastated by the earthquake that took place yesterday. A tragedy of this scope is too large for even one of the largest and most powerful countries to have to endure alone. We must remember that any assistance we may be able to offer goes not to the state but to the people who are affected, those people who literally have lost their homes and so much that is dear to them in such a very short period of time.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I thank my honourable friend for raising this matter in the House.

Just before coming into the House, I heard some of the same figures my honourable friend is quoting. It is absolutely beyond human comprehension: 80,000 people. I recognize that the details are sketchy at this particular moment, but I can tell my honourable friends that I had occasion to meet with leading members of the Armenian community just briefly before I came into the House. They gave me these figures, which I had not heard before that.

I can say that the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan) and the Minister of Citizenship (Mr. Phillips) have met with members of the community as well. The Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs has been swung into action immediately to try to co-ordinate relief efforts, so there is no question that we will be participating as well as we possibly can.

As we know, and I say this on behalf of all members of the House, I think that this Legislature has had a good record of responding to these unforeseen disasters. We have seen a number of them lately, in Nicaragua, Mexico and Jamaica, and I want to compliment my colleagues on the generosity of their response to our fellow human beings around the world who are struck by these natural disasters.

I share the sense of loss and grief. I am almost incredulous at the size of this particular tragedy. So I can assure my honourable friends -- and we will be keeping them up to date on the progress as it comes along -- that we are there and it has already started. I thank my honourable friend for raising this.

Mr. B. Rae: Life is full of ironies, even of tragic proportions. It is particularly tragic, I think, that on the very day that Mr. Gorbachev was making some historic announcements to the United Nations with respect to the future of world peace and having such an impact on that assembly, we were all reminded of the tremendous power of nature and the extraordinary power that an earthquake can have in destroying communities and, it would appear, thousands of lives.

Our hearts go out to the Armenian community in this province and this country, which is a very large community and which has contributed much to our own national life since Armenians began coming to Canada decades ago. There will be many people living in this country who will have relatives, and they will be trying to find information and trying to find out about their safety and their future.

I hope very much that all parties can be involved, as I know we will all want to be involved in contributing in whatever way we can to the humanitarian work of the government of Ontario and the relief work of the Red Cross and other organizations. Many of us would like to be involved, and I know that opportunity will be made available to us.

Our hearts go out to the Armenian people, to their government and to all of the relatives involved. We hope very much that the news is not quite as bad as it would appear to be today. Certainly anything that we can do to encourage people to give and participate in humanitarian relief, we will be doing.

ORAL QUESTIONS

TEMAGAMI DISTRICT RESOURCES

Mr. B. Rae: I do have some questions today for the Attorney General relating to the continuing question of the land claim that was the subject of a Court of Appeal consideration this morning with respect to the injunction.

I wonder if the Attorney General can tell us why he did not tell the House, when he was making his announcement with respect to the negotiations between him and Chief Potts, that the offer he made to Chief Potts was a 90-day, take-it-or-leave-it proposition. To justify that question, I simply remind him that on January 21, 1987, he wrote to Chief Potts as follows: “Although the specific provisions of the settlement agreement will, of course, emerge from negotiations, I must advise that Ontario has no interest in pursuing negotiations on the basis of any other principles,” in that case referring to the principles that were set out by the minister in his letter to Chief Potts in September 1986.

Why, if he is negotiating in good faith, would he simply put a take-it-or-leave-it proposition on the table?

Hon. Mr. Scott: The answer to that is that I did not. As the honourable member will know, that correspondence was made public at the very time the offer was made and was the subject of comment at the time. The honourable member will recall that the offer of settlement was made after the land claim had been dismissed by the court as unwarranted. I decided, as the government did, that an offer none the less should be made, which, as an offer, involved approximately $30 million, $15 million of which could be taken in land. We were anxious to proceed with that, but the native people were proceeding with their appeal.

What we said in the offer was, “We know you are preparing for the appeal, but if you will take 90 days to consider the viability of this offer, if you are interested in discussing it we will then discuss whether the appeal should be put to one side during the very lengthy period of time when a large land claim would have to be discussed.” The native people said, “No, we would rather concentrate on our appeal and proceed.”

I should emphasize that following that, I indicated to the native people that we would discuss a land claim with them on any terms. Indeed, in answer to a question from the honourable member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman) in this House four months ago, I think I made precisely the same point. That was our position then; it is our position now.

1410

Mr. B. Rae: With great respect to the Attorney General, he will know perfectly well that in the correspondence to him from Chief Potts, what Chief Potts said to him, in asking for clarification of the government’s offer which was made in a letter dated September 30, 1986, quite categorically was: “We obviously want to discuss a land claim. We do not want to give up our appeal because it has taken us this long to get this far. We are not going to give up that appeal.”

The Attorney General said, “You have to agree to suspend the appeal and you have to agree to negotiate on our principles.” To quote the exact words the Attorney General used in his letter to Chief Potts, “I must advise that Ontario has no interest in pursuing negotiations on the basis of any other principles.”

Now, the Attorney General is a very skilled and knowledgeable negotiator. He has had vast experience in this field of negotiating. He knows perfectly well that when he puts down in writing that he is not interested in negotiating on any other principles than the principles he outlined in his original offer of September 30, 1986, that is a classic take-it-or-leave-it, 90-day proposition. That is what it is.

Hon. Mr. Scott: I did not detect a question in that, unless it be to affirm or deny what the Leader of the Opposition says, and I cannot because he is mistaken.

The native people’s land claim was dismissed at trial after one of the longest trials in Ontario’s history. The native people decided to appeal. If they win their appeal, they will not have to settle or negotiate with any government. They will have a court order about what their entitlement is. I said, “Rather than proceed with the appeal, would you like to negotiate?” They said they would like to negotiate and have their appeal. That is obviously impossible. The purpose of negotiating is to remove the adjudication process.

Since then, I have said to the native people as often as I can that we will sit down with them, as no other government in Ontario history has, at any time and any place to discuss a negotiation of their land claim on any terms that will obviate the necessity of judicial hearings. But obviously, as the honourable member understands, there is no point in negotiating a claim if you are going to go ahead with the litigation.

I understand the chief’s position well and I respect it. He understands mine and I believe he respects it. Between us there has never been the slightest doubt about the commitment of this government to meet and negotiate this claim at any time the native people want to do so.

I would just like to add one point, but I will save it on the chance there is a second supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: I think there might be a final supplementary.

Mr. B. Rae: The Attorney General has offered how he thinks Chief Potts respects his position. I can assure him, having met with Chief Potts yesterday afternoon, that he does not respect his position.

Hon. Mr. Scott: I knew Chief Potts before you knew his name.

Mr. B. Rae: All right. Now let me --

Mr. Speaker: The supplementary?

Mr. Breaugh: Unfortunately, he knows you.

Mr. B. Rae: Yes, and he has known you for a long time. Hence, that is why he has reached his conclusion.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps we could get to the final supplementary.

Mr. B. Rae: I have not heard an answer directly from the Attorney General to what he said in his letter of January 21, 1987. First of all, it was a retractable offer. It was an offer that was made in September and expired as of February 1, 1987. That was the first position that was put forward by the Attorney General. He knows that is true. The offer expired on that day. It was effectively withdrawn and Chief Potts was told, “If you do not answer by such and such a time, it is not going to happen.”

Then he went on to say, January 21, 1987, as these negotiations are not even started, “I must advise that Ontario has no interest in pursuing negotiations on the basis of any other principles.” Now he is standing up and saying: “Oh, I am happy to talk about anything. Of course I am happy and the chief has always known that.”

I say to the Attorney General --

Mr. Speaker: By way of a question?

Mr. B. Rae: -- the chief and the band have not known that. What they have known is that it is an offer that was withdrawn. They could not proceed with the Court of Appeal and it was an offer that would happen only if the chief agreed to pursue negotiations on the basis of the Attorney General’s principles and nobody else’s principles.

Mr. Speaker: Question?

Mr. B. Rae: That is what the Attorney General has said in writing, and I think it speaks far more loudly than anything else he might say.

Hon. Mr. Scott: Even if my friend says it at the top of his lungs, he cannot make that point.

The issue was simply this, as the honourable member surely understands having had some experience, though not in this field; the reality is that we said to the chief: “If you would like to negotiate a solution so that the appeal will not be necessary, we are prepared to do so. Would you let us know whether you want to meet to negotiate on the terms we proposed?” He replied and said no, that he would rather proceed with his appeal.

I understand that. That happens all the time in negotiations, but I should emphasize to my honourable friend that I have said repeatedly in this House and to the band that we are prepared to meet at any time to discuss the land claim on those terms or on any terms Chief Potts wants to propose. He has made plain throughout that he will discuss the land claim when the court proceedings are over. I understand that.

One other point should be made. Every land claim that has taken place in this country has been a tripartite negotiation between the native band, the province concerned and the federal government. One of the difficulties here is that the federal government has not formally agreed to participate in any negotiations at all. The reason they give is precisely the same reason Chief Potts gives. They do not want to negotiate at a time when the appeal is pending. The federal government goes one step further and says, “Why should we negotiate when the court has said there is no land claim at all?” Ontario has said that notwithstanding that loss, we will negotiate at any time –

Mr. Speaker: Thank you; new question.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr. B. Rae: I have a question to the Premier. He will know that there was a meeting outside the Legislature this morning of the March Against Poverty Committee which has been one of the main groups prodding the government over the last year to do something, and it has been prodding them since September to do something about the failure to implement the report of the Social Assistance Review Committee.

The Premier’s colleague the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney) told reporters outside that he would like to have done more, but that there is simply no money to do it, that it is not yet possible for him to do what Judge Thomson has asked him to do and that the money is not available.

Can the Premier tell us if that in fact is the case? Is the minister right when he says there simply is no money available within the government to provide for the very minimum Judge Thomson has deemed is necessary in order to begin to fight the battle against poverty in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: As my honourable friend is aware, we get a number of reports in to the government. We analyse them and eventually government policy is determined. We have the Thomson report. The matter is under review at the present time. As my honourable friend knows, it is a very expensive report to implement.

The member will stand up in this House every day and say there should be more money for this, more money for housing, more for education and more for health. There is not a day goes by in this House when the members opposite do not stand up and scream for more spending somewhere or other. I am not trying to stand in this House and make the case that it is adequate, but I do stand in the House and say there have been very substantial increases in the Ministry of Community and Social Services budget over the last three years.

The Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) could assist me with these numbers, but it was up something like 13 per cent last year. That is triple the rate of inflation. Members can argue it is not enough, that it should be double that. That is fair enough and the members will argue that in other areas as well.

There was a $100-million announcement yesterday, which is a very substantial amount of money. The member is the first one to stand up and scream when taxes are raised, as well. He cannot have it all ways. We are trying to do the best we can. The SARC report is under review by the government in all its various aspects, including the funding over a period of time, but I want to say that I think yesterday’s announcement was a significant one.

1420

Mr. B. Rae: The Premier knew perfectly well when he appointed Judge Thomson to do his work that there was going to be a major overhaul of the social assistance program in this province. This government has known for many months when Judge Thomson was going to be reporting. His government knew perfectly well that it was going to cost money.

When you look at the public accounts and you look at the BILD program, 1985-86, the technology fund, 1986-87, the tech fund, 1987-88 and the tech fund, 1988-89, what is interesting is that there is far more money allocated than spent. In fact, when you look at some aspects of government, they seem to have far more money available than they spend. The Minister of Housing (Ms. Hošek) has had money allocated to her for social housing. She has not been able to spend it. It would cost this government an additional $50 million to implement the Thomson report to the end of this fiscal year, and then the other money would have to be kicked in for the year after that.

I would like to ask the Premier, what kind of priority does fighting poverty have within his government?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I think my honourable friend is right. It would cost $50 million for the end of this fiscal year, which is three months. If he multiplies that by four, and I am sure my honourable friend is capable of doing that, it is $200 million, and it grows incrementally in that particular area.

Again, do not force me to stand and say this is enough or that it is adequate because I know personally of many cases of hardship in this regard. Whether this approach will solve all those -- we asked Mr. Thomson for his advice in this matter, but everything we do has to be costed out and put in context.

I say to my honourable friend, compare Ontario’s programs, the increase in budget for the last three years, to any other jurisdiction in this country and he will find that we are leading in almost every single area. We have a great number of social needs we have to meet, be it assistive devices, be it child care, be it a whole bunch of other areas.

He stands up every day and want more money for child care, more for assistive devices and more for everything. In a perfect world, I would like to see that kind of situation, but I say to him that we have a multiplicity of responsibilities. We are trying to review this matter as positively as we possibly can, but that process is not complete.

Mr. Allen: The Premier boasts consistently about the great wave of prosperity that is sweeping this province and likes to take some credit for it. He flaunts the technology fund which is going underspent year after year. He is apparently quite happy to make big-sounding investments in the economy in general, but he does not seem to be prepared to make a fundamental investment in the very elementary human needs of a very significant core of people in this province. One in six of these people we are talking about, one in six kids, is poor in Ontario.

On the scale of priorities that the Premier and the Minister of Community and Social Services profess to accept, surely the Premier, as a human being, must recognize the first priority of allocating $50 million between now and the end of the fiscal year on an element that is so crucial for the wellbeing of our province, both morally and economically.

Why can he not do that when he has that unspent money on his accounts in only two lines in the budget in public accounts?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I respect the honourable member’s passionate appeal in this regard. He wants to ask about government priorities. He would want to say which other priorities should be submerged to this one. I say to him, look at the budget. It is up 13.8 per cent last year.

Mr. Allen: Look at the budgets of the poor. There are some of them up there in the gallery right now. You’re taking from the poor. Why don’t we get something from the rich for a change?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I say to the member that budget is up some nine or 10 per cent.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Would the member for Hamilton West take his seat?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I too have met with the group assembled in the gallery. I think, by any reasonable standard you want to use that this government has made real progress in these areas.

HOME CARE

Mr. Brandt: My question is for the Premier as well. It relates to the Red Cross homemaker services. The Premier is probably aware that the Red Cross is presently running a $1.1 million annual deficit. Their program, as the Premier is no doubt aware, serves about 180,000 Ontario citizens, elderly and handicapped people. If they do not receive the $1.1 million in funding to cover their deficit, there is a good chance, according to discussions my staff has had with the Red Cross today, that up to 150,000 of the 180,000 who are being served under the homemaker program could well lose their independence.

I ask the Premier if he is prepared, on behalf of the government, to make a commitment to in fact fund this relatively small sum of money, $1.1 million, which is serving such a large number of Ontario citizens?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I think the honourable minister can assist with this question.

Mr. Speaker: The question has been referred to the Minister of Community and Social Services.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The honourable leader is, I am sure, aware of the fact that the Ministry of Health has about two-thirds of the homemaker service and our ministry has about one-third. He is probably also aware of the fact that in my ministry alone, we have put an additional $40 million into homemaker services just in the past two years. Again, as I am sure he understands, the difficulty is that the demand for services, particularly for the elderly and the disabled, is so great that as we put more and more money in, there are more and more people who want to use the service.

The difficulty with the case of the Red Cross is that the request it is making to fund its deficit would not provide one extra dollar for the service. It would just allow the agency itself to continue to do what it is doing right now. That is the dilemma we are in. We have, on the one hand, agencies that need money simply to administer the service, and we have the homemakers themselves who need extra money to deliver the service in a very direct way.

I have to tell the honourable member that we are juggling those kinds of budget amounts. That $1 million is a lot of money and it does not do a thing to add to the service.

Mr. Brandt: I point out to the honourable minister that the cost of the Red Cross homemaker service is about $10 a day, which runs to about 10 per cent to 14 per cent, on average, of what the cost would be for institutional care for these same people.

The Red Cross does not initiate or begin the pressure for increased services in many, many instances. Those pressures for increased services are brought about by governments themselves. As a direct result of that, the Red Cross now finds itself, after some 65 years of providing this service in Ontario, in a position where it is going to have great difficulty in continuing to operate unless it gets $1.1 million.

The question very simply is, are we going to continue to have this service in Ontario and is the minister prepared to commit this additional money out of his budget?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I have no doubt that we will continue to have homemaker services in Ontario. What I cannot commit myself to is who is going to deliver those services. I certainly would not in any way fault the Red Cross for the quality of the service it is delivering. The difficulty is that I have some reluctance to put money into the administrative end of it when the need is so much for the direct service end of it.

Mr. Brandt: I am having difficulty with this one. For 65 years, this organization has not been at the steps of the Legislative Assembly begging for money. It has administered its programs very effectively. It has administered its programs in a most economical fashion. Now, it finds itself in a dilemma where it is providing a service to 180,000 Ontario residents. Up to 150,000 of those, it has itself determined according to its staff reports, could well be forced into some form of institutionalization if it is not provided with the money to continue the program.

I ask the minister again, looking at the track record of one of the most outstanding organizations in our society today, namely, the Red Cross, why is it that after 65 years, it now has this problem where $1.1 million, a very small fraction of the minister’s budget, cannot be directed towards removing the present burden of the administrative deficit from the Red Cross administration?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: There is and has been an ongoing analysis of this request by the Ministry of the Treasury, the Ministry of Health and my ministry. We met with the Red Cross and some of the other service-delivering agencies several months ago. This is not something that has just started for the first time. We are continuing to analyse and review where we are able to put the very scarce dollars that are available. We have not yet confirmed how we are going to respond to that.

I can only say to the honourable member that the service delivery will continue. We will have to determine who can most effectively continue to deliver it. I point out to him that the first criterion we have in all of our municipalities, whether it is through the Ministry of Health or through my ministry, is that any person who is in imminent danger of going into an institution or going back into an institution gets the very first service. That will continue.

1430

Mr. Brandt: I want to go back to the Premier and I want to put it in the context of the response I just received from the minister.

In reviewing the Premier’s estimates, which are coming up later this afternoon in the assembly, I would like to point out to the Premier that at the moment, according to the latest figures I have received, there are six executive assistants in his office staff at an average of about $60,000 per year; there are 12 special assistants at about $40,000 on average per year; there are 14 general assistants at about $25,000 on average per year, and an executive director and a principal secretary, in excess of $100,000. There is a very considerable amount of money in his office alone related to the function of his administrative operations.

I raised the question with the minister about how we can come up with $1.1 million to serve the administrative needs and to continue the programming of the Red Cross. Does it seem fair to the Premier that his staff is this large and this expensive when we cannot make enough money available to serve the needs of the Red Cross?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I certainly understand the point he makes. I do not want to be provocative here, but I think there is enough money in the budget they organized for themselves just before they were thrown out of office to pay for all of that. Why would they have taken the opportunity when they were leaving office three years ago to substantially increase the enrichments for members of the Legislature, knowing as they did that they were going into opposition?

Mr. Brandt: Let me just say to the Premier that if he wants to talk about increased costs and looking after oneself, when one combines the cost of his operations in the Premier’s office with that of the cabinet, which we were told in opposition was going to result in an overall saving, it is interesting to note that in the four years they have been over there, the costs have gone up something like 73 per cent; triple the rate of inflation.

How can he stand there and deny the Red Cross, among other organizations and among other needy individuals in this province, the kind of assistance it needs when his own costs have gone up three times the rate of inflation?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Let me tell my honourable friend that his figures are quite wrong in this particular matter. As a matter of fact, when one looks at the collapsed policy secretariats they had and the extra cabinet ministers, one will find it is less. My honourable friend might want to check his facts.

Mr. Brandt: We are going to have an opportunity to get into this in more detail later on this afternoon.

I have, in fact, checked my facts. I am looking at the total cost of the Premier’s office and cabinet as it was when the Liberals took over office and the total cost of the Premier’s office and cabinet as it is today. It is up 73 per cent. It is up some $3 million. It is up more than three times the amount of money needed to cover the deficit of the Red Cross that he cannot come up with enough money to fund.

I think it is an insult to stand before the people of Ontario and in the last four years spend more than $3 million on his own bureaucrats, his own office staff, his own cabinet and not be able to fund the Red Cross. It just is unheard of.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I look forward this afternoon to discussing the estimates of my office with my honourable friend. I understand his point of view. I will be here, and then we may want to compare this to his office budget and to his particular action in that regard and his drive through the Board of Internal Economy to increase expenses. We will do this and I look forward to that discussion.

WILLIAM MILNE AND SONS LTD.

Mr. B. Rae: I have a question for the Minister of Labour. I understand that the workers at William Milne and Sons Ltd. in Temagami have been asked by the receiver to sign a waiver. The waiver says they will not go after the bank or the receiver for severance pay or lost wages. If they sign that waiver, the workers have been told they will get another eight weeks’ work. If they do not sign the waiver, they have been told they are out of luck.

Does the Minister of Labour think that such a waiver is in fact lawful or right and what does he intend to do about it?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I can tell the Leader of the Opposition that under the Employment Standards Act, a waiver of that sort would have no force or effect in law.

Mr. B. Rae: I wonder if the Minister of Labour can tell us what he is going to tell the workers, who have been basically blackmailed by the receiver in this regard -- and there is no other nice way to describe what kind of force and effect this kind of statement has on workers -- being told they either sign this thing and sign away their legal rights or they will not get another day’s pay at all. I wonder if the minister can tell us just exactly what he is going to tell the workers and what he is going to do to enforce the law so that they are not placed in this position.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: Perhaps I could send the message once again through the Leader of the Opposition that a waiver of that sort has no force or effect under the Employment Standards Act. Workers are not capable of waiving the rights that they have to notice and severance pay under the Employment Standards Act, and if a waiver is signed, it is of no force or effect.

The Leader of the Opposition asks me what recommendations I would have for the Milne workers. I want to tell him that we have employment standards officers there to explain clearly to the workers what their rights are. I want to tell him as well that we have members of the Ministry of Labour there in a counselling capacity and they are working with the receiver and representatives of the federal government to provide adjustment assistance and any other assistance that is appropriate under the circumstances.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr. Runciman: My question is to the Minister of Financial Institutions. In the wake of the Mercer report and the concerns it generated among the public, the minister has been talking a great deal about the public hearings process of the Ontario Automobile Insurance Board.

I am wondering if the minister is aware that there are only two three-hour sessions dedicated to public hearings, that written submissions have to be in by next Monday, that there are only two phone lines open for all of Ontario and that just one person, the board’s secretary, is available -- or is not available -- to deal with requests to appear at the hearings.

It is quite obvious, at this stage anyway, that in terms of public input, these hearings are a sham. I wonder if the minister is prepared to do anything about it.

Hon. Mr. Elston: I disagree with the honourable gentleman in terms of his charge that this is a sham. This set of hearings in fact has been very thorough, very public, and has provided results that bespeak a very thorough analysis of material brought before the board and has indicated through the decisions that have been rendered a very thorough analysis of what has gone there.

I will check into the other questions the member has raised with me with respect to the number of telephone lines and otherwise, and I will get back to him.

Mr. Runciman: The board has scheduled 10 days right in the holiday season. It is virtually impossible to have meaningful public input into this the way the board has established it. The board is even stipulating the kinds of issues that witnesses should address; for example, “How should the generalized uniform rate-making algorithm be parameterized?” or something like that. That is the sort of thing they are trying to require the public to have input on, if you can believe it, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

Mr. Runciman: That is right. How does the minister expect the public to have meaningful input? I am wondering if the minister is prepared to ensure that the severe restrictions on testimony are eased and that the hearings are extended to provide adequate opportunity for public input.

Hon. Mr. Elston: I know there are a number of other issues about which the honourable gentleman could have provided perhaps a more correct reading of the wording. I know there is a series of pages in that document, I am sure, although I did not see it firsthand, entitled “Preliminary Issues,” and there are a number of questions which are raised merely to bring to the surface, on an initial runthrough, some of the issues which I think the board will be very interested in getting into. That does not mean that it is in fact just an exclusive series of questions.

I can tell the honourable gentleman as well that there are various ways in which the public will be represented at these hearings, in addition to the fact that the board itself is charged with the mandate of looking after the public interest, to have fair and reasonable rates. I can also tell the honourable gentleman that the Consumers’ Association of Canada will be there in a professional capacity, with professional assistance, to provide input on the basis of its analysis, and in fact, I am sure others will want to appear.

The fact that the member for Leeds-Grenville is unable to read all of the issues as they are set out in the preliminary paper does not exclude, however, the fact that there will be a number of interested public people who will be able to understand and put representations in front of the board in a real and meaningful way. In fact, the process has indicated in the past that when recommendations were examined, changes were made on the basis of input. I suspect this will be another case of that sort of thorough analysis of recommendations.

1440

VISITORS

Mr. Speaker: I hope members will allow me to interrupt just for a moment, because we have five members-elect from the federal Parliament in the lower east gallery. They are Maurice Foster, Len Hopkins, Joe Comuzzi, Bob Nault and Reg Belair. Please welcome them.

DENTAL CARE

Mr. Owen: I have a question for the Minister of Health. A number of parents have approached me who could be described as being in the low- to middle-income bracket, and they are concerned about their inability to come up with the money for dental care for their children. They have pointed out to me that the children who are in families on welfare are looked after, they tell me the children whose parents are fairly well-to-do have no problems, but they do and they have asked if there is any possibility that the schools could be assisted by the Ministry of Health to provide this type of service.

I am wondering if the minister could share with us whether any program is being considered to try to meet these particular problems and needs.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I want to thank the member for his question, because it does give me an opportunity to inform him and his constituents that in fact in September 1987, the ministry initiated and instituted a dental treatment program for children in need of immediate care.

The objective of the program is to provide required dental care to children attending elementary schools in Ontario whose families, as some of the member’s constituents have noted to him, have no insurance and for whom other forms of coverage of necessary dental care would create a hardship. They have the opportunity to declare that and necessary dental care and assistance is provided to them.

Mr. Owen: I wonder if the minister could give us some guidance or assistance as to whether the program which has been initiated can be made available to these particular people with or without the means test and whether it is available to them for any dentist of their choosing.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: The program is administered by local boards of health. The ministry provides 100 per cent for the cost of treatment. The program was developed by an advisory committee formed by the former minister in 1986. If anyone is interested in the specific details of how the program works in his area, I would advise him to contact his local board of health.

I believe that the program has been very successful. We received advice from experts, from dentists, on how the program should be developed, and I am pleased that the member has given me an opportunity today to inform the members of this House that the local boards of health will be pleased to give them any additional details on how it functions in their communities.

CORONER’S INQUEST

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I have a question to the Solicitor General. I would simply like to ask the minister why on earth it is now necessary to have -- we have had the coroner’s inquest, with incredible legal costs to the family. Now the minister is going to reappoint another coroner’s inquest as well as a public inquiry under some section of the Police Act. Why would the minister not just simply have rolled it all together and called a public inquiry into the Bastien shooting?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: I think it is very important for both the public and the people involved very closely, such as the family, that we make a clear distinction between two issues here, which are both of concern to the public. One is an inquiry into the actual incident in which Mr. Bastien died, what went wrong there and what can be avoided in the future in such incidents. There is a very real reason that this incident should be examined closely, at as little emotional cost as possible to the family: so that others can be spared any mistakes that were made there. That is the long-term purpose of inquests, which have proved very successful at this. It is our intention to follow this particular route through to its final conclusion.

On the other hand, we have been looking for some time at the need to structure the Ontario Police Commission in such a way that it can deal with issues of public concern around policing in Ontario. Regardless of this particular incident but brought on by this incident, there is a great deal of concern present in the public. It is quite justified that they should ask, “What is the purpose and appropriate use of such teams in Ontario?”

It is to this purpose that the OPC, which has been newly structured to be an arm’s-length, quasi-judicial, uninfluenced group, will examine the use of these particular forces in Ontario with the help of the public. They will report to this House.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I must say the explanation of the minister has confirmed some of my worst fears. Under section 58 of the Police Act the minister could have called this inquiry which would have had the responsibility not only of dealing with the broad public policy questions but also of dealing with the duties and responsibilities in the Bastien case.

She will know that under the Coroners Act, as well as under section 59 of the Police Act, which she has called this inquiry under, neither will be able to deal with individual responsibility for the Bastien incident. She knows that is the case under the coroner’s inquest and it is certainly the case under section 59 of the Police Act.

How are we eventually going to find out exact responsibility and individual responsibility in this case if it cannot be done under either section 59 of the Police Act or the coroner’s inquest?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: The member should be careful to remember that we are not a court of law in that sense. The decision was made, and I believe even concurred with and not objected to -- the recommendation was made by the Windsor Police Force, which investigated this incident -- that criminal charges not be laid. It was not the intention of the inquest to act as a jury in a case of criminal charges being laid. It would be a great misuse of that system to treat it as such.

As I understand it, the difference between the section 58 that the member uses and the section 59 that I would be using is that this is under order in council of the Lieutenant Governor. This is the section that would give the broad definition to the inquiry of the OPC.

I want to be very clear with the member and with everybody in the Legislature that it is our intention to make this as useful and as broad and as public as possible. We are not trying to be very legalistic or formalistic. We want to leave it as open as possible. It is constituted in a sense under that particular section of the Police Act.

If the OPC has reason to feel that it wants to request any further input, it will be free to do so through cabinet. I would add very quickly that it will have --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. That seemed like a fairly reasonable answer.

HEART AND CIRCULATORY DISEASES

Mrs. Marland: My question is to the Minister of Health. On June 9, the minister announced an $18-million effort aimed at preventing and treating heart and circulatory diseases across the province, in particular a major expansion of facilities for heart surgery.

I want to tell the minister about a gentleman by the name of Charles Allan Coleman. The gentleman is 63 years of age. He had a heart attack on January 2 this year. He had been scheduled to go into hospital for a triple bypass on no fewer than six different occasions. Finally, on November 11 he was admitted to St. Michael’s Hospital where he remained until November 23, which is 12 days. At that time he was scheduled and prepared three times for his surgery.

1450

Mr. Speaker: The question?

Mrs. Marland: That patient was finally dismissed and sent home on November 23 without the procedure, having had all the added stress of the waiting, the preparation and the cancellations, of course.

Mr. Speaker: The question?

Mrs. Marland: My question is, if the minister is sincere in her $18-million effort to remedy this problem with this particular procedure, what is her answer to --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Minister.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I must say to the member opposite and to members of this House that prior to the announcement in June of over $18 million to expand cardiac services in the province, I met with some of the leadership -- cardiologists, hospital administrators and researchers -- to discuss this in my office.

One of the questions I asked them was whether or not they would be able to increase the capacity in Metropolitan Toronto in the downtown tertiary care centres, given some of the stresses and difficulties, particularly in attracting critical care nurses in the downtown core. I was assured by them that they would be able to respond appropriately, and I can tell the member that that was the basis upon which the decision was taken.

As she knows, we expanded capacity not only in Toronto but also in Hamilton, Ottawa and London as well as in Sudbury. I know that the increased capacity should be in place by the end of this year or early next year. There have been some difficulties experienced.

I am always concerned when I hear stories of this kind of delay, and I know how stressful that can be for families. She should know, as I have mentioned a number of times in this House, that without any increase in the incidence of the disease, we know that the number of people being recommended for this surgery has dramatically increased.

Mrs. Marland: I guess there is not an answer to Mr. Coleman. It is probably the same as the minister’s answers about the ambulance strike in Halton-Mississauga. I think the minister should be interested in knowing that an ambulance that was promised this morning in Halton-Mississauga did not show. That patient whom I spoke to earlier this week was transferred in another vehicle with great liability.

I am concerned that the minister does not have an answer for Mr. Coleman. I think that for her to say she hopes the problem will be resolved by the end of the year is not good enough. She talks all the time about our world-class health care system, which I for one stand in this Legislature and agree with; but the feeling is that that world-class health care system is being very quickly eroded for this man. What chance does Mr. Coleman have, in spite of her $18-million announcement, to have his life-saving surgery? What does she think will happen to him by the end of this year?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Minister.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: In fact, the member opposite has stated quite correctly that the government has made a significant commitment of dollars to expand the cardiovascular system and cardiovascular care in this province. She also knows full well, and appropriately so, that we rely on physicians to make sure that those people in need of urgent care receive that care first.

I have had assurances that the new cardiac and critical care registry that we are in fact working on will improve matters. The commitment that we have made has been significant, and I am hopeful that we will be able to respond appropriately. The resources have been made available.

AIR TRANSPORTATION

Mr. Offer: I have a question of the Minister of Transportation. As the minister is aware, Pearson International Airport is located within my riding, but of course it is on federal lands and within federal jurisdiction. There are growing concerns around its operation.

I note that there is an article in the media today about an eight-point plan to ease some of the problems at Pearson airport. My question to the minister is, apart from this eight-point plan which has been proposed by him, is there anything else which he is doing and his ministry is doing in order to alleviate this problem?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: I am tempted to say all of the above.

I welcome the member’s question, and I can certainly understand his ongoing concern and that of his colleagues and others around Metro and users of the airport with respect to what is taking place and what is not taking place at Pearson airport. We did indeed forward a letter to the Minister of State (Transport), Mrs. Martin, and judging from the Prime Minister’s reaction in today’s paper, the federal government may indeed implement some of the points that we have suggested.

We are also awaiting results of a meeting that I understand may be taking place later today or tomorrow morning with the Prime Minister and some of the Department of Transport officials. For our part, we have been in communication with most of the regional chairmen and the various mayors and others who have an interest with respect to, if needed, having to go by train to Ottawa and make our points well in the interests of the travelling public.

Mr. Offer: One area of special concern surrounding the airport, and certainly one that I hear about in my constituency office, is the issue of ground transportation. What efforts are the minister and the ministry making in order to ease the problem of ground transportation around Pearson International Airport?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: In our announcement last May, we indicated, among other things, in our Transportation Directions for the Greater Toronto Area report that we have three gateways located in close proximity to the airport which could facilitate additional public transit. Certainly we are moving ahead with roads and other on-site projects.

We understand that the federal government may be interested in an on-site people mover, which we would be only too happy to build for them in Kingston or Thunder Bay. But on any of those initiatives we are prepared and have been prepared for some time to co-operate with the federal government and other municipalities as required.

I would like to point out that we brought this matter to the attention of the then federal Minister of Transport, Mr. Crosbie, 21 months ago. The government’s action today is long overdue.

PROPOSED TRANSMISSION LINE

Mr. Charlton: I have a question for the Minister of Energy. I think the minister has fairly quickly become reasonably familiar with the situation confronting a number of residents in the Glen Shields community in Vaughan township over the course of the last few weeks. In a sincere effort, the minister agreed to discuss with Ontario Hydro the matter of the proposed power line across the backyards of those residents to see if there was not some way of finding an alternative to putting those hydro lines right across the back fence line of those yards.

Unfortunately, on December 5, 1988, the minister sent a letter to the Glen Shields Community Association with his response in terms of those discussions, setting out that there was no alternative solution available, and he attached to his letter a copy of a letter from Robert Franklin, the president of Ontario Hydro. That letter contains a number of serious inconsistencies in terms of what has happened over the last six months and a couple of absolutely incorrect statements.

As the regulator of Ontario Hydro, why has the minister not taken the initiative to have an independent look at this matter rather than just accept the comments of Ontario Hydro as absolute gospel?

Hon. Mr. Wong: Approximately three weeks ago, I met with the representatives from the Glen Shields association. I have had correspondence with them. Even yesterday I was speaking with one of the representatives on the phone. When we discussed the matter three weeks ago, I told the representatives that it boiled down to two essential points.

First, I would more than willingly re-examine the potential health hazards issue -- after all, things move ahead in medical science; a few months have passed since I examined this matter last -- just to find out if there were any new facts or findings that would cause us to change the decision.

The other key point that I wanted to address was to be empathetic to their concerns, to find out if there were a technically responsible way and a cost-effective way whereby the line could be moved or changed or adjusted in some manner while at the same time meeting my responsibility as Minister of Energy to make sure that the other residents in Ontario who would be served by this new 230-kilovolt line would have their needs met and would not face power outages in early 1989.

1500

Mr. Chariton: The minister has not directly answered my question in terms of why he has accepted Hydro’s comments as absolute fact. The minister should understand that, first of all, when this issue was first raised with Hydro, they suggested that the only solution, which was crossing to the north side of the right of way, would cause an 18-month delay. Four months later, it was a seven-month delay. Now Hydro is saying a four-month delay. Hydro’s facts are no more absolute than anybody else’s.

The facts that are set out in this letter are extremely questionable. For example, the crossover proposal was a proposal that was initially made by Ontario Hydro, not by the residents. Second, they are suggesting in this letter that Vaughan Hydro has said absolutely that they cannot withstand any delays. That is not correct. Vaughan Hydro is prepared to negotiate a short delay.

I would suggest to the minister that it is time, as the regulator of Ontario Hydro, that he do what he suggested to the press of this province and become the minister who is going to take Hydro under control. When is the minister going to stop accepting their facts and start making some judgements of his own?

Hon. Mr. Wong: We accept the facts. The honourable member refers to a letter of November 5. I would like to clear the record and make it clear that I said to the residents of Glen Shields that I am not completely satisfied with some of the answers I have been getting; I want further clarification. I also sent to the honourable member a copy of the correspondence that I sent to Glen Shields. I notice the date is November 29.

The point I wish to make is that yesterday on the telephone, when I spoke with that representative, I said: “You have the latest facts. You have the latest response. If there is anything further, if there is anything that has been overlooked, by all means please bring it to my attention so that we can look at it in a factual and reasonable way.” That is the case.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE REVIEW BOARD

Mrs. Cunningham: My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. There are now 20 members on the Social Assistance Review Board to hear approximately 80 cases per week and close to 40 permanent and temporary staff to type and send out each decision.

Can the minister explain why in the past year and a half, despite a huge increase in the board’s budget and human resources, these backlogs have in fact increased, so that the delay in delivering decisions is now greater than really at any time in the history of the board?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The honourable member may be aware of the fact that the last six permanent members of the board came on only in the last two or three months; that, in fact, the first dozen were there for the year, but the last six or seven were in the last two or three months.

The member will also recall that the study that was done recommended a number of things, but there were two key ones: first, that we move from part-time members to full-time members, and second, that the full-time members be much better trained in their duties and have the necessary legal backup in order to make their decisions themselves, instead of staff making the decisions. Those things have all been done.

The last time I spoke to the chairman, Mrs. Campbell, she indicated to me that, by the end of this month or early next month, they expect to have the bulk of the backup caught up and they will be at the 40-day or 42-day time limit which is required under the legislation. I think we are almost there.

Mrs. Cunningham: We are encouraged to see that the minister is very much aware of the problem. Probably what we should be working towards, though, is decreasing the case load of this board. I am sure he would agree with me.

The Premier (Mr. Peterson) talked today about this report being very expensive. Well, we have the answer for the minister. Recommendations 148, 149, 150 and 151 do not cost a cent. My question is, why will the minister not implement these recommendations immediately for two reasons: to improve the procedural fairness and to reduce the number of appeals to the board?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: We are taking some actions. First of all, the report reviewing the Social Assistance Review Board clearly stated that there were too many cases going through the ministry’s offices.

We have had almost a year of review and retraining of our own staff to reduce -- I know what the honourable member is referring to -- the number of cases, quite frankly, that have to go to the board at all. We have cut that back. As the member would know, we also have cut back considerably those cases that used to come through what was known as spouse-in-the-house. That has gone down dramatically. There are relatively few of those.

The third point the member would be aware of is that there is a far, far higher incidence now of clients being supported by the board, compared to previous boards. All of those come together to reduce the impact. Obviously, the Social Assistance Review Committee recommendations would reduce the total number of people who are on assistance at all, and that would solve the problem.

Finally, the member would be aware of the fact that our --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. That seems like a fairly lengthy response. New question, the member for Ottawa South.

SALE OF DRUG-RELATED EQUIPMENT

Mr. McGuinty: My question is for the Attorney General. In fact, this is the first anniversary of my first question to him. He will recall that the question had to do with the sale of drug paraphernalia. That is a federal matter, and subsequently I followed it up with the Toronto police, the Ottawa police, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Metro police and the Minister of Justice, and the sale of that material was subsequently discontinued.

Since then, I have continued with an inquiry into the drug problem and I have spoken with policemen in various parts of the province -- in particular, Arthur Rice, the chief of the Ottawa police force -- who are very much concerned about what they consider to be undue leniency in the courts regarding drug traffickers and offenders. They refer to the revolving-door syndrome and they maintain that the courts are not adequately co-operating with them.

Could the Attorney General give Chief Rice and other enforcement officers in the province some assurance that this matter will be looked into?

Hon. Mr. Scott: I want to thank the honourable member for his question. This is the first anniversary of my first answer given to the honourable member in this House, and I hope the exchange we now initiate will be as productive in terms of results as the first one we initiated a year ago. But as the honourable member knows, these are matters that are prosecuted by the federal government, and of course the submissions as to sentence that are made in the court are made by federal prosecutors, over whom I have no control.

The determinations made by judges are matters that can be appealed, and as the honourable member knows, we try to review these decisions carefully to determine when we should recommend to our federal counterparts that an appeal should be undertaken. I am not at liberty, under our Constitution, to give direction to the judges apart from that, however.

Mr. Speaker: That completes oral questions and responses. Point of order, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. B. Rae).

DOCTORS’ FEES

Mr. B. Rae: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Some five minutes before the end of question period, I received a copy of a letter addressed to Dr. Michael Wyman, who is the chairman of the Ontario Medical Association negotiating committee, signed by John R. Sloan. The paper is on the Management Board of Cabinet letterhead.

In this letter, Mr. Sloan tells the OMA that the negotiations are at an impasse.

Hon. Mr. Elston: What’s the point of order?

Mr. B. Rae: My friend is going to get the point of order. To sit on his fanny for an hour in this House and not make a statement to this House about what he is doing is a disgrace. To not tell the Legislature --

1510

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Would the member take his seat? Order.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Once again: Will the member take his seat? Would the member show some respect for the Speaker?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the members wish --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Thank you.

Mr. Pouliot: There was a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I did not hear a point of order because I could not hear a thing.

lnterjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Well, if you wish to waste the time, go ahead.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Petitions.

PETITION

SPECIAL EDUCATION

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I have a petition signed by 4,600 people from around Ontario, from northwestern Ontario through Ottawa, southwestern Ontario, Toronto, Hamilton, members of the Integration Action Group or their friends, family, students, professionals and the teaching community, teachers, teachers’ aides, all concerned about the lack of action and revision of Bill 82 in the Legislature of Ontario.

It reads as follows:

“We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario that no student with exceptionalities be placed in a segregated classroom without the consent of both parents. By ‘segregated classroom’ we mean a classroom that serves only children with special needs. If a parent wants his/her child at the local neighbourhood school in the regular class placement for children of his/her age, the child should be so placed. Teachers in these classrooms should receive the supports necessary to realize that placement without any fee being levied on the child’s parents.”

As I say, there are 4,600 signatures and I have affixed my own and hope that this government will fulfil its promise and bring us that legislation before the week is out.

REPORT BY COMMITTEE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

Mr. Elliot from the standing committee on general government reported the following resolution:

That supply in the following amounts and to defray the expenses of the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1989:

Ministry administration program, $27,456,900; tourism development program, $38,169,300; parks and attractions program, $29,198,300; recreation, sports and fitness program, $25,108,200; tourism and recreation operations program, $71,546,000.

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

PSYCHOLOGISTS REGISTRATION AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mrs. Caplan moved first reading of Bill 196, An Act to amend the Psychologists Registration Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I am introducing today the Psychologists Registration Amendment Act, a bill to amend the composition of the Ontario Board of Examiners in Psychology, which is the regulatory body for psychologists in this province.

Current legislation provides for five board members, all professional psychologists. As a matter of principle and in order to ensure due process, complaint and disciplinary hearings in professional regulating bodies, they should not be composed of the same members. Because of the current size of the board of examiners in psychology, however, the board finds itself unable to proceed with some important disciplinary hearings because three board members have previous knowledge.

Under the provisions of these amendments, membership on the board of examiners in psychology will therefore be increased from five to 10, and for the first time, three members of the public are to be appointed. Board meetings will require a quorum of three, with one public member present. Remuneration of the public members will be determined by the Lieutenant Governor in Council.

By adding more members and stipulating the quorum requirements, complaint panels can be established. This will make both the business of the board and the complaint process more effective. Adding public members will bring the board of examiners in psychology closer to the model established in the Health Disciplines Act. Equally important, it will enable the board to more effectively preserve and protect the public interest by providing direct public involvement in the regulation of the psychology profession.

I urge the co-operation of all members of this House in giving speedy passage to these legislative amendments.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

House in committee of supply.

ESTIMATES, OFFICE OF THE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR

Hon. Mr. Peterson: It is my pleasant duty to defend the estimates of the Lieutenant Governor here in this House. This is an honourable tradition of this House and I am very happy to do that. I might just add that there is a tradition that all members have an opportunity to speak on the qualities of the Lieutenant Governor.

I will take this moment to be a little bit personal and say that I believe he represents the people of this province, as Her Majesty’s presence here, with a great distinction. I am privileged on many occasions to spend time with the Lieutenant Governor and I have never seen him discharge his official duties but with grace and charm and genuine warmth. I must say that it always warms my heart the way the people respond to the Lieutenant Governor and to his, shall we say, unique and friendly style.

I suspect there is not a member of this House who would not be very comfortable in his or her unanimous support of the Lieutenant Governor as Her Majesty’s representative, as well as his estimates, which are modest, I think, by any standard for a vice-regal presence here. It is important in the discharge of his duties that he can do so in a way that befits this great province as well as his office. I am most comfortable in putting those before you, Mr. Chairman, and I ask for the support of the other members of the House.

1520

Mr. Breaugh: It is my pleasure to participate for a brief while in these estimates.

Many of us who have been members here for a while have had the opportunity to serve with many people now who have been holders of the office of Lieutenant Governor. It is a strange position in some senses. A great deal of ceremony is involved in it, but in an unusual way it also becomes an important one. Each one I have seen takes on somewhat the characteristics of the individual who holds that office.

The current Lieutenant Governor, Lincoln Alexander, is a man each one of us perhaps can relate to because he was for a time a distinguished member of our federal Parliament. He understands the daily workings of members of the assembly, what they go through and what is important to the people we serve.

I am reminded, as I move around Ontario, that the office of the Lieutenant Governor, though it is sometimes seen to be strictly ceremonial, is not. There are many people in Ontario who are very pleased that the Lieutenant Governor occasionally visits their part of the province and has some understanding of their particular needs.

I was particularly struck on a couple of occasions when I was in northern Ontario, I guess because people in the northern part of our province very often get a feeling of alienation from the southern part of Ontario. They feel that the people in the south do not understand their problems and their needs. I was struck by how pleased they were that the Lieutenant Governor had taken the time and the opportunity to tour the north, to see for himself where people live, how they live and what their needs are; that he would bring back to what they saw as the centre of political power here at Queen’s Park a working knowledge of their daily lives, their particular needs, and that they had a chance to see him.

In a strange way, in Canada we have this great respect for the monarchy, which is sometimes difficult for others to understand. Many democracies around the world retain the monarch or a symbol of the monarch, and the Lieutenant Governor does that for us. He does that with a great deal of style and grace.

The current Lieutenant Governor has a great common touch to him. He can talk to any of the members of the assembly freely and comfortably. He drops in on the caucuses around Christmastime. He will say hello to you as he comes in to his office here in the morning, or occasionally, when we give royal assent to a bill, we get a chance to go down and chat with him in his chambers.

Let me depart just a touch from what is normally said during the course of these estimates. I want to make a proposal that has been discussed around here for some time, and I personally think it is time it was taken the next step.

For some time, many of us have felt that the Lieutenant Governor, of all the people who are part of the government of Ontario, should have an official residence. We have discussed at some length precisely how this could be done. Many of us are aware of homes that may have a historic nature to them and of the difficulty private and public boards have in restoring and maintaining those homes. There are a number of them in and around Metropolitan Toronto that would surely be an appropriate official residence for the Lieutenant Governor.

It is rather unusual to see an opposition member looking at a set of estimates and asking that they be expanded somewhat. I am mindful that we should proceed through this concept with some care, but I do think the time has come to provide for the Lieutenant Governor an official residence somewhere in or around Metro. Surely that would be an appropriate thing to do. Other jurisdictions have done that in various ways.

It seems to me we could put together a rather reasonable, commonsense marriage of two ideas. One is the preservation of a historic site, which is often a difficult business. For example, in my community we have the residence of Colonel Sam McLaughlin, called Parkwood, a magnificent estate. The difficulty is that when one sets up a private board to maintain an estate of that size, it is not easy to keep that funded. It is difficult sometimes to find someone who can do the kind of repair and maintenance work that needs to be done on some of these homes.

I think we could do two things here that would be useful. One is to find and identify a home of historic significance in or around Metro and declare that to be the official residence of the Lieutenant Governor. It seems we would solve two problems at once. One would be the preservation of the historic site and the other would be the acknowledgement of the importance of the office of the Lieutenant Governor.

Much of what he or she does on a day-to-day basis is to hold receptions to acknowledge the work that people throughout Ontario have done. I think it is important that it be done in a proper setting, so I would like the government to take under consideration that one matter. In and around Metro, I think, would be the logical place, although I certainly would not want to exclude northern Ontario, because I think that things could be done there. I put forward the one suggestion in Oshawa because I know that people would be amenable to discussing that.

I am not convinced for a moment that it is necessary to go out and buy a house. There are a number of groups and agencies who have been charged with the responsibility of maintaining a home that would be suitable for such a purpose and who would be more than pleased to see some participation by the Legislature in maintaining that residence.

I know that there are a number of communities throughout Ontario that would be just thrilled to death if the official residence was designated, even if it were a summer residence, in their community. I think that each of us could give you a good list of places where it would be --

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Wouldn’t your generosity extend to the Premier in this regard?

Mr. Breaugh: When the Premier earns my respect to that degree I will make the same suggestion for him.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I will let you stay with me for a weekend.

Mr. Breaugh: The Premier will not even take me on his staff. He has taken everybody else. I do not know why he would not take me.

At any rate, I would just like to put that idea forward as one that I think is an appropriate step. It is particularly appropriate as we consider among ourselves the restoration and the renovation of this building. I know that the Lieutenant Governor will probably always require some office space here in the precincts because some of his duties are of an official nature that require him to be near the chamber. But I think that we can certainly accommodate that and the concept of an official residence.

I think that would be a useful idea and I do know that people throughout Ontario have gathered together a great deal of respect for the current occupant of the position, and certainly for the position. When you think of the people who have held the post of Lieutenant Governor in the last decade or so, you will see quite an unusual array of individuals who in their own way have brought to that high office their own distinct style and manner.

Some of them have taken on charitable causes, for example. Some have taken on particular groups in our society that need somebody to speak for them. Lincoln Alexander is one who has done all of that and more. He brings to the office a great deal of stature as someone who is wise in the ways of politics in Canada. He is our own personal form of diplomatic representative of the monarchy in Ontario. He does that with great distinction. He serves the people of Ontario extremely well. If he had an official residence, I think he would be able to do that job just a little bit better. So there is one idea for you.

Hon. Mr. Conway: Parkwood, you say?

Mr. Breaugh: I see the support growing for Parkwood in Oshawa and I would be happy to initiate those discussions if the Premier would like.

Mr. Furlong: It is in my riding, though.

Mr. Breaugh: I do not care where it is. I know that it is in the city of Oshawa, and in the city of Oshawa it does not really matter where you draw boundary lines for ridings. People know that that community is of one mind.

That would be one good positive suggestion. I await with bated breath the other suggestions that will come from other areas of Ontario to accommodate the same idea.

Mr. Harris: I am delighted to have the opportunity on behalf of our party and as House leader for the party to say a few words on the estimates of the Office of the Lieutenant Governor. Assuming that His Honour is watching his television set and waiting with bated breath to see whether his estimates will carry unanimously, let me assure His Honour that they will.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: That is very charitable.

Mr. Harris: Very charitable, the Premier says.

I want to join with the first minister, and with my colleague the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) on behalf of the New Democratic Party, in saying that not only on the monetary side do we find the estimates proffered by His Honour modest in relation to the service that we think his office brings to this province, but when we deal with individuals, the individual himself, the Honourable Lincoln Alexander, we believe does fill the shoes of a long line and a long history -- certainly in my recollection, being a youngster to Ontario and Ontario politics; as far back as my young recollection can go back anyway.

1530

They are big shoes to fill. We have been very blessed with a series of lieutenant governors who have brought pride to those of us who are legislators, who have brought pride to this Legislature itself, to government, and through that vehicle he has that we all share, to the people of Ontario.

I do not want to speak at great length. I have discussed before the proposal the member for Oshawa has talked about with regard to an official residence. I did not realize he was going to bring it up today. This strikes me as an appropriate forum to say that I have concurred with the suggestion that has been put forward today by the member for Oshawa. He has also put forward one of the modest difficulties we will have; that is, determining where a suitable location is. None the less, as symbolic and important a gesture as having that residence in northern Ontario would be, I am confident --

Hon. Mr. Peterson: What about Minaki Lodge?

Mr. Harris: Well, perhaps North Bay where the air, rail and road services are very accessible. Having said that because my constituents would want me to, I have every degree of confidence that members of all three parties could sit down in a nonpartisan fashion and quickly come to some form of agreement as to location.

I too agree with the member for Oshawa, and we have discussed this aspect of it as well, that it need not cost the government very much money to have the honour of providing it. Whether the potential residence is now owned by an individual, an organization, a company or an association, it is the type of thing for which I am sure one could find a benefactor in this province, whether it is a direct donation or a collective association of the private sector.

Hon. Mr. Conway: Like Stornoway or Kingsmere.

Mr. Harris: Well, I think we should start with His Honour’s residence. If others want to move to a Premier’s residence, and one for the official opposition and one for the House leader of the third party, we could discuss that at some other date.

I think it is something we can talk about. It need not be an expensive proposition and may save the government some money when it is finally done. Having said that and having concurred with the member for Oshawa, and hoping that our comments today may lead to some discussion around that, the first probably ought to be with His Honour himself. I am sure he could give us some insight into that as well.

I want to say we are delighted today because of the office, because of the tradition, because of the history of the office, and more importantly, because of those people who have held that office, in particular now, the Honourable Lincoln Alexander, we are delighted to offer our concurrence in these estimates today.

Vote 2301 agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Shall the estimates of the Cabinet Office and the Office of the Premier be considered together? Is there an agreement on this?

Agreed to.

ESTIMATES, CABINET OFFICE ESTIMATES, OFFICE OF THE PREMIER

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I know my honourable colleagues have a number of things to say on this matter. I could easily make a speech in defence of the government, the Cabinet Office and the Office of the Premier over the last little while, but I think in fairness to my colleagues opposite, I will let them start the discussion and I would be happy to participate on the appropriate occasions.

I assume my deputies can come and assist in this matter.

Agreed to.

Mr. B. Rae: I would just give notice to the Premier that I have two or three policy areas I want to discuss with him in particular, which I am sure he will be interested in discussing.

One is health care, because of the announcement that was made today by the government with respect to its proposals to the Ontario Medical Association. I will also have some questions to the Premier concerning native rights, and in particular the question of the Temagami land claim. I will have some questions to him on the subject of French-language rights in the province and some constitutional questions that I think arise from his responsibilities as Minister for Intergovernmental Affairs, if that is all right with my colleague.

Obviously, I have discussed this with my colleague from the Conservative Party and we have agreed that we will try to share the time as fairly as we can, but that he will allow me to have a bit of leeway between now and roughly 4:30 p.m. or 4:45 p.m., if that much time is required, and then take the rest of the time for his line of questions.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Does he want to discuss the subjects individually as we go, or does he want to discuss all three of them?

Mr. B. Rae: I would like to do them in blocks.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: And then we will respond and we can have a discussion; fine.

Mr. Brandt: With respect to the leader of the official opposition and the Premier, might it be possible, in order to have some continuity to the debate, that if one of us feels like participating in a subject matter raised by another leader, he can feel free to so do? Otherwise, we will share the time. I think we can do so in a way that will be satisfactory to all parties.

Mr. Chairman: Does everybody agree to that?

Agreed to.

Mr. B. Rae: I must say I was absolutely dumbfounded when I got this letter five minutes before the end of question period. I was dumbfounded by the letter, but I was also dumbfounded by the process.

This is the letter, which I am sure the Premier has seen, that is signed by Mr. Sloan, who is chairman of the Joint Committee on Physicians’ Compensation for Professional Services, announcing to Dr. Wyman that the government is giving written notice of its opinion that the negotiations are at an impasse, deeming the negotiations to be at an end, and announcing as well that there no longer is an appropriate negotiating process and it is giving notice it is terminating the memorandum of agreement of November 30, 1981, which is currently in force.

1540

The Premier knows this is an act of government policy that is quite fundamental. It speaks to the future of the relationship between the government and the Ontario Medical Association, which the Premier will know from his own personal experience is a subject of enormous importance. He is chairman of the Premier’s Council on Health Strategy, so one would think, obviously, that he has a very direct interest in what this is all about.

I would like to ask the Premier a number of questions. Perhaps I can put them to him all together. First of all, why was this not presented to the Legislature in a simple statement by the minister? If it had been done yesterday, he could have phoned Dr. Wyman in the morning and said, “This is what’s going on,” and presented the same information to the Legislature and given us an opportunity to discuss it. I would have thought that would be quite fundamental to how he wants to conduct business in an area as basic as the relationship with the OMA.

The only explanation I can think of is that the government did not want to have this discussed in question period when it was hot, that it wanted to go through the weekend without having to deal with it and then come back and deal with it. I must say I am astounded by this approach by the government.

I would also like to ask the Premier why there has been no discussion by him or by either the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan) or the minister responsible for these negotiations, the present Chairman of Management Board (Mr. Elston), as to what the government’s basic strategy is in these negotiations, what its objective is in these negotiations?

It has continued to stick with one figure, the 1.75 per cent figure, which has been the figure that has been in front of the public and in front of the medical profession from the very beginning. On the face of it, that is a low figure. I am sure the Premier would understand that is below inflation. It is not in keeping with increases in the cost of living. It is not a figure in any other negotiation on any other range of people, whether you are talking about senior management officials, about his own senior executives, about his own deputy ministers or about other people who are making the same salary range as the OMA. No one is being talked about in the light of a 1.75 per cent figure.

I would like to ask the Premier, what is his explanation for how he has handled this, and second, what is his explanation for the basic approach being taken in these negotiations?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: A couple of points: Mr. Sloan sent that letter to the chairman of the OMA as a leader of the government side in the negotiations. These negotiations have been going on for a very long period of time. My honourable friend is right when he uses the figure of 1.75 per cent, but he has to understand that reflects itself in a 9 to 10 per cent increase in the budget in payments to physicians, and therein my friend will be able to see the dilemma.

My honourable friend the leader of the third party will understand some of these negotiations that his government had with the doctors over the past little while when they went through very rapid increases.

The payments to physicians do not just represent the increase on a per service basis; they represent overall payments to doctors based on utilization and a lot of other factors and an increase in medical manpower.

One of the things we realize we have to do, as all governments in this country have to do, is deal with the question of manpower and utilization and the question of the most effective use of our medicare dollars. We all know there is enormous pressure on this system financially, and we believe everybody has to play a role in trying to keep our system open, accessible and fair for all. There is not an infinite number of dollars.

I say to my friend, as kindly as I can, there is not a day goes by -- he says he wants the issue when it is hot, presumably when he is going to get a little more attention when he makes a point. It is hot today on day care, so he has screamed for more in day care. It is hot today on medical care, so he screams for more in medical care. It is hot today on something else, so he screams for that and it does not all add up.

Governments have the responsibility, unlike oppositions, of making it all add up and reconciling that with whatever tax increases we are prepared to put. The member does not speak too much about that particular issue, but my friend in the third party is always talking about tax increases and everything else and thinks it is inappropriate. He cannot, in a sense, have it both ways.

We are sitting down with the doctors. We have had lengthy discussions. We have a number of people looking at some of the long-term problems we are facing. The system is not in crisis by any stretch of the imagination. If you compare our system to any other around the world, you will see we are spending a fairly high percentage of our gross national product, but certainly not as much as the United States. We have a system that is open, fair and accessible, but we also know that we have an ageing population, that we have increased expectations, that we have new demands on the system, new diseases and new technologies. Our job is to preserve that system and make sure it is responsive, open and accessible to all.

That was one of the reasons we called together the Premier’s Council on Health Strategy to wrestle with some of these long-term issues. Its job is not to negotiate fees. Its job is not to build hospitals tomorrow or the next day. Its job is to wrestle with the long-term problems in health care, with the emerging trends. We are dealing with these things. Members are already seeing major new changes towards community-based health, preventive medicine, the kind of things we think will make our system a little different perhaps, but equally effective in the future.

We recognize none of these gains are going to be made in one day. These are important issues that confront all governments that have some kind of, shall we say, public health care system, and most governments in the western world do. You see what they are doing in England, you see what they are doing in the United States and you compare our various systems.

We are wrestling with those problems and we are making some progress on this. We have been meeting on this and have been rolling up our sleeves. There is a group I chair. Already things are happening with respect to community-based initiatives that are new and innovative in this regard. We are trying to share the information. We are trying to make sure we are spending our medical dollars as effectively as possible.

There are many who argue that there is enough money in the system and that it is just a question of deploying that money properly and effectively.

Members will have scientific as well as anecdotal evidence that this is not always the case. At the same time, I admit there are problems in the system. There are going to be in any system this large, when someone inappropriate is in an unfortunate situation, and I understand that. We hear about these in the House and we try to rectify those as quickly as we can and try to prevent that from happening.

If members take the millions of cases that are treated, the number of hospital beds that are used and the operations that take place, they can see the system is still functioning pretty well, and is something I think Canadians value. Our job in terms of governance is to make sure that continues.

We know the monetary pressures on the system from all sides, from the new systems as well. We have moved very substantially in home care, as members know, to keep people’s hard-fought-for independence. Those are major new initiatives. We have moved in assistive devices and a whole variety of new areas that previously had not been moved along very far.

We think the physicians have to assist us in that regard, and as I said, the overall bill for physicians is up nine per cent to 10 per cent in this budget. That is the amount going to physicians, so it is not just the 1.75 per cent. That is a bit of a deceptive number.

Then you have to look at the manpower issue, which is an important part of this. The doctors’ population is increasing roughly five per cent a year. In spite of the problems, most doctors find this an extremely attractive place to practise medicine. We are inundated with doctors from across Canada, from across the world, who want to come and practise here, and we can understand that.

We have a distribution problem. My friend the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Pouliot) will tell me about that. I was looking at those figures the other day. We have placed something like 800 doctors in northern Ontario through the northern programs, the underserviced area program. Yes, there are 160 problems at the present time and we are constantly working on them and looking at new and innovative ways to solve them. It would be wonderful if people, of their own free will, moved to Manitouwadge with no special incentives, or to Red Lake or wherever the situation happens to be.

We want to enter into serious discussions with the profession with respect to all of these issues, and we are going to need everybody’s help to maintain the quality of the system we have.

I think we are seeing a number of studies going on, a number of co-operative areas going on. No question that when people are negotiating from time to time there are differences of opinion on these matters. But I think our position, given the overall budgetary situation and the pressures, is quite reasonable.

1550

Mr. B. Rae: The Premier did not answer my first question, so I will put it to him: Why would he not have told the House about this when he was telling the Ontario Medical Association? Why would he not have had at least the courtesy to tell the Legislature prior to the end of a legislative week that he was planning to do something, rather than have it drop on the table five minutes before the end of question period on a Thursday afternoon?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I honestly do not see what my honourable friend is so exercised about.

Mr. B. Rae: We haven’t had an opportunity to discuss it.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Well, you can discuss it right now. You can discuss it on Monday. You can discuss it tonight. You can discuss it tomorrow. You can discuss it any time you want to.

Normally, negotiations are not conducted in this Legislature. Now, it may not be his view --

Mr. B. Rae: You are not negotiating at all now.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I can tell the member that there is an ongoing discussion and dialogue with the medical profession, and there will be. Sometimes I have sympathy with my friend’s position, but I honestly cannot see that it merits this great consternation.

Mr. B. Rae: Let me say to the Premier that I do not regard this as a dialogue in terms of the substantive issues. I congratulate him on reciting the whole range of health care issues that he has. They have nothing to do with the questions I asked, and indeed, one would say that if he were really interested in dealing with the home care problem, he would not be forcing the Red Cross to beg for $1.1 million in order to be able to continue to operate.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: There is $68 million that we put into it that wasn’t there before.

Mr. B. Rae: The Premier has to recognize the fact that he has a problem out there, that if he comes into my community or a number of other communities, he has not made the kinds of changes that have been promised. There are people who are in hospital who should not be there. We have not made the changes in home care. They have been far slower than were promised, and there has not been the money in the system to deal with the growing demand and growing need.

I just say to the Premier that he may be frustrated as all get-out because he does not feel he has enough money to deal with all the demands being made on him and he does not have the ability to re-allocate the money that is there in a way that makes sense to him.

I say to him that if he looks at the history of the negotiations with the OMA going back, certainly, to the time that I came into the House in 1982, there was no issue as important in which the government was more directly involved, in which ministers of health and chairmen of Management Board were prepared to discuss and to be here in the House and to say this is what we are doing and this why we are doing it.

This is a completely different kind of approach. The Premier says to me, “Don’t get worried about it.” I tell him that I am very troubled by a government that simply says: “We are going to terminate the discussions. We’re going to terminate negotiations. We’re going to terminate the process of negotiation that’s been in place since 1981.”

I say to the Premier that I have no trouble with the idea that he says to the doctors, “We want to start a new way of negotiating,” but perhaps he could tell us what it is.

Is he saying he wants to negotiate manpower questions with the OMA? Is he saying he wants to negotiate use and patient access to doctors at the same time as he negotiates the actual fee increase? Is that what he is saying? If that is what he is saying, I think he should tell us that and I think he should tell that to the OMA. Is he saying that the OMA has not been willing to negotiate those questions up until now and that he has not been able to deal with those things? Well, then why does he not say so directly?

Why refuse to discuss publicly what he is surely discussing privately, which is exactly what has been the course of these negotiations? Why is it, for example, that he is taking the action he has described in the letter of December 7?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I think the point is, yes, we do want to continue the discussion on utilization and manpower, which are specifically excluded from the Joint Committee on Physicians’ Compensation for Professional Services, and there is a whole range of issues beyond just salaries that have to be discussed with the profession. I think that is quite obvious.

Mr. B. Rae: Again, let me be more explicit. If he is trying to convince the public that he understands what these problems are, then surely he ought to be putting all his cards on the table, not as a bargainer with the OMA but as a government that is trying to provide some leadership in the health care field. Why not say: “All our cards are on the table, and this is what we are trying to negotiate. We think that doctors should see fewer patients or not as many patients, or there should be more control on how many patients see how many doctors”?

If that is what the government is saying, patients out there want to hear that. They want to know that that is the position of the government of Ontario. What they do not want to see is a government that says, “We’re going to pay the doctors 1.75 per cent, and the reason we’re going to pay them 1.75 per cent is that we do not want the overall transfers to physicians to exceed eight per cent, nine per cent, 12 per cent,” whatever number it has.

The government could have said to us, “We want to say there should be a transfer to doctors of X per cent,” five per cent, “and this is how we are going to restrict access to the profession.”

What I am saying to them is that they cannot do this without putting all the pieces together and without being very clear to everyone exactly what it is they are trying to do, because as the system now exists, there is a form of rationing and there is a form of restricted access. It consists of waiting lists.

The Premier says there are problems from time to time. I say with the greatest respect to the Premier, I have spent a great deal of time talking to patients about health care in the last while and I can tell him it is not a problem for one or two people, it is a systemic problem in this province. The problem of waiting lines and waiting lists is more severe now than it was a year ago and more severe now than it was five years ago, and it will be worse in a year than it is today, for one simple reason: It is because the Premier and his government, and governments in the past, have not put all the pieces together and put all the cards on the table in terms of what they want to do, and because they have not been able to reorganize the system in an effective way, they have not been able to plan it in an effective way.

This is not an act of planning; this is just ham-fisted. This is just another ham-fisted confrontation in terms of the question of compensation. It is not going to create more nurses, it is not going to create more access, it is not going to transfer any money to the Red Cross, it is not going to do any of those things. It is simply going to create an atmosphere of greater confrontation when in fact the government, in our view, should be saying to everybody, “This is what the government is prepared to do and this is the leadership we are prepared to offer.” I do not see that in this statement from Mr. Sloan.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I see a man opposite me in this House who has always been yelling to hammer the doctors, legislate them back to work -- I remember those kind of things that he used to say.

This is an approach to sit down and discuss the real issues, as we said. My honourable friend may think he could do a lot better, and he is entitled to that view. He may say, “Pay a lot more.” My friend opposite may say, “Just get the rates up and everything will be hunky-dory,” and then criticize at the next press conference for raising taxes to pay for it.

I hope that this will start a discussion about the real issues. Going back to his original point, my honourable friend thinks that we should come into this House and negotiate everything, be it native claims or whatever. In a negotiation, by definition, you are not sure where you are going to end up. Each side knows where it would like to end up, and it is negotiated along the way.

My friend is not so naive as to think that every time the government is in a negotiation -- and we are in hundreds of them all of the time with all sorts of groups -- we are going to come in here and say, “Here’s what we are going in to say, but here is our bottom line at the end of it.” Surely his position, when thought out, is not something that he would be comfortable in putting to any person. When he sits down to negotiate with his staff here, does he tell them ahead of time? Does he say, “Here is what we are prepared to pay you, but we are going to argue with you for a while”? He does not do that, and I think my honourable friend should understand it in that context.

Mr. Brandt: If I could have a word on this subject, I take some exception to the Premier’s suggesting that either myself or the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. B. Rae) are in fact wanting to negotiate openly on the question of the medical profession. What we are raising, and I am pleased to have an opportunity to be able to say a few words on this particular topic, is that the negotiations have now been suspended. A decision has been made by this government that the maximum amount it is prepared to pay by way of an increase is 1.75 per cent.

I think it is a reasonable question to raise in light of the fact that negotiations have now broken down. We have received a mediator’s report which indicated that the doctors should have been paid, according to the mediators, some 3.75 per cent, recognizing that the doctors were asking for more than five per cent by way of increase.

But I would like to say that at no time, unless my memory fails me, have either of the two opposition parties raised questions with respect to these very sensitive negotiations in this House. We have raised questions after the fact, now that a decision has been made by the government relative to these negotiations, which now obviously have been brought to a halt as a result of that decision.

1600

The question I want to raise with the Premier is relative to the mediator’s report, which indicated an amount that I have to believe was studied and arrived at after due consideration for some of the increased costs that the Premier has to deal with. What happened with that adjudicator’ s report and why was it so totally unacceptable to the government in the light of the fact that 1.75 per cent is less than half what most other groups in society seem to be receiving today, albeit the full roll-through is nine per cent or 10 per cent, as the Premier has indicated?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The full roll-through is nine per cent to 10 per cent, and that is what the taxpayers are paying to physicians through total payment. If my friend says it should be another three per cent, then it would be 13 per cent. He is the same one who would prepare a little brochure and go out to the subway and say the deficit is going up to pay for that.

In broad terms, we have to look at that envelope. Ten per cent a year is two and a half times the rate of inflation, or at least twice the rate of inflation. It is going up every year. That puts a great burden on the system, and everybody has a responsibility to contribute in that regard. We have a system that we think is reasonably fair, but we have to put our minds to the questions of utilization, manpower and other complicated questions that heretofore were not really very seriously discussed. We are willing to sit down and negotiate on these matters, and we hope they will come to the table.

Mr. Brandt: I recognize that the Premier has priorities in terms of health spending, which takes up fully one third of the entire budget, and I appreciate that there are going to be ways and means of perhaps introducing some economies along with an acceptable level of service in certain areas of health care that will change and be different from what they are today.

I indicate to the Premier at this point that my party is prepared to go along with those cost-saving measures when they are able to maintain a quality of health care that we feel is acceptable for this province. I know the Premier feels the same way. There is not an endless pit of money that he can keep grabbing from.

The Premier himself made a number of promises, during the course of the past two elections in particular, about issues that I think increase expectations: a denticare program, a program for northern grants, the development of business, the northern tax grant, equalization of gasoline prices and a whole host of things that cost a lot of money. Why is it not more important to preserve those fundamental services that are so critical to Ontario society, like a good strong health system, maintaining the kind of service and reducing the waiting lists that we are experiencing at the moment, than to tell people about things we cannot afford to buy at some future point in time?

I see there is a bit of a dichotomy here. The dichotomy is basically that, on the one hand, the Premier is saying we have a limited amount of money, and therefore we could not provide the doctors with a higher settlement. On the other hand, we have rising expectations, which the Premier in great part has created, in the education system and in a whole host of other things.

I take issue with the fact that the doctors are being made scapegoats, because their actual increase, not the increase to the ministry or the Treasury but the actual increase to the individual doctor, is 1.75 per cent. That is what it is. When we build in the five per cent additional staff that are going to come into the medical field, when we take a look at the other costs that are associated with that, in all probability we will come up with nine per cent. That is not different from other groups. There are other groups, other ministries, other budgets that have that same problem.

Again my question is, since 3.75 per cent was deemed to be a reasonable number by the mediator -- and I am not arguing for the doctors’ figure of five per cent plus or whatever it was that they were asking for; and I am not asking to negotiate the matter here in this House now, because the issue is closed, for all intents and purposes -- why is that figure not a realistic one in the light of what other groups in society are getting?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I understand the point the honourable member makes, but let me just take him back to some things he said.

He said this government should spend more on health care and do less in other areas. If he looks at the broad range of programs that we have brought in -- be it French-language services, which were new; the health assistive devices, which were dramatically expanded, and I think that is a legitimate need that the member would admit; or the dramatic increases in community and social services and those support payments -- the member argues it is not enough.

What should we sacrifice for what? Is the member saying that the things we are doing in the technology areas, the education areas, the centres of excellence are not worth while? Government has a wide variety of responsibilities, and we are trying to fulfil all of them. The health budget takes roughly one third of our budget and is one of our most important priorities.

I think what members have seen are some important changes in that regard as we are moving to more community-based, independent living, as we are looking at innovative programs in the communities and at alternative ways of doing some of the traditional things that we know are putting an enormous amount of pressure on the system.

It is interesting. I forget which newspaper it is that has been holding a conference annually for the last 15 years saying there is a crisis in health care funding. The member should look at the system compared to anywhere else and the accessibility for everyone, rich and poor, across the province. Yes, we have programs in northern Ontario. The member may be against the programs for northern travel grants and a number of things, but we are working very hard to try to equalize opportunity and keep the system accessible and available for all.

The member has to look at certain of the statistics. The statistics say that, depending on where you live, you can he three or four times more likely to have a hysterectomy. He has to look at the medical effectiveness of the kinds of things we are doing. For example, some people say that 70 per cent of the people who go to a general practitioner are not medically sick in the traditional way. So we ask, are there different ways to handle these? They are social problems or some kind of medical problem, but they do not require a medical officer of that particular level.

Then we look at the explosion of manpower in particular areas and say, “Is that increasing the level of health in a particular area?” We went through this discussion with respect to extra billing, and there was the prediction that all these doctors were going to run out of the province and would not be able to stand it here any more. Exactly the contrary is the truth. This is still a very good system.

Mr. Brandt: Some specialists did leave.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Sure, a few specialists did.

Mr. Brandt: Some key specialists.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I do not think this health care system depends on one particular specialist. If the member is talking about Dr. Munro, I will take him to London, Ontario, and introduce you to Dr. Bob Colcleugh at the Victoria Hospital, who is doing the cranial work that Dr. Munro did. He is a world expert. He may not have as much publicity, but I can tell the member he would have every confidence if his child needed that kind of attention.

I understand that these things get a lot of publicity. The graveyard is filled with indispensable men, both inside and outside politics, but the world has a habit of carrying on, as I understand it.

We have a very competent profession, but we have to have the profession’s help in keeping a system that is manageable and accessible to all, where the costs are not running out of control to the point that someone would come in and say, “Look, we’re going to start bringing in user fees,” or “We’re going to have a difference between the rich and the poor,” because we know this: If expenditures continue to run out of control and we cannot have reasonable systems now and in thinking, there could be problems in the future.

That is what we are working on now, on a long-term basis, with a group of providers. We have a number of innovative ideas. We have already started doing things to take some of the pressure off the system.

My friend the Leader of the Opposition will argue there is not enough home care and there are not enough chronic care beds, and he is absolutely right. He can stand in this House and tell me we do not have enough of anything. He can fill in the blank and he will be right. The opposition members all argue it every single day.

However, I will argue that by any standard, within our own province or compared to other provinces, we in fact are taking the lead in a number of these matters and we are putting in place a system that will take the pressure off the system in the long term. It will not be dramatic. It will not happen in one day. It happens slowly, over a long period of time, as we are dealing with one of the most sophisticated, complex health care systems in the world.

I ask my friend to be charitable about this. I think we are making real progress in that regard and we are determined to continue to do that. This is the tough stuff of governing. My honourable friend knows something about that. This is not the easy stuff of opposition speeches. This is the tough stuff of governing.

1610

One of the things that we are determined to do as an administration is deal with these questions in a thoughtful way. Sometimes you have to be a little tougher than you like to be. I do not get any joy out of saying to somebody, “You can’t have that.” I wish I could be like Santa Claus and say, “People can have anything they want.” But we have to do it in the context of all of the government responsibilities and priorities and try to reorient the system to make sure that 5, 10 and 20 years from now, we are not just deferring pressures.

I do not want to be unkind to my friend from the third party, but when we came in here, we saw an enormous number of pressures that had just been deferred. There is not anybody in government who cannot defer, defer, defer for a while. I can put any problem on the back burner for a year, two years or three years, but I think it is not right, when we know those problems will be worse four years from now, not to start dealing with those things.

I think, in as fairminded a way as possible, that we do not bear any group any malice. We want to work with all sectors of the community and we need the help of all sectors of the community. Through reasonable discussion and dialogue we can solve some of the tough issues. Compensation is easy in a sense: Give them this, give them that. You know, fight about it.

The member went through it. His former leader went through it. He is referred to at all the Ontario Medical Association meetings as the man that the OMA wrestled to the ceiling. Any one of us can win that credit with any other group that we are negotiating with. It was, by any standard, a generous settlement.

But we have to ask that all sectors, including MPPs, carry their fair share because we do not have unlimited money. We want to be as sensitive as we can to the service side, to the consumers, to the people who need help in our society, as well as to the providers, the taxpayers. I think that if he looks at the record, it is not a bad one.

Mr. B. Rae: I got the subliminal message, as well as the other one.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: That wasn’t subliminal.

Mr. B. Rae: It certainly wasn’t.

I want to ask the Premier, if I may, a new line of questioning. I am sure we will be able to come back to this question in the remaining days in question period, but I do want to ask the Premier a question about the statements that he has made publicly with respect to Bill 101 and the question of constitutional reform more broadly. I will get into Meech Lake.

I will just put the question directly to the Premier. Does he not think he would have more credibility in commenting on English minority language rights in Quebec if he were prepared to take the historic and necessary step, in my view, of announcing Ontario’s willingness to declare itself officially bilingual and looking at that as an obvious act of national reconciliation on his part?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I appreciate the honourable member’s point, but I say with some modesty that I think that Ontario does have a substantial amount of credibility in these issues at the present time. With the historic Bill 8 and with the help of many members of this parliament, we have been moving as hard as we can to provide French-language services.

We have had this discussion over official bilingualism. I know my honourable friend’s position in this matter and I respect it. I also know at least the historic position of the third party. That could have had the potential to become a highly inflamed political issue in the last campaign. He knows it and I know it. It was not, in my opinion, the most salutary or wholesome aspect of that last campaign. But it was there anyway, and I was very proud to take the position that I did.

Again, I do not like to be immodest about this, but I think that Bill 8 is -- and I think the member’s honourable friend the member for Lake Nipigon would probably admit this -- probably the most significant move forward in this province in minority language rights in 120 years. It is something we are deeply dedicated to in this government. I know the member is as well, and I respect that.

I have said before that this province will, I believe, be bilingual. I cannot tell the member the date, the appropriate time in that regard, but I think it is coming that way and our job is to put the services in place. We are spending a lot of money on it now. We are negotiating with the federal government for a French-language college. We are working hard in the social services area, particularly where we are deficient in terms of French-language professionals, and we will continue to do so.

My own sense is, and the member may know better than I do, that when Ontario speaks on these issues it is treated with an enormous amount of respect here and in other provinces. Our record is not one to be embarrassed about. Sure, the member could push it further, like any other point he would want to make. It is one of the reasons, in spite of the difference of opinion on issues, on tough issues like trade that the member will be aware of and others, that Ontario and Quebec enjoy a high degree of friendship in working together today.

So I say to my friend, I appreciate his judgements on these matters but I think that our credibility is intact and that most people will judge it to be so.

Mr. B. Rae: Let me put it in another context. The Premier says he has nothing to be ashamed of and that we have made great progress. I say to the Premier that it is my judgement -- and I do not attach enormous self-importance to my own views on this matter, except to say that I have spent some time both in the federal domain and here and have spent a great deal of time trying to work on constitutional questions over the years -- that if Ontario were prepared to take what is the next logical constitutional step for us with regard to minority language rights, as difficult as it would be in some circumstances and in some quarters, I cannot think of a clearer message we could send to the people of Quebec that we were prepared to be as serious as any jurisdiction in this country with respect to ensuring minority rights, not as a matter of statute and not as a matter of government service, but as a matter of right.

The Premier will know that the debate with respect to what happens after Bill 101 will be upon us when we hear from the court. I am not going to get into a debate about that, frankly, until the court makes up its mind what it thinks needs to happen. But I can tell the Premier that all of us in public life, in Ontario as well as nationally, are going to be asked very directly what we think should happen.

I can tell the Premier that it is very difficult to give advice to the government of Quebec unless it is advice that the government of Ontario is prepared to follow as well. This issue may be much closer upon him than he realizes because this debate is going to be very intense and emotional and real and it is going to be upon us very soon.

I say to the Premier in a spirit of real conciliation, and publicly, as I have said to other premiers publicly and privately, if at any time he thinks it is something he wants to discuss in terms of moving and building a provincial consensus on moving, that we and I will be there to offer whatever voice I can to see that it happens. Whatever happens to Bill 101, the statutory protection and the constitutional protection for English language rights in Quebec are significantly stronger than they are in Ontario.

If we are looking at not only the implications of Meech Lake, which I am going to be coming to in a moment, but at the implications of this particular discussion, I think that Ontario’s role is not the most important thing in terms of dealing with the issue in Quebec. Relations in Quebec will determine the situation in Quebec as well as the reading of the Constitution and our interpretation of this very difficult balance between the rights of the French-language minority in Canada and the rights of the English-language and other language minorities in Quebec, and it is never going to be easy to find the right kinds of balance.

I think we can play a role. I know that the Premier takes considerable satisfaction in what has happened this far and that he is very sensitive to the criticism from those who say we have gone too far and who are troubled by the prospect of a bilingual Ontario. But the issue is going to be upon us again very soon, and before any of us offers helpful advice to other governments, we are going to be asked very directly what we intend to do here and what more we can do.

1620

When we look at the hard reality of law -- as far as the Premier thinks we have come -- frankly, we have not come as far as we need to in order to make it clear that Franco-Ontarians can speak their language here as a matter of constitutional right, address their governments in their own language as a matter of constitutional right and receive services in the same language as a matter of constitutional right. It is difficult for us to be self-righteous on the subject of minority rights in other jurisdictions if we are not prepared to do the same thing right here in the province of Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I do not think anyone is being self-righteous about anything. I also say to my honourable friend that I respect his expertise and his commitment in this area. These are causes for which he has personally stood, both here and in Ottawa, and I respect that. I also know he could take a constructive, shall we say nonpartisan or above partisanship, review on this matter. I respect it and I value his opinion.

Had Ontario been declared officially bilingual, there are a whole bunch of areas we just could not deliver on. We know that; the member knew that. We all knew that, and that is why we proceeded with Bill 8, which is a comprehensive bill. We are making some progress, but there are glitches in it. There are problems in the educational system, but we are making advances in that and, on balance, there is some progress that I am proud of. It has not gone the final legal step that the member talks about and, as I said, I think that will come some time.

Sure, I am mindful of the opposition on this, but lam mindful of the opposition on everything. There is not anything a government does about which it does not have opposition on both sides. That is a reality.

I remember the last campaign intimately. One of the best events I had was in Brockville, Ontario, the home of the Alliance for the Preservation of English in Canada movement. I think the local member is probably a member there of that group. I have no idea. I remember there was all this tension in the campaign about what would happen in eastern Ontario and there were all these referenda and municipal referenda and all the problems that my honourable friends will remember. I went into Brockville and spoke French; I was the only one in town that understood what I was talking about, I think, even though my French is not that good, as you know.

But I think that was a significant statement about what we stood for and what this province stands for. I recognize the tensions as the member does, but I do not worry about that. I think it is incumbent upon political leadership, on these highly emotional issues, to be above stirring up language group against language group, race against race, religion against religion, and we have gone through those with Bill 30 in this House.

Some handled the tension and the pressure very well, because we were all under pressure on Bill 30, every single one of us from a variety of different points of view. Some people in this House handled that issue with great sensitivity and judgement, because we were all in it together, shall we say. Others -- we saw how they handled it on an individual basis. That is a judgement people make about their own character, their own sensitivity, their own commitment on these kinds of matters, and I said to my honourable friend, “I do not question yours for a second.”

The Leader of the Opposition is going to take me to Meech Lake. I would not mind talking about Meech Lake, but I will let him start off with that if he so desires. Then I can respond as well, because I understand what my friend says about the symbolic act of leadership in Ontario and whether it would affect the views of someone on the streets of Rouyn or Shawinigan about Bill 101 or Meech Lake. I am not sure. But there are some very critical issues for this country in the next little while.

As for Bill 101. the Leader of the Opposition and I do not have any effect on it one way or the other. That is a Quebec issue and it will be solved there, although there will be a washover for us.

Where we do all have a role is in the issue of Meech Lake. Even though it has passed this Legislature -- and Lord knows I do not pretend to be a constitutional expert like my friend opposite, but I will say that I do know a little bit about that. As a matter of fact, I know quite a bit about it, shall I say with some pride, as one of the authors of Meech Lake.

There is a lot of wording in Meech Lake that came directly from Ontario. We had assembled, I think, one of the finest constitutional teams that could be assembled. So did Quebec and so did the federal government, but we had some very bright people working on that and we knew the risks and the difficulties. We also, I think, understood the moment and we are seeing the pressures on that right now.

The member knows the difficulties in my party. I know the difficulties in his party. I have sensitivity for that and what is happening in Manitoba and what is happening in New Brunswick. Frank McKenna does not take his advice from me; neither does Sharon Carstairs. I am sure Gary Doer does not take his advice from the leader of the New Democratic Party, or Ray Martin in Alberta or whoever.

Maybe we should have a discussion this afternoon about what we can do in that regard, assuming we are committed to it, and I think it is fair to say that the members of this House are, by and large, with some reservations.

I do not want ever to be gloomy about what is happening. We still have a year and a half on this matter, and who knows what is going to happen for sure? I remain committed to it and I believe that if we do not, as a country, pass it, we will have missed an opportunity. Our kids will look back on history and say: “You guys were there. What happened to you? Why didn’t you do it?”

I do not believe the great fears expressed by many, including many in my own party. Honestly, I have had as many problems as the member has had on this matter. I do not believe their constitutional interpretation of what the real effect of that document will be. This is beyond Conservative, Liberal or NDP politics. This is a debate about our country and where we are going.

Maybe I will just turn it back to the member, if he wants to speak on this issue, and then we can have a dialogue about it. I would be interested in the views of the leader of the third party as well.

Mr. B. Rae: Before I get into that, I did not hear an answer, perhaps because I did not put my question directly to the Premier. Perhaps it is not appropriate for me even to put a question, but just to say to him that I think he is going to have to move on this question with respect to the official languages. I think there is much less distance in terms of taking that step than he thinks. The time may be upon us, perhaps even sooner than he now, on December 8, thinks.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The member’s point is well taken. It may be one of the kind of issues he and I have discussed. If the leader of the third party wants to discuss this, the time frame on Bill 8 has not run out yet, as my honourable friend knows.

We still have some real practical problems on delivering. If you say the province is bilingual, you then get into the question of what that means. lam very comfortable with the statement, but the question is then: What does that mean? Does it mean someone in Sarnia is entitled to arrange an operation in French, to get mail delivered, which is not our responsibility, or by a matter of law or constitutional right, to get psychiatric services in French? It is a question of definition in all of these kinds of things.

What we are trying to do is move at a very practical level so when it comes some time in the future, it will not be a big hiccough. There will be a comfort level so we will not have some of the fear and consternation and upset that people have expressed in this matter.

I am certainly happy to sit down with the member and with the leader of the third party on any occasion and discuss these matters. One of the joys of this country, one of the things I love about this country is that we do not tend to polarize, or not very often, over these issues. The commitment to minority language rights is in the Tory party, the NDP and the Liberal Party. The commitment to multiculturalism is in all three parties.

I think that is one of the joys of our country. As political parties, we tend to be, shall we say, much more to the left collectively than they are in the United States, and the kind of things we hold dear that are central to our own beliefs are, by and large, shared. We do not get into partisan fights on these issues too often, and I hope we do not in the future. I think that is one of the civilizing natures of this country.

I am certainly happy to sit down with my friends and talk about these issues and how we can advance the cause of minorities, because it is something we hold dear to our soul on this side and on all sides of the House.

Mr. B. Rae: Perhaps, after having spread such sweetness and light, I might ask the Premier then to explain, as he is so committed to these things, the course of events that led the government of Ontario to take the position it has with respect to the Teme-Augama Anishnabai band on Bear Island. In particular, I would like to ask the Premier to explain why the proposal that the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) made to the band back on September 30, 1986, was retractable. It was a 90-day offer, offered on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. Can the Premier explain that?

1630

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I think the Attorney General gave the member a better explanation. I was not party to all this correspondence. I certainly listened to his explanation in the House today and it sounded very compelling to me and, as I suspect the member would expect, not very compelling to him. What he said was that we are prepared to negotiate. Suppose we came to the negotiations and the appeal came out differently. As he said, you negotiate in order to solve the litigation problem. That is reasonable, certainly, in terms of negotiating theory. From where I sit, I do not think the Attorney General appeared to be unreasonable.

I remember when he brought that matter to cabinet. He said: “Look, as the minister responsible for native affairs, I want to do something that is historic in this province. I want to make this serious land claim offer. It is going to cost $30 million. It is going to be upsetting to some, but it is the right thing to do.” He put that forward and persuaded all his colleagues, including me, that it is the right thing to do. I am not oblivious to the history of relationships between the native communities and others and the tensions that go on, but we stand patient, ready to sit down on any occasion to discuss the whole matter to try to resolve it.

If the member wants to get into more detail about how the Temagami thing happened and what has happened throughout that whole discussion, I can tell him that we have sat down endlessly with Chief Potts. We have tried to work out co-management programs. We have tried to negotiate this matter. He knows the difficulties. He knows the pressures we are under from the millworkers in Temagami and from the environmentalists as well as this great clash of values over this particular piece of ground.

We were looking for a win-win solution. We put John Daniel in there with a group from the community to try to hold the thing together. Frankly, it could not hold itself together. There were just too many different areas. We sat down with the native band and went through the whole process again. I think we were very patient, as patient as we could be. At some point or other, you say, “Look, with all the goodwill in the world, there is nothing more I can do.”

The member can second-guess and say he could have done better. He can say we should not do anything now. We have referred it to the courts, and he heard about their injunction this afternoon. I would like to have his advice on the matter. But as the Attorney General said, he is willing to sit down with the band this afternoon, tomorrow morning, any time, and try to renegotiate this land claim.

It is elementary: You cannot have a negotiated settlement and a court decision at the same time. If they want to take it to court, that is fine; they have the right to do that. But I remind the member, and it is lost in this discussion, the government won in court at the trial division. They can go through this appeal, and whatever the court says is going to stand, but then it can always go on to the Supreme Court, and we could be another five or 10 years doing this.

Mr. B. Rae: The Premier says, “We have tried to find a win-win solution,” instead of which he has come up with a lose-lose situation, because he has established no environmental protection with respect to the cutting practices within the area in question. There are no changes whatsoever being proposed by the Ministry of Natural Resources; absolutely none with respect to the logging practices. The area is being proposed as clear-cut.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: That is not right.

Mr. B. Rae: I am sorry, but the understanding we have from everybody who is involved on the other side is precisely that.

If the Premier can provide me with detailed information showing how the cutting practices are going to be different and how the other users are going to be protected and how the environment is going to be protected in the area in question in terms of the land being used by the logging companies, then I will be delighted to see it, but it has not been made available to this House; it has not been made available by the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio) in estimates and it simply is not there. That information simply is not available.

I say to the Premier that what we have now is in fact a lose-lose situation. We have a situation where the Milne workers are out of a job, intimidated by the receiver into trying to get them to sign a statement saying they would not apply for severance pay in terms of working for another eight weeks. We have the government saying to the Court of Appeal that it wants to go ahead and build a road and the Court of Appeal saying, “No, you have to wait a while.” We have the environmental group having to challenge the government in court because the government has not ordered an environmental assessment on the use of the whole land rather than the narrow question of the construction of the road.

I say to the Premier, he has blown it. He says it has been the most difficult decision he has had to make. I say with the greatest of respect that I do not think he has made it. I do not think he has made a decision yet. He is saying now, “We’ve given up; it’s all in the hands of the court.” The government of Ontario’s view is that it should be logging as usual, it should be lumbering as usual, and it is not prepared to be imaginative enough to come up with a settlement that will respect the interests of the native people and the interests of the environment and deal, yes, with the question “How do we provide an economic base for that community?”

That is a very real question, but I do not think he has provided answers to any of those questions or to any of those groups. I say to the Premier, I think that of all the difficult decisions he claims he has had to make, he put this one off for a very long time, and in putting it off he has come up with an answer no better than the one he could have come up with a year and a half ago.

I would challenge the Premier to look at the correspondence from Chief Potts. He says he has not read through the correspondence. He should have a look at the counterproposals that were made by the band. He should have a look at why it is that they want to be able to continue with the appeal as well as negotiate. They are prepared to negotiate. What they are not prepared to do is be faced with a take-it-or-leave-it offer from the Attorney General, which is exactly what it was. Whatever sweet and honeyed words he may use here, the reality is that the Attorney General stated in his letter of January 21 that Ontario has no interest in pursuing negotiations on the basis of any other principles than the ones that were outlined in his offer of September 30, 1986, which would have cost the government of Ontario $15 million.

I think it was a historic decision. I regard the announcements that were made last week as being as difficult and as historically backward as any this government has ever made, and I think it is worth our pointing that out.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I have yet to hear a positive suggestion from my friend opposite, but I look back on this and I can tell him that we have agonized on it, but I think we have handled it in a reasonable and sensitive way.

Just to repeat, we have offered the land claim. For a variety of reasons, the band has chosen not to pursue that particular option, but it is still open. We sent in John Daniel with a group that is prepared to try to draw the various interests together. We sat down with the band and said, “We will put a council together and you will sit at the table to examine and control cutting practices.” That is not the same as going in there and clear-cutting the whole situation. That is not absolutely correct; it just is not correct.

Milne is a very different set of problems. Milne, in this very hot market we have enjoyed for the last three years, has been losing money. They have a $5-million bank debt. We have gone in there through the industrial restructuring commissioner and tried to assist them in looking at their competitive nature. What the bank is presumably saying is that if they are not competitive now with this large bank debt, how are they going to be competitive in an even tougher market in the future?

That is something to be determined, but that was not a function of lack of wood supply, because we said we would guarantee it for them. It was a factor in the livelihood of not just Milne, but Goulard and Liskeard and other communities as well, and I am very mindful of that situation.

Then you go back to the environmentalists. They look at Lady Evelyn-Smoothwater Provincial Park and they say: “That is not big enough. You have to draw a line around a bigger area; nobody can go in there.” Then what are the limits, and where should it be, and who should control that situation?

We have expanded the park. It was in a pure state. Nothing happens in there except canoeing. We have taken all the other uses out. We have expanded the park’s policy to create wilderness and nature parks. How much of it should be park, and how do you use those resources to the benefit of the people there, the native band and others as well, without stripping it out for future generations?

We were and still are prepared to share that authority and that decision-making with the band and local people. I can tell my friend it is not going to be a question of going in there and clear-cutting every single tree. It will be a question of intelligent logging practice, if it goes ahead.

We did not move in arbitrarily. When the band came in and blockaded the road, we did not, as some would suggest, go up and try to get into a confrontation. We tried to negotiate the situation. We have done all that. Now we are asking for the court’s advice.

1640

I honestly do not think that if the member were handling this situation, he could have done any better or been any more reasonable than we have been in the circumstances. He may think that he is a better negotiator and that he could have pulled off a deal a year ago. All I know is that the Attorney General has credibility in native affairs.

Let me tell the member something. When I sat at the constitutional discussions on aboriginal self-government -- a very tough constitutional round, as he knows -- we did not succeed. We had only five out of nine provinces, as the member knows, and he knows the recalcitrance in that area. But I want to say with some pride that Ontario provided the intellectual leadership across this nation -- and I include everybody else when I say this -- working for ways to solve this problem, deeply committed to the cause; and it was because of the Attorney General.

The Attorney General has been associated with these causes long before many others in this House. Sure, some people cannot get their way, so they might try to attack his credibility. But when history is written, the native community will find no better friend. They make a serious mistake when they attack his credibility. His job is to litigate, to negotiate, but he has a deep and abiding passion for the native people, and he has demonstrated that as a Canadian through the Berger commission and a variety of other areas.

I have great confidence in the Attorney General, but he is no soft touch either. He is not just a bleeding heart, because he is a practical man as well. I think he has that rare combination of practicality and a real sensitivity for these issues. The people of this province, both native and white, are well served by having him in this capacity.

I do not pretend for a minute that everything we do in this government is right. We make lots of mistakes. You go home at night and say, “Gee, did I do the right thing?” As my mummy once said to me, “You just have to do things so that you can live with your own conscience.” In this business there is no rule book on how to make these decisions that come along.

When I thrash this one out and I look at all the things we can do -- and I realize everybody can criticize -- I do not honestly believe that the member or anybody else could have done better in these circumstances, given the difficulties, or been more sensitive, lenient or taken more time with all the interests concerned.

I think we are going to be able to find a solution, but we are going to do that under the aegis of the law. At some point or other, as we know, it is a question of the will of the people as expressed through the government. We are going to try to do that sensibly, but at the same time we are going to do it.

Mr. B. Rae: Let me be very direct with the Premier. When the Minister of Northern Development (Mr. Fontaine) made his statement, he did not mention for an instant the importance of the environmental assessment and the importance of the overall question of what kinds of practices are going to be in place. He did not deal with that. He paid lipservice and said we have to reconcile the environment. Then he went on and did not deal with it again.

If we want to deal with the environment for a moment, the only assessment that has taken place in this regard -- and I say this to the Premier -- is a ministerial review dealing with the question of the construction of the road. There has been no overall assessment of the question of the use to which the land around the road is being put. There has been no environmental assessment of the impact of various practices and plans of the logging companies on that land base. There has been no such assessment.

We have no real, genuine environmental review. The Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) knows that. He has been embarrassed around this House for the last 10 days. He has been wandering over here, sadly looking around for some solace on this side. He just puts his hands up, shrugs his shoulders and says, “Oh, too bad, I didn’t win that one.”

There has not been an overall environmental assessment in that regard. It has not taken place. It has not happened, and that is a fact. The Premier can agonize all he wants and say how lonely it is at the top, how tough it is to make decisions and what his mother told him about how to make a decision -- and I am interested in all of those things -- but frankly I am more interested in his telling us why there is no overall environmental assessment on the impact of development in that particular area.

Why the insistence on simply going ahead with business as usual when we have two outstanding problems? We have the native land claim to deal with and the environmental problem to deal with. Basically, when we come right down to it and put aside all the rhetoric, all the agonizing and all the hand-wringing, of which we have seen some even here today, the fact is that those two concerns of native people and of the environment have taken a back seat to the traditions of development.

The pattern of development will not guarantee long-term jobs. It will be in and out, get whatever you can for the mill and then see you later. That has been the pattern of development in the north for the last 120 years. The Premier is not changing anything at all in that regard in terms of the decisions he has made in the last 10 days -- nothing.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: One day the member argues for the people who work in the mill, another day he argues for the environment and another day he argues for native people. Those issues are not necessarily on the same wavelength. The member wants it three different ways. That is okay; I am used to that.

He talks about not making decisions. We have made a decision. We had an environmental assessment.

Mr. B. Rae: You did not.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Yes, we did.

Mr. B. Rae: No, you did not.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am telling the member, he says we --

Mr. B. Rae: You had a review of the road. You have never had an assessment of --

Hon. Mr. Peterson: That is what we are talking about. We are talking about the road. That is what the issue in court is about, for two or three different lumber companies, and they are going through. We are having a class environmental assessment throughout the entire north and sitting in Thunder Bay with the member’s friend.

I can tell the member, we have sat down with the native band and said, “Look, we’re prepared to share the management of these resources,” and will continue to do that. I think it has been sensitively handled. If the member wants to hold this thing up for four years with an environmental assessment, then he can go ahead and say so. If he wants to cut off Goulard Lumber and Liskeard Lumber and wipe out the towns of Latchford and Elk Lake and a lot of others, then he can stand up and say so. On one hand, he stands in this House to bleed for one side, then he bleeds on the other side, and he has never reconciled those interests.

What we think we can do in this situation is to sustain the development. It is not going to be clear-cutting, as my honourable friend suggests. We think we can accommodate the interests of the north as well as the environment and we think our approach is the proper one to do so. The member can stand up and say we bleed and we agonize. We do. Then we make decisions.

Mr. Brandt: With the permission of the Leader of the Opposition, who led the questioning on this particular subject, I wanted to return to the issue of Meech Lake if we could. We touched on it somewhat earlier in the context of Bill 101. I think it does bear some review by all parties with respect to the next steps that are going to be taken in this particular question.

The Premier indicated that perhaps we could dialogue in the hope of coming up with some constructive suggestions and perhaps some positive steps that might be taken. I share that view with him. I think the members of this House would like to see Meech Lake proceed in a positive way to the benefit of the entire country.

I would like to say, however, that there are some concerns, not the least of which is the one indicated by Premier Bourassa when he indicated that the defeat of Meech Lake would be the second humiliation for Quebec. I do not think any of us want to see that occur. The Premier indicated as well, as one of the authors of that particular document, that Ontario and he personally had a great deal of input into it.

From my vantage point, not having been privy to the intimate discussions that occurred in the development of the Meech Lake accord, one of the concerns I see on the part of colleagues from his party, Sharon Carstairs in Manitoba and Frank McKenna in New Brunswick, is the concern they have about the linkage between the document, as it has now been debated and approved by eight of the 10 provinces, and what is going to happen after that to deal with some of the other issues which I believe he as well has indicated have to be dealt with at some future point.

From my perspective as one who has been on the periphery of those negotiations and those discussions, I see the rather tenuous linkage, if you will, between the formal passage of Meech Lake and that first all-important meeting to deal with those other agenda items, as being the matter I dealt with in my own caucus, and I know was a matter of discussion in his caucus.

I wonder if the Premier might be able to share some thoughts with us in connection with that. I really do not believe that what has been stated, either by the federal government at this time or by the Premier himself representing Ontario, relative to those future discussions and negotiations, has satisfied either the Manitoba opposition or the New Brunswick opposition.

I believe that if we are going to come to grips with this matter in a positive way in terms of the benefit of the country, we have to do so in a way that assures those negative voices that those other issues, like native rights and women’s rights, will be dealt with in an appropriate context and in an appropriate form.

Perhaps the Premier would like to enlarge a bit on that and respond on how we could be helpful in that respect. I want to say this to him in a constructive way, because I believe that the issues of free trade and Meech Lake are two of the most important priority issues Ontario will have to deal with in the term ahead.

1650

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I appreciate the honourable member’s comments in that regard. I am not trying to interpret them, but he may be searching for a compromise that everybody can buy in looking at the two solitudes on the debate and at the reservations of New Brunswick and Manitoba. The reservations are different. They vary in nuance and in strength from group to group. To some people, the top priority is native rights.

I would argue, just parenthetically, that native rights are enhanced under this agreement. The member knows we had three meetings on native rights, and they ran out of gas. I think I was at just one of them. Mr. Davis was at two of them prior to that, and then they ran out of gas after 1982. Part of the constitutional accord was to promise three meetings on native rights if there could be an accommodation.

Theoretically, we never have to get together to discuss the Constitution again or to try to develop a common agenda. The history of this country will tell that it has taken decades sometimes even to get a meeting on constitutional reform, because there are so many different points of view. One of the good things about Meech Lake is that it forces everybody back to the table every year, constitutionally entrenched, to have a meeting on the Constitution every year. An agenda will obviously fill itself up.

One of the things that I have committed myself to publicly, and will again, is to bring up aboriginal rights and the question of aboriginal self-government. It is not in the Meech, but I can tell members it is easier to get aboriginal self-government under Meech than it is before.

Mr. B. Rae: You don’t have to do anything about it.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Just a minute. I think you are being too --

Mr. B. Rae: I am sorry. You are saying on the one hand that you are a great advocate, but the one issue in your own backyard you are blowing it right out of the --

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Oh, you are full of it.

Mr. B. Rae: I am not.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Just give me a break, will you?

Mr. B. Rae: No; I am sorry.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I just think you are wrong. You bleed on all sides of every issue and you have not given one constructive idea on it. Can I discuss this matter with the leader of the third party?

As members know, the general amending formula was not touched; it was only section 43 and certain institutional reforms, so what we need to get for aboriginal self-government is seven out of 10. It is only nine now. We will never get it without Quebec. I believe that without Quebec being in the Constitution, we will not see it unless there are changes of government that are more sensitive to these matters in other provinces. We know who was on what side of that debate. The position taken by Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia on these matters was quite obvious.

I do not believe that in any way it has impaired their capacity. I think it has enhanced their capacity to bring about native self-government when we get seven out of 10 as opposed to seven out of nine. That is one issue.

Then the question is, is there a magic compromise in there? Is there some way this can be tied with a companion resolution in that first meeting to say, “Well, if you do this, we will do this automatically as well and do them all at the same time”? I do not know the answer to that. People are searching for answers. The question is, what would they be?

Some of the reservations on Meech vary. Some people feel that women should be included in the “distinct society” clause. Some are very disturbed about the lack of the charter override on the “distinct society” clause, which was a philosophical leap forward. Others are concerned about other things -- the multicultural communities.

Ontario fought for and got, in Meech Lake, special protection for natives. There is no diminution of aboriginal rights or multicultural rights. If Ontario had not been there, they would not have had those special protections. Some people read that and say, “Well, women’s rights are diminished,” but I think one can push that legally and say -- the best paper written on this whole matter, by the way, is the paper by the Attorney General on Meech -- that there has been no diminution of women’s rights any more than there has been of men’s rights. But with any Constitution or with any legal document you can get two different lawyers interpreting the same thing two different ways.

The question is, how can we bring everybody together? Certain leaders who have power at the moment have changed their minds, as in Manitoba, and there is some other opposition in other parties; but it does not matter particularly, because those resolutions are already through the legislatures. They argue that a combination of free trade and Meech Lake will somehow highly decentralize this country and put it under new stresses and pressures, and that was central to the justification of doing it.

There is a lot of pent-up, shall we say, angst, not so much in the Conservative Party, I think, but in the New Democratic Party and in the Liberal Party across the nation. There are various different points of view about this thing, and for some, it was an excuse to reopen the issue.

I am not sure if I am answering the member’s question, because I feel very strongly about this, but I really believe that we would be making a mistake.

The member quoted Premier Bourassa, and I think we have to understand that a Constitution is a legal document, but it is all a political document. Good Lord, everybody knows there was a lot of political compromise in the patriation in 1982. When you talk about decentralization of government or devolving power away from government, nothing in the history of this country ever took more power out of legislatures’ hands and put it in the court’s hands than our Charter of Rights.

We are still dealing with that on almost a daily basis around here. That stripped a lot of us and a lot of legislatures of power, as the member and I know, and it is affecting almost every decision we make around here. Every statute we pass can be challenged under the charter. It is a whole new round for lawyers and for litigation, and there are dramatic changes in our society now. If you believe in equality, when you push it to the logical legal limit, it is discomforting for those who were more equal than others when the whole thing started, as my honourable friend knows. But that is history. I do not think that Meech in any way devolves power or decentralizes any more than the charter does.

On whether we can put together some companion resolutions, I am frankly not optimistic. I do not rule it out. I have had discussions with a number of my colleagues. The problem is, what can Quebec accept?

We went through the referendum debate, all of us, and one of the great debates in the history of this Legislature was the referendum debate. We all talked about what made this country, and I remember that with great fondness, and we were all asking the question, what does Quebec want?

Ever since this quiet revolution, la Révolution tranquille in the early 1960s, “What does Quebec want? What are all those guys causing all this trouble about down there?” we would ask. Then the Liberal Party came back with this document, Maîtriser l’avenir, and it went through their Liberal Party. It went through an electorate. Mr. Bourassa was elected and -- we are lucky, coming after a separatist government -- prepared to rejoin Confederation or become a full partner, saying, “Here’s what Quebec does want,” five things. We thought, they have all been politically vetted, they are all there for everybody to see and people said, “Is it reasonable or unreasonable?”

We went through a number of discussions, but what it did in many ways was just enshrine existing practice in the Constitution, like three civil lawyers as opposed to six common lawyers and that kind of thing in the Supreme Court and consultation in national programs in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction -- those kinds of things.

I think it was reasonable. I think it is extremely important to have Quebec as a full participating member and feeling like a full participating member of Confederation. So we ask ourselves, what happens if, for some reason, English Canada turns it down -- not Ontario but some other province somewhere? What happens then?

What would you do if you were Premier of Quebec? What would you do if you were a separatist Leader of the Opposition in Quebec, such as Mr. Parizeau? How would you handle that in the next campaign that is coming up in the not-too-distant future? It lets the imagination spin, does it not? I think it would be hard to get them back to the table.

I want to say something else. There was heroic leadership shown by people like Donald Getty on this matter. Don Getty had to put a lot of water in his wine, because all the pressure on him was on Senate reform, as members know, and we have agreed to discuss that issue and fisheries and a number of others. He came back to Alberta and people said; “Why didn’t you get a Senate reform at the same time? Why are you going just with the Quebec issue?”

We all water down a little bit. If I had been drawing that agreement, I would have changed it a little bit, and I think, frankly, if they had taken some of our advice in those meetings, we would have fewer problems than we have today and it still would have been acceptable, but that’s life, right? You do the best you can and you make the best decisions you can.

1700

But if it starts getting tampered with, it seems to me that Mr. Bourassa would have a very difficult time. Other premiers would say what they are going to open up: “To get this, you have to get that back on.” Whether we can cobble together some companion agreements to at least discuss them at the same time, I do not know. If my honourable friend has any advice for me in this matter or any suggestion of who could live with what, I would be most interested.

The problem with this document, as members know, is that there are two premiers in two legislatures in question who were not signatories to that, who did not, shall we say, have the same feeling that they were morally obliged or even politically obliged to do so. I understand that. But what we are hoping is that we can persuade them -- it is not so much a question of Premier Filmon, but certainly it is Mr. Doer in that province -- that it is very much in the national interest to do this, and then get on with the next agenda on Senate reform, fisheries, aboriginal self-government and a whole bunch of other things along the way. Keep it and recognize it as it is, as an organic document to reconcile the needs of an expanding country and a dynamic country that does have regions but that at the same time has such a thing as a soul known as Canada Inc.

I hope we can. I am not optimistic about that but I do not dismiss it. Certainly I would be very happy to do whatever I could in those discussions, but I do not see the light now. That does not mean I am a total pessimist, but I do not see the light. If my honourable friend had any ideas on how to do that or how we could use our influence in this Legislature --

By the way, may I say that the committee hearings of this Legislature and the report were universally heralded in the other provinces by people who did have problems. It was a good process here. There were good, thoughtful contributions from people here. The committee report was read and, I think, helped a number of people in other provinces who had some difficulties with certain sections of things. In that sense we are contributing to national unity, and I hope we can continue.

Mr. Brandt: I would like just to pursue that with respect to the possibility of employing the companion resolution as perhaps a means of bringing the other partners who are not convinced of the evolutionary aspects of the current document -- not convinced that the imperfection, if you will, of the current document is one that can in fact be changed at some future point.

Recognizing -- and I am not engaging in a partisan debate when I make these comments -- that the two major dissidents are the leader of the official opposition in Manitoba and the Premier of New Brunswick, both members of the Premier’s own party, is it not possible for the Premier to use his good offices in terms of talking about the way in which that future agenda may incorporate the concerns that both of those individuals have expressed? If the Premier is looking for a constructive suggestion, it may be one that he has already exercised and one that he may have already pursued.

But I would think that were our roles reversed, and if I did have a colleague in another province with the kind of difficulty that I think is very real in their minds -- and I do not underestimate the importance of how strongly they feel on this particular issue -- one of the beliefs, at least, that I have with respect to their position is that they do not see the possible future amendment of Meech Lake incorporating some of the concerns that they are obviously expressing at this point in time.

I ask the question of the Premier: Is he prepared to have discussions -- I know he has talked to them in the past -- with them in connection with some future guarantee that perhaps the Premier, the Prime Minister and the other premiers can put together that may allay some of their fears, set them aside or at least give them some hope that their concerns will be addressed at the first meeting, which, as the Premier has already indicated, is entrenched on an annual basis and must be held?

The agenda for those particular meetings has not been precisely drafted yet. That concerns some members of my party who feel that there are issues like the override provisions of the charter and what the implications of that might be with respect to its application to Meech Lake. Some of those issues, I truly believe there is not a great deal of misunderstanding on, or perhaps even objection to. But it appears that the apprehension, if you will, on the part of some who are in opposition to Meech Lake at the moment is simply about the unknown future and how that is going to unfold at that meeting. Perhaps the Premier has some thoughts as to how that might work or whether he could make those contacts and use his good offices to try to be the binding force that puts this whole process together.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I appreciate my honourable friend’s advice because it is constructive. I say to him that I have tried and I will not give up trying. I do not know Mr. Doer. I have never had an opportunity to chat with him. Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition may have an opportunity as his party has discussions and others do as well.

I have talked to Premier McKenna on innumerable occasions and will continue to do so. Let me say that I have the highest respect for him. He is a man of great integrity who thinks out issues on his own, as he did on free trade. Lord knows, I gave him advice on free trade too, and he did not take it, so who knows about --

Mr. Brandt: He was wise on that one.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: What are you saying? He is half smart? I will send him a copy of Hansard.

He came into office committed to neither. He was not elected on that basis. He came in and he examined free trade and came to a completely independent conclusion. I disagreed with it, but I do not believe there was anything untoward in the back rooms that brought that decision about, as accusations have been made.

He is doing the same thing on Meech Lake. He is having public hearings now to listen to his community, particularly to the large Acadian group. There will be ongoing discussions. He will have to make a decision in the context of his view of his responsibilities to the nation as well as being the provincial Premier.

Certainly I have given him the benefit of my advice, which so far he has not taken very seriously, but I will continue to do so. If we can cobble together a further agenda -- there are various different things people talk about, such as committing to discuss an agenda, which is not satisfying for some. Some say you have to pass another resolution at the very same time.

But let me just give an example. The Charter override on the “distinct society” clause is a substantive matter; it is not just a semantic problem. I know there are different perceptions on these things, but I am not sure that Quebec could buy that situation. We had those discussions before.

Whether we can do this or not is up in the air. We are searching for light. We are searching for ways to work together on this matter. We will continue to do it. As I have said, I think this has proved to be a debate that is beyond partisanship. It is a debate for Canadians. There is lots of dissent on the matter. I guess we have to wait and see. I hope it will evolve in a favourable way.

The other question concerns the federal Liberal Party and its future and how it is going to handle this issue as well. I hope it stays resolute on this matter, because I think it could be a serious mistake. That is all I can help my friend with at the moment.

Mr. Brandt: I wanted to get into some of the substantive issues surrounding the matter of free trade, but not get into the detail of the many discussions we have had in this House in the past. As a result of the decision of the people of this country, we have now moved to a new stage of the entire matter. What I did want to discuss with the Premier, however, was the de Grandpré commission and contacts that the province of Ontario has had with that commission over the course of the approximately one year since it was set up.

I wonder if the Premier could enlighten this House as to what Ontario’s position is relative to the de Grandpré commission. I ask that because the Premier has stated that this is -- and I believe I am quoting him correctly -- number one on the policy agenda in terms of the free trade issue, and part of the way in which some of those very difficult decisions with respect to job relocations and adjustments that will occur are going to be dealt with is by de Grandpré in terms of his report and his advice to the federal government, and also to the provinces in their interrelationship with the federal government. I wonder if the Premier could bring us up to date on what has been happening in that respect and how those discussions have been going from his perspective at this time.

1710

Hon. Mr. Peterson: We have appointed the Deputy Minister of Labour, Glenn Thompson, to be our contact with Mr. de Grandpré. One member of the de Grandpré commission is Ms. Jalynn Bennett, known well to my honourable friend opposite, I am sure. She has been very active with his party for a long period of time and she is highly respected. I think she is vice-president of Manufacturers Life and she is one of the independent commissioners.

I think she was to contact us, and we have sent a number of reports and a number of our studies to the de Grandpré commission. To the best of my knowledge, we have had nothing back from de Grandpré. I am asking the deputy now if he is aware; I am not aware of anything back. The sense was that during the election, they could not bring forward de Grandpré because it would be admitting that there will be jobs lost. It was in a political context. The member and I both understand that.

The member will recall that when free trade came in, Mr. Bouchard said it would cost 500,000 jobs and he was shut up the next day, because you cannot go around saying things like that. Then the next thing was: “What are you going to do for all the unemployed workers?” They said, “We’re going to be very generous and help them,” and they were shut up the next day. Mike Wilson said, “There’ll be no help for anybody.”

It is politics and I understand it, but those are the facts. As the political discussion unfolded, de Grandpré could not come forward and say, “It’s going to dislocate so many workers and here is the money to do it,” because obviously the opponents, like me, would jump up and say, “There’s proof of exactly what we’re saying.” The member understands that and I understand it.

Now it is through or will be through in the not-too-distant future, and the question is: What are we going to do as a nation to help those dislocations? Let me be fair. There are lots of dislocations going on, anyway. Who knows how much of a factor it was in Gillette? Who knows if it was a factor in the Northern Telecom closing out, 240 jobs in Belleville two days ago, as my honourable friend will be aware.

There may be some who say, “Look, I’m going to invest because of it,” and others who say, “I’m going to leave because of it.” The member and I will never be party to all the decisions made in the boardroom if they pull back a particular factory from a particular place. It is some boardroom in the United States, and they will never say it is because of free trade, even though they put the factory back in the States and ship over the border.

It is going to exacerbate some of the adjustments. We know that and we have a fairly good handle on where our most vulnerable industries arc. What we are saying to the federal government, which we have said through Mr. Thompson, and we have given them all our studies to substantiate this, is: “Look, we have to make job training and adjustment the priority to deal with this, to seize whatever advantages there are under free trade, if there are any. Anyway, in a multilateral trading world, we have to have a trained, flexible, entrepreneurial workforce.”

We are in the process of trying to get the federal government to take its responsibility. If you put that in the context of what has happened, when the federal government has been cutting, cutting, cutting in terms of provincial transfers, I am extremely worried. They have cut our job training money something like 27 per cent in the last three years. They have capped us now on apprenticeship. They are bringing a whole bunch of federal offloading on to the provincial government. In a sense, they are abandoning their traditional responsibility and saying, “You, the province, pick it all up.”

That is very disturbing to us because we say: “Let’s use de Grandpré constructively. He’s researched the matter across the country now. He has the benefit of all of our advice. We need programs of training and adjustment for our workforce.” That has been handled by Mr. Thompson, as I said. They have all our studies and all that kind of thing. To the best of my knowledge, they have not come and said, “What do you think about this, that or the other thing?” They have never asked for a personal opinion from me or anybody like that. They have just been dealing on their own.

Mr. Brandt: Although I did not want to, I am prepared to get into a defence of free trade. I wanted to talk about the mechanics post-free trade and the signing of the deal, because the Premier and I are not going to agree on that. It is over, and I do not want to waste the time of this House during the limited time we have during these estimates to get into that again.

What I am concerned about, however, is that the reality of the trade deal is upon us. The de Grandpré commission is set up to assist with some adjustments. The Premier himself has indicated that there will be adjustments, and I agree with him on this point, with or without free trade.

I mention just in passing, because he mentioned some closings, that yesterday Du Pont Canada Inc. announced a major multimillion-dollar expansion in my riding directly related to free trade. Canada Thermos indicated that its expansion in Ontario directly related to free trade. In the Premier’s own municipality of London, General Motors received a very significant increase in business as a result of Chicago’s operations being shut down and moved to London.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: It had nothing to do with free trade. The factory was going to close down. They had to buy them off.

Mr. Brandt: The fact of the matter is the operations were moved from the United States to London, Ontario. The fact is that a Windsor firm just yesterday announced that it was getting a very significant increase in work, again as a direct result of the deal. This will go on for years. The Premier knows it and I know it.

But the Premier and I and the Leader of the Opposition and this Legislature also have a responsibility to make sure that either under free trade or for some other unrelated reason, world competition or whatever, we provide programs. We have a responsibility as a province to assist in those difficult readjustments, those difficult relocations, for whatever reason.

My understanding is that the Premier has publicly called for an immediate meeting in order to start the discussion on these particular matters. It is also my understanding that he has been invited, at a much earlier date, to begin these discussions to prepare for whatever these relocations might happen to be in future. He was less than positive in terms of his response prior to the election and now he has called for an immediate meeting following the election, now that the die has been cast. I am not casting aspersions on why that happened. I am just saying that those are the comments I am hearing.

The point I want to make is, has the Premier made direct contact with the Prime Minister, indicating what the position of Ontario is with respect to the de Grandpré commission and with respect to our co-operation as a province relative to the next difficult, complicated steps that we have to take in co-operation with the federal government?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: When the premiers met last summer, we issued a communiqué -- all 10 of us -- indicating some frustration because nothing had been forthcoming from Mr. de Grandpré to any province. The Prime Minister has never discussed this issue with me or any other first minister, at least in my presence, at a first ministers’ meeting. He may have made private phone calls, but not that I am aware of. There has never been any discussion. He has said, “I will be generous and we are going to help these people.” But where is it, what, how, when? We have never seen anything of that.

I have never been asked for a meeting by Mr. de Grandpré. I do not know if he has done anything in the province or not, but certainly we have not seen any of it. We sent him all the things that we think are important.

What I said is, “Look, I accept the results of the last election.” The fact that I do not like it is a matter of historical record, but there is nothing I can do about it now. We will leave that.

Mr. Brandt: I know the feeling.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Well, we have to get on with it and I accept that. I am not going to rethrash old straw. The question is, how do we cushion ourselves against any problems and take advantage of any advantages in the situation? But we have not seen anything.

What I said we should do was agreed to by Premier Bourassa and some of the Maritime premiers discussing these same issues, because they have a lot of the same vulnerabilities that we have, in various different forms and various different complexions. What I believe we should do is have a brief first ministers’ meeting before the end of the year, and I have not heard back from the Prime Minister.

The member asked me if I asked the Prime Minister. If the Prime Minister called a meeting, I would be very happy to explain it to him. I have not heard back. I thought we should have had a brief meeting for an hour or two and decided on a work agenda, assigned to the various ministers a work program to report back to the first ministers’ meeting that is going to be scheduled some time presumably early in the new year, some time in February, March or April. We were supposed to have one November 27, but it was cancelled because of the election.

I think we should proceed on that. I think what we have to do is summon, shall we say, the national will to address this as the first priority item. Obviously we have a whole array of programs in Ontario, a whole bunch of them, and we continue to use them and work with industries that are in distress, but there is also a financial bill that will be attached to this. I think the federal government has to take its responsibility, because it promised it would. So far we have not seen it.

1720

Mr. Brandt: The de Grandpré commission was established with the specific purpose of developing responsive programs in concert with the various provincial partners and the federal government. The input it is getting from Ontario relative to the way in which these particular programs are developed is very much a joint and shared responsibility. It has not put all that together yet and it is looking for input from the province so it can determine the direction it is going to be going in and what the needs are, based on existing provincial programs and, ostensibly, existing federal programs.

The de Grandpré commission, as I understand it, over a period of time has been asking for information from Ontario. Have we been co-operating and sharing that information to provide it with the necessary foundation to develop its case, which will ultimately go to the Prime Minister for his approval as part of the policy that will be developed for the entire country?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The answer is yes, we have been. I have never been asked for a personal meeting with Mr. de Grandpré. I am not sure if anybody else has. Ms. Bennett was dispatched to do some of this. I am not sure if there were meetings or not.

The answer is yes. We have sent them all of our work, because we have done a great number of studies on free trade, as my honourable friend knows, on where the vulnerabilities are and what we can do about them. We are looking for some immediate action on this matter.

Then you hear various rumours. The other premiers are as frustrated as I am. Quebec is having the same problems we are with de Grandpré. We are not seeing anything. Then I hear on the other hand, “The report is done but it is not filed yet.” Who knows? Because they could not bring it out during the election? Honestly, none of us knows where the thing is or what the time lines are.

I would love to get a straight answer on this one. If the member knows anything I do not know, I would be delighted if he would tell me. Let us reverse questions here. Where is that report? Why is the member hiding it?

Mr. Brandt: If the Premier wants to change places I will move over there. The point I want to raise is simply this: If he is indicating that the co-operation has been forthcoming from the province, then I do not mind using whatever limited influence I might have with respect to our federal colleagues in connection with what I believe is a very real concern; that is, to develop the next stage of this entire free trade debate to the point where we start putting those programs in place.

I am sure the Minister of Skills Development (Mr. Curling) has the same kinds of concerns. He is sitting behind the Premier and occasionally has an apprehensive look on his face when I start talking about skills training, job relocation and all those problems.

The information I have been receiving relative to provincial co-operation -- and, I might add, not backroom, late-night-telephone-call kind of information, but from individuals in a nonpartisan way -- is that up until the time of the election -- and I recognize the Premier’s position on –

Mr. Ferraro: Do you think this is question period?

Mr. Brandt: What is that?

Mr. Ferraro: Why don’t you ask this in question period?

Mr. Brandt: I am trying to be reasonable, because I am trying to move this province and hopefully this country to the next stage of what I believe can be a very positive step.

The information I have received is that the co-operation has not been as forthcoming and as positive as it could have been. If the Premier indicates to me that is not the case, that he has been totally co-operative with the de Grandpré commission up to this point with all the information it has requested to the best of his ability, then I rest my case. Then the concern is really at the federal end, and in great part the Premier has already articulated his position that he is frustrated because they have not responded more quickly. If he is saying that is the case, I will take him at his word.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: To the best of my knowledge, Mr. Glenn Thompson has been putting all these things forward. Frequently, we run into failures to communicate.

Let’s put all the past behind us. We had a difference of opinion on the federal election, it is there, and now we have to get on with the economic agenda.

I agree with the member. I am prepared to sit down with Mr. de Grandpré or any of his emissaries at any time. Honestly, though, the other provinces’ frustrations are similar to mine.

I think we should get on with that agenda item. We have to see how we can plan and coordinate -- we have a training system second to none in the world -- how we can make sure we are doing things that are innovative and correct and how we can help those people who are under pressure.

Let’s get on with the new agenda. There is a time in life and in politics to let bygones be bygones. We can all sit there and say, “I told you so, I told you so” but it is not very productive. As a matter of fact, it is a rather pathetic human and political response, it seems to me. What we have to do is just get on with these new programs. Certainly we stand prepared to sit down with them and show them some of our frustrations, share our programs, and they can go on.

Mr. B. Rae: I would like to get in on this discussion. There is obviously going to be a battle about who pays, and the battle is not only between levels of government, between the federal and the provincial government, in which the Premier has already begun the ritualistic attack on the Mulroney government for not paying for certain things, and I am sure that will continue. It is precisely what we expect from him and from people in his position.

I wonder if the Premier would not also agree that there is another question as to who pays in the relationship between business and employees in this province. That question essentially has to be settled by him. He has to determine, because his level of government has the responsibility to make that determination, by and large.

Sure, tax questions are going to be settled partly at the national level, but issues with respect to, for example, what happens to pensions, what happens to severance pay, what happens on notice, what happens on plant shutdown, what happens on justification, what happens in all these areas, are covered essentially by provincial law and provincial jurisdiction.

I wonder if the Premier can tell us if any of the proposals which he has made to Mr. de Grandpré, which he has not shared with any of us -- at least, I have not seen any of them -- include any areas of provincial action and provincial jurisdiction where he specifically says, “We’re prepared to act in this area in order to make sure that working people and governments don’t end up carrying the whole candle for the costs of this change.”

If we do not do that, the clear implication is that working people will bear the exclusive brunt, and then the political battle will be seen or portrayed in the media as one between one group of taxpayers versus another group of taxpayers, one level of government versus another, when there really is another social question here, which is: What exactly is capital going to pay, what is business going to pay, in order to make sure that employees alone do not bear the whole brunt of the discussion?

Is the Premier prepared to share with us all the documents that he has submitted to Mr. de Grandpré for that purpose?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I do not know of anything that is proprietary in that regard. I can make some inquiries into it and share that information. I do not think there is anything especially unique about it, so I will look into that.

Mr. Chairman: Any more questions and comments? If not, are the members ready to proceed with --

Mr. Brandt: It is just a question of who’s going to go next.

An hon. member: A tag team.

Mr. Brandt: No, no, we were sharing time. It is a little different from a tag team.

Mr. Chairman: Will it be somebody from the blue corner or the green corner?

Mr. Brandt: I wanted to inquire of the Premier as to some of the numbers relating to the function of his office. These are estimates and we have been dealing with some of the more philosophical issues, but I thought since he has his large staff with him, people whom I have great respect for, I should put them to work in connection with some of the numbers that we in fact discussed very briefly earlier today.

My understanding is that, based on a comparison between the 1984-85 estimates related to the operation of the Premier’s office and those of 1988-89, the cost of the Premier’s office is down 23.2 per cent and the Cabinet Office is up 247 per cent in that same period of time. That would lead one to believe that there has been some fundamental restructuring that has taken place in the Premier’s office and the Cabinet Office relative to how the numbers are placed on the various lines.

Using the same years, my figures would indicate to me that in 1984-85, combining the totals -- because I had great difficulty separating them, since the way in which the numbers can be compared has changed -- combining them, if I might, for the moment, because they essentially then carry all of the functions, I show a $4,366,000 operational cost for the Premier’s office and the Cabinet Office in 1984-85, increasing by $3,190,000 -- I am rounding off the numbers -- to a total of $7,557,000 in 1988-89, or an increase of 73 per cent.

Could the Premier perhaps enlighten us as to the appropriateness of those figures and whether they are in fact correct? If they are not, could he give me his corrected version of the figures?

1730

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I think I have the figures here, and if I do not, these very thoughtful people who work with me and who are being paid to assist me in answering these questions will have them. I notice my honourable friend does not think I should have that kind of help, because I know he personally does not need the kind of help I do in this regard. It speaks to his much greater capacity than mine.

I was interested when my friend sort of assisted us as we were doing a trade mission to Japan, then turned around and said, “There are too many people on this trip.”

Mr. Brandt: I did not say that.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: As I recall, it was something like that. Anyway, I enjoyed him regardless. He was a lot more fun than a lot of the other people. I just want him to know I was happy to have him.

Mr. Brandt: As a matter of fact, I was disappointed the Leader of the Opposition was not there.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Oh, he was in China. We were delighted to have the member, because he adds a lot, let me tell him.

Let me look at my figures here. He is quite right. There were some shifts back and forth between the Premier’s office and the Cabinet Office. That includes the House leader’s office as well, as the member knows.

From 1985-86 to 1988-89, they have gone up in those terms some $1,434,000, but at the same time we took the policy secretariat functions into the Cabinet Office. That was work that was previously in other things. If you factor that in and take out inflation, there is a net saving in that regard. We are doing the same functions the member’s government did in a reorganized structure, I think probably cheaper than before.

Mr. Brandt: No, no.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Well, factor inflation in. I say to my friend that he has to be very careful when he wants to use these numbers to look at the functions that are being achieved in these various areas. There is a program for office automation, but that is in his office as well. I think if he looks at those figures he will see that it is not out of line and is quite reasonable, given the work that is assigned to it. It is a different workload than it used to be. It is not out of line at all.

Mr. Brandt: The Premier used a different comparison in terms of years than I had asked for. If he does not have the figures with him, I am not going to press for them today. He could perhaps provide them at another time, but I used 1984-85 as my base point when I indicated there was a 72 per cent increase in those two functions. He used 1985-86, so there is a slipped year there. If he can correct that, fine.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I think in 1984 it is $4,253,243 to $6,527,157, for an increase of $2,273,914. When we subtract out all those other functions, we are saving $1 million a year. It is not a big problem.

Mr. Brandt: Could we tackle this from a different angle, because he has changed the numbers -- interesting -- to perhaps reflect a method of operation that was somewhat different than was the case previously. I do not fault him for that, but I do ask the question in regard to the total number of personnel in those offices today as opposed to the 1984-85 period. I wonder if he could share the number of personnel with us?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: They are up seven, I believe.

Mr. Brandt: In whose office? His?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Just a minute. I have it right here. These guys are worth the money, let me tell the member.

The Premier’s office in 1984-85 had 37. In 1987-88, it has 36; we are down one. For Cabinet Office, with the correspondence unit, the main office has gone from 40 to 46. Executive resource has gone from zero to two; that is a new function that has been added to the personnel function. The House leader has gone from three to two. The subtotal is 43 versus 50. The correspondence unit has gone from 27 to 28 and our volume of mail is up two thirds. There is two thirds more mail now than we used to get, with one more person. Most of it is complimentary, I want my honourable friend to know.

The total Cabinet Office, with that new co-ordinating function as well for all the secretariats they used to have -- remember they used to use the secretariats? The member probably never was a secretary of a policy area –

Mr. Brandt: No, I never was.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: -- because he was too important for that. We have gone from 107 in 1984-85 to 114 in 1987-88.

Mr. B. Rae: How many were in the secretariat?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: A whole raft of them, millions.

Mr. Brandt: Could the Premier perhaps share with us on another item, a line item within his budget. I do not pick this out frivolously; I pick it out because it shows a rather staggering increase. The line on spending for transportation and communication was up very substantially. That is comparing the 1985-86 period to today. I show an increase from $44,000 -- again, rounding off the number -- to about $165,000 or about a four-times increase. Did something unusual happen to the taxpayers’ money during that period of time?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Are those travelling expenditures the member is referring to?

Mr. Brandt: Transportation and communication.

Mr. B. Rae: You paid for that plane to Detroit, did you not?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Was he on that plane to Detroit?

Mr. Brandt: Yes, I want to state publicly that I was.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: What charter rates did you pay the government for that plane when you took it?

Mr. Brandt: I have no idea. I was there at the request of the Premier when my Premier asked me to attend. I was there to launch a new Ontario Provincial Police boat in the city of Windsor, which was done. We were on official business at that particular time.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I consider myself your Premier now. Would you do what I say?

Mr. Brandt: If you were the Premier of my party, yes, I would, but you are not so I will not.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Do you not have any respect for the institution? You have to look at that stuff.

He asked about my travelling expenses.

Mr. Brandt: Transportation and communication; I believe it was up 271.4 per cent.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am looking at my own expenditures for travel and they were about $8,000 this year.

Mr. Brandt: What are you taking, a bicycle? Don’t tell me that.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Things like the use of government aircraft. They are substantially lower than with Mr. Davis and Mr. Miller. I am not a big traveller. One of the things I do appreciate is that the member stood in this House a week or two ago and said I should travel more. I do not know whether he dislikes me personally, whether he wants to get rid of me or whether he thinks I can be of some use around the world, but I am going to remember that.

I have that little piece of Hansard. I have it framed and it is going to hang in my office. Every time the member comes to my office, I am going to show it to him, that Peterson should travel more. I appreciate his advice in that regard.

Here is what my note says. I have no idea if it makes sense. “The large differences are due to the fact that too little was allocated in the estimates to transportation and communication expenses and too much to expense for services. A comparison with the previous year’s actual expenditures in these two categories clearly illustrates this point quite clearly. Transportation and communications, actual 1986-87 was $226,000, expenditures were $221,000, for a decrease of $4,400 or two per cent; for services, $147,000, expenditure was actually $126,000, down $20,000 or 13.8 per cent. Therefore, actual costs for transportation and communication and services were both lower in 1987-88 compared to 1986-87.”

How is that?

Mr. Brandt: I do not think the Premier knows what he said.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Let me ask the member this. I have the paper. What did I say? I will give him a test. I read it. Now, if he is so smart and has such a receptive capacity, what did I say?

Mr. Brandt: He said it went down and I am telling him it went up.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am just showing him. I have all the figures right here to prove it.

Mr. Brandt: If I might --

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Just a minute.

Mr. Brandt: I am trying to help.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Let me help him out.

Office of the Premier, 1984-85: transportation and communication total in the Office of the Premier was $306,185. In 1987-88 it was $221,000, down about $90,000. There you go. Is he not glad he asked?

1740

Mr. Brandt: I asked the question because either there has been a fundamental change in the accounting system or there were some unusual expenses associated with either communications or travel. I am not asking for a detailed itinerary of whether the Premier took a bicycle, a car, an airplane or a space shuttle. All I want to know is why there is a 270-odd per cent increase in those particular years.

I will give him the years once again. In 1985-86, the salary and benefits bill in the Cabinet Office has increased by 34 per cent, and spending on transportation and communications is up 271 per cent, from $44,000 and change to $165,000. They do not match with his figures. He provides me with these figures; I am taking the figures from his documents. It is a very significant increase. That is the only point I want to make. I wondered why.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Just a minute: A $103,000 increase in transportation and communication due to telephone equipment, telecommunications costs attributed to transfers, correspondence unit -- here is the answer: The correspondence unit was transferred from the Office of the Premier to the Cabinet Office. It was electronic equipment attached thereto. I did not take a limousine to Paris and around France. There you go.

Mr. Brandt: Is the Premier not now glad I asked the question so he could clarify what it was he did with the money, because up until now he did not know, until Mr. Carman provided him with the advice on what it was that money was spent on?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Would the member not stand in this House and say Bob Carman is worth every single penny we pay him?

Mr. Brandt: I do not know what Bob Carman makes, which is my next question.

Mr. B. Rae: The Premier won’t tell us what he makes.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: That is right. What I want is a leap of faith to say that this guy is doing a great job.

Mr. Brandt: While we are on that question and while we have some of the senior civil servants with us today, he has in fact changed the method by which salaries are disclosed. He is the one who indicated he was going to bring in a government with no walls and no barriers, yet now we have salaries clustered in categories with no way of knowing what senior civil servants earn what amounts of money.

We do know that the range is now up to $131,500, which is a very substantial income if there are those being paid that amount. I am sure they would be because that is the upper range. But now we have ranges as opposed to specific amounts.

It was somewhat uncomfortable for some in the past, including some members of this assembly, whose salaries were very clearly published. Since it is the taxpayers’ money that pays for those salaries, why has he changed it? He did this without any notification, without any indication to the House that there were going to be some fundamental changes in this respect. Why was that done and what is the big secret?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I say to my honourable friend that the facts are not correct. It is all in the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and it was made public. As a matter of fact, a letter went forward from Robert F. Nixon, Treasurer of Ontario, to Mr. Ed Philip -- the member knows him well -- on February 18 saying:

“The freedom of information and protection of individual privacy act, passed into law on January of this year, clearly establishes the individual’s right to privacy of salary information. Consequently, we cannot continue to publish individual salary information in volume 3 of the Public Accounts.”

It was part of an act that I think the member supported. So it was there. It is protected in the freedom of information act and that is an act I am sure he studied carefully and supported in the House.

There is another reason. We have changed the way we deal with deputies in this government. We have put them in various ranges. Each one is on a performance contract. We sit down every year with each deputy -- this is a new system; there is no question about it -- to say to each deputy: “Here is what we want to do. Here are our goals, hopes and aspirations. Here are the kinds of things we want from you in your ministry with respect to advancing these programs in such and such a way.”

There is performance in hiring minorities and in promoting women. There is how they are advancing francophone rights and all the kind of things we expect out of a senior manager. We make a contract and then we judge them at the end of the year as to how they have performed. If they are good, they get more and if they do not hit it, they get less. We rank deputies because they do not all make the same.

It is a management tool. They get paid for performance. We think it is a more effective management tool not to have this just, shall we say, gossiped about. So we give the ranges; we do not give the specifics. We think we accomplish more, from a management point of view, by doing that.

The member asked about the ranges and how we came up with the system. We had an independent system headed by Allen Lambert who came up with this program. We compared our deputies’ salaries vis-à-vis -- we have had a substantial number of changes in the public service, as my honourable friend will know. Compared to the federal level, ours have been very substantially below the federal level. We have a range of salaries now that we think address the fact that these are responsible senior managers and address performance. I like the system.

I understand the objection my honourable friend has. It would be nice to have on paper how much Bob Carman makes, but I will tell the member something. The performance pay system we are bringing in, which applies to a whole range, we think is a more effective way to manage an organization like the Ontario public service.

Mr. Brandt: I am going to move to some other items, but I do not necessarily have to do them at this point. I will defer to the Leader of the Opposition if he wants to go now. Otherwise, I will continue on. It is up to him.

Mr. B. Rae: Go ahead.

Mr. Brandt: I want to raise some questions with the Premier in connection with a number of programs -- we will not be able to get into all of them today -- the government committed itself to. It has not at this point in time indicated what it is going to do in terms of fulfilling some of its commitments that have been made in the past.

I would like to start, if I can, with an environmental program that I know is of concern to the critic in our party, the member for Mississauga South (Mrs. Marland). It is a program we have raised in the past. There does not seem to be any indication whether the government is going to proceed with it or whether it is going to allow the program to die. It is the $30 million the government committed to a form of superfund, a fund that was supposed to be put in place with the specific intent of cleaning up some of the old landfill sites that are in various locations across this province.

I want the Premier to know that our party agrees with that expenditure. We feel that there are, as I recall -- I am going by memory now -- something like 400 sites that have been specifically identified as being problem sites, out of perhaps 4,000 landfill locations across the province. Now that the Premier has had an opportunity to hear from the staff where that program stands, perhaps he can answer the question of what is going to happen.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I know more about this than they do. I was telling them what to write down to hand back to me, just to make them feel good.

The member will recall that the Minister of the Environment has been calling for a federal-provincial fund in this area and there were some indications that would be forthcoming. We are proceeding with a number of cleanups regardless of that superfund. As the member knows, we are under enormous pressure. Just for public health reasons, we have to go ahead regardless of the designation of the special fund, and that is happening.

We are still optimistic we can do this with the federal government, hopefully, given its new and serious concern about the environment, to attack a number of these problems. The list is as long as his arm, as my honourable friend knows. I would say that we are doing it even though we have not put the superfund thing together. We are doing it in a whole bunch of pressure areas now and we are inviting the federal government to join us in that regard.

Mr. Brandt: The Premier is not suggesting Ontario is not going to proceed without federal contributions.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: We are proceeding now.

Mr. Brandt: The government announced the program without discussion with them. It was part of an election campaign promise. That $30 million was an environmental cleanup the government was going to pursue, as I understood it, without any contribution on the part of the federal government. Is the Premier saying now that he is not prepared to move without them?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: We are doing it. We are cleaning up all the time. Good lord, look at the -- I cannot give him the figure off the top of my head.

Mr. Brandt: The fund is not established. It is not there.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Just a minute. I am just telling him that we are cleaning up all the time. If he wants to tart it up and call it a superfund, if that makes him feel better, we can put a different handle on it. I am saying that we are doing this all the time now in a whole variety of areas. I think a lot of that work is going on.

Mr. B. Rae: Just briefly, if I may, is the Premier saying he is spending, on an annual basis, the same amount as he would have spent with the superfund established? Is he making that statement today?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I honestly cannot tell my friend that. No, I am not making that statement, but I can tell him a lot of cleanup work is going on. I cannot tell him what that budgetary allocation is.

Mr. B. Rae: Surely he would agree that the cleanup work that is going on is going on precisely in those areas of the environmental budget which have already been allocated and which are described in the environmental estimates, so there is nothing happening in terms of a separate, additional funding, which the $30 million is supposed to represent.

The $30 million that he talked about and that was widely discussed in this House back in the days when Keith Norton was the Minister of the Environment, something that was raised on this side of the House at that time, has always been a separate fund which would be capitalized over time, which would be applied for by municipalities and by various groups that are affected by a particular problem and which would be drawn on in order to pay for the costs of cleanup. Surely that is different from simply taking it out of ordinary operating revenue and saying, “Well, we’re going to try to clean up here and there.” Are those not two different concepts?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: They really are not. It is a semantic question. My friend can say that we should have a designated fund for something else, and he says, “Capitalize.” What do you do? Do you leave the money in there to grow, do you spend it or do you just flow it through a fund? Frankly, in accounting terms, it is the same thing. We could easily do that and say, “Well, here, we will call this the fund money.”

I cannot give my friend off the top of my head the increase in environmental spending in the last three years, but far more than that has been pumped in, and they have been leading in a whole variety of programs.

What I am saying to my friend is that I cannot tell him with authority that the numbers are the same, but there are a number of cleanup problems right now. Look at the money we have spent on the blob and a whole bunch of other areas which we have been involved in and will continue to be, with machinery and helping out Quebec when it had its problems and working with our own problems in dealing with cleanups.

The hope was to build a federal-provincial fund in that regard. That does not mean we are not going ahead. It would make my friend feel better to call what we are spending a superfund as opposed to out of general revenues, but unless you have a special tax or a designated tax, everything is funded out of general revenue, so I think an accountant would say there is complete transparency between those two things.

Mr. Brandt: The members of the opposition did not call it a superfund; the Premier did. The members of the opposition did not earmark $30 million for this program; he did. The members of the opposition did not say that the money had to be separate and apart but could be rolled in; that was his decision.

All I am saying is that there was a commitment on the part of his government for a very substantive program that all of us agree, and I think probably with the total unanimity of this House, has got to be carried out.

I get phone calls on a regular basis in my office about contaminated landfill sites that are being discovered here, there and at other locations throughout the province. The Premier can blame that on the previous administration, but the previous administration did not know about some of these particular landfill sites until they have been analysed, until hydrogeological studies have been undertaken, until all of those details are known.

Whatever, whoever is to blame, the fact of the matter is that we have contaminated sites. I tell the Premier, there are probably 400 locations, minimum, in this province that have got to be addressed.

Whether the $30 million is going to be an annual, earmarked, specific, one-line account in the minister’s budget or whatever, there has to be an amount there for fundamental cleanup. All I am saying is that you cannot, on one hand, say that it has to be a separate $30 million and earmarked for a specific purpose and, on the other hand, say, “Well, we just kind of rolled it all in together and it’s being done” in some mysterious way.

How much money is being spent out of the minister’s budget on landfill or environmental cleanup programs? Do we know that figure?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I do not know it, but I will certainly get it for my friend, and as quickly as possible.

Mr. Brandt: I am not totally satisfied that the program is unfolding as the Premier said it would.

I just want to discuss with him for a moment another environmental program, and this is one that I know is near and dear to his heart, because I am sure someone came up with this particular name and it had a nice ring to it: the environmental youth corps. Remember that one?

The promise was $11 million and 3,000 jobs. To the best of my understanding at this particular point in time -- and this is another environmental program that I think had some basic attractiveness to it -- the Premier has spent $3 million and perhaps has created up to 1,000 jobs. It is about one third of what he committed in that particular area. What happened with that program?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: We are only a third of the way through the mandate.

Mr. Brandt: That is not the same answer the Premier has given in the past on this, because I listen carefully. If he wants to change his answer, that is fine. I do myself from time to time.

Hon. Mr. Conway: On the main question of your leadership ambitions?

Mr. Brandt: That is not the question being addressed at this particular point. What is being addressed is the rather substantive decrease in the amount of money being directed towards a very important program. What he has said in the past, or through the Premier to his ministers, is that because unemployment was dropping so rapidly in Ontario, there was not a need to create jobs for youth to the same extent as had been the case when the program was first announced. Is that the reason, or is the government only a third of the way through its mandate? Which one is it?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Both.

Mr. Brandt: Well, when you get an answer like “both,” it makes it very difficult.

Perhaps the Premier would want to respond to a couple of other programs I have some difficulty being able to track in terms of how well they are unfolding. One is the Ontario health insurance plan program, the fees for which were going to be phased out in five years. How far is the government progressing with the phase-out of the OHIP fees? That was one which was near and dear to his heart. I know he wants to phase them out and he has the money to do it now.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Do not get the assumption that money is growing on trees around here, but --

Mr. Brandt: You said it, not I.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Who? What?

Mr. B. Rae: Rolling in dough. I heard the expression “rolling in dough.” Didn’t you hear that expression?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Those guys may want to, but I can tell the member that we have not touched OHIP premiums. They have been frozen since our first budget some three years ago. My figures may be inaccurate -- I am going from memory -- but in the past, they financed about 19 per cent to 20 per cent of the health care system through OHIP premiums. The Conservatives would ratchet those up every year. Remember when we had the big fight with Darcy McKeough? They tried to get them up about 18 per cent or something --

An hon. member: Thirty-seven and a half.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Thirty-seven and a half per cent. They compromised at 18 per cent, when Stuart Smith was the then Leader of the Opposition. But they at least put them up by inflation every year. It was like an automatic tax they just turned up.

Had we done what they did, had we continued to index that flat tax, it would have generated about another $700-million worth of revenue, which we have forgone. OHIP premiums have gone from financing 19 per cent to 20 per cent of the health care system down to about 14 per cent. What the member is seeing is more and more of the financing on to the progressive system. It is diminishing in importance as a funder for the health care system. That is a very significant forgiveness of revenue. It is being absorbed through other taxes he enjoys, like provincial sales tax and a lot of others, which is a consumption tax.

The OHIP premium was a flat tax and considered in some regards unfair. I am saying that we have substantially decreased our dependence on that, and the Treasurer is constantly looking at new and creative ways to fund these situations. But it is a much less significant tax now than it was five years ago.

Mr. Brandt: We do not have a lot of time, but is the Premier putting the position before this House that the reduction in dependency on OHIP premiums is fairer than the increase of one per cent in the sales tax? In effect, the amount he mentioned of $700 million comes very close to the $900 million-plus he picks up for every point in the sales tax. When you raise the sales tax from seven to eight, you pick up $900 million. The amount he lost by not continually adjusting the OHIP premiums, on the other hand, is $700 million, he says. He is saying that one is fairer than the other. Is that the position he is putting before the House?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am not arguing tax equity. He can say it is picked up through personal income tax, tax on liquor, tax on gasoline and a whole bunch of other areas. The truth is that there is not enough money in the provincial sales tax to fund the entire health budget. We are spending $13 billion to $14 billion on health, and it is putting a lot of pressure on the system, so that was just one of them.

I am not arguing tax equity now. I am just saying that we have had to pick up through other taxes, like corporation tax and land transfer tax. The member does not like any of these taxes. If I were in opposition, I would not like them either and I would stand up and decry every single tax. On the other hand, I would stand up and cry for more spending on every area that happened to suit my fancy at that particular time. Then I would leave it to the government to sort it all out, and we could be winners all the time.

I think our system is a fair one. As I said, we have lessened our dependency on it, and the Treasurer is constantly looking at this matter.

Mr. Chairman: It is now beyond six o’clock. What would you like to do? Are you ready to vote on this or do you want to discuss this further?

Mr. Brandt: I still have some additional items.

Mr. Chairman: So you want to continue at some other time. Agreed?

Agreed to.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Conway, the committee of supply reported progress.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Conway: I am happy to report on the business of the House for the coming week.

On Monday, December 12, we will deal with the estimates of the Management Board of Cabinet.

On Tuesday, December 13, we will deal with second reading of Bill 193, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act, followed by a motion for interim supply. Any votes resulting therefrom will be stacked until 5:45 p.m. on Tuesday.

On Wednesday, December 14, we will deal with second reading of the Psychologists Registration Amendment Act, which was introduced this afternoon, as well as second reading of Bill 169, Bill 9, Bill 150 and Bill 174, and third reading of Bill 193. Any votes relating to these bills will be stacked until 5:45 p.m.

On Thursday, December 15, in the morning, we will deal with private members’ business standing in the names of Mr. Offer and Miss Nicholas. In the afternoon, we will continue with the adjourned debate on Bill 174, if required, and deal with a number of bills awaiting third reading and royal assent.

The House adjourned at 6:02 p.m.

December 8, 1988

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY AMENDMENT ACT

ANIMALS FOR RESEARCH AMENDMENT ACT

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY AMENDMENT ACT

ANIMALS FOR RESEARCH AMENDMENT ACT

AFTERNOON SITTING

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

LEAD IN DRINKING WATER

ABANDONED URANIUM MINES

HUMAN RIGHTS

NORTHERN SUPPORT GRANTS

EASTERN ONTARIO

ROBERT FOSTER

HOSPITAL SERVICES

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

TEMAGAMI DISTRICT RESOURCES

HUMAN RIGHTS

COURT SYSTEM

CORONER’S INQUEST

RESPONSES

CORONER’S INQUEST

TEMAGAMI DISTRICT RESOURCES

CORONER’S INQUEST

COURT SYSTEM

CORONER’S INQUEST

HUMAN RIGHTS

EARTHQUAKE IN ARMENIA

ORAL QUESTIONS

TEMAGAMI DISTRICT RESOURCES

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

HOME CARE

WILLIAM MILNE AND SONS LTD.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

VISITORS

DENTAL CARE

CORONER’S INQUEST

HEART AND CIRCULATORY DISEASES

AIR TRANSPORTATION

PROPOSED TRANSMISSION LINE

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE REVIEW BOARD

SALE OF DRUG-RELATED EQUIPMENT

DOCTORS’ FEES

PETITION

SPECIAL EDUCATION

REPORT BY COMMITTEE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

PSYCHOLOGISTS REGISTRATION AMENDMENT ACT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ESTIMATES, OFFICE OF THE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR

ESTIMATES, CABINET OFFICE ESTIMATES, OFFICE OF THE PREMIER

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE