Hansard Transcripts 1982-Jun-10 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I am rising in my place today to express what I know is a generally held sentiment throughout this legislature and throughout our province and country. It is on the sensitive and critical issue of nuclear disarmament. I know that others in this House will want an opportunity to express their views, and we welcome that.

Ever since the use of atomic weapons in the closing stages of the Second World War, thoughtful people throughout the world have sensed the tremendous responsibility that we all share to avoid the catastrophic and unthinkable devastation of a nuclear conflict. The government of our country has participated in many discussions on the issue of nuclear disarmament and in the general area of mutual balanced force reduction.

These discussions have involved administrations of both Conservative and Liberal affiliation, and represent the genuine expression on the part of our national government of sentiments that relate to the common desire that Canadians share for peace and for international sanity.

Matters of foreign policy and matters of defence policy obviously do not fall within the constitutional responsibilities of the government of our province. Therefore we have been, in the past, genuinely reticent to express explicit points of view in areas of international negotiation or foreign policy. Such matters are justifiably the responsibility of the government and Parliament of our nation.

Nevertheless, there are certain issues that are so wide-reaching and of such global significance to each and every one of us as human beings and as citizens of the world, that we have a responsibility to search our conscience and share with ourselves the things we care about most.

I believe the nations of the west, and in particular our ally to the south, the United States of America, have shown considerable restraint in the face of consistent Soviet and Communist provocation. We should remember Afghanistan, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland; all of these might well have provoked some military confrontation.

The restraint the west has shown constitutes a significant investment in international stability and peace despite our deeply felt abhorrence of the rank disregard for international sovereignty that the Soviet Union has shown.

There can be no question, as British troops defend democratic principles and freedoms in the Falkland Islands, that perseverance and continuing vigilance are necessary if democratic freedoms are to survive, and if international sanity is to be preserved. The United Kingdom, and the fighting men and women who work together under her banner, are fighting for all of us who believe in peace and in international order.

It is a desire for international order along with simple human decency that moves people to wish for a reduction in the number of nuclear weapons that exist worldwide. It is very important, and I think most hopeful, that the government of the United States of America is prepared to pursue talks in this direction with the government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

This does not represent an easy initiative on the part of an administration which is justifiably committed to maintaining America's capacity to defend herself and to discharge her responsibilities within the western alliance. That America should take that step for peace today is a tribute to the innate decency of her people, the farsightedness of her administration and the commitment of that administration to a better world for all people.

The continued escalation of nuclear armaments, in my view and I am sure in the view of every single member of this House, constitutes a serious threat to the survival of mankind. It is important that we encourage wider public discussion on this most important issue. It is also important that all Canadians provide whatever encouragement is appropriate for the government of Canada to pursue in the international arena those initiatives that can in some small way contribute to reducing the threat of nuclear war.

2:10 p.m.

What is important is that we understand there is a price to pay for peace and a price to pay for freedom. Canadians have not been known for their extreme views on matters of international politics. We have been known, however, to make sacrifice for principle and to do so at great cost to the men and women who have defended this nation through three wars.

It is for them that the generation of which every member of this Legislature is a part has a duty to express its concern as citizens and human beings. International peace and stability cannot survive if those who would threaten that stability remain unchecked. Similarly it is as courageous to fight for peace and conciliation as it isto respond militarily when other responses are possible. I hope that our children and their children will be spared the horror of war, and above all the unthinkable horror of nuclear war.

I believe the government of this country would be eager to reflect the views of Canadians and in so doing express abroad what so many of us feel in our hearts. In so doing, we should not be naive about those who have used violence and military methods in the past to advance their purposes. In so doing, we should not condone practices, policies and discrimination which so typify modern-day communism as it is practised by the totalitarians in the Soviet Union. In so doing, we must remember and sustain the principles of freedom and self- determination, the principles of democracy and humanity for which Canadians died and which are so critical to the survival of our society.

A matter that we are reflecting upon is the ultimate question of man's humanity or inhumanity to man. That is a matter beyond any jurisdictional analysis; it is a matter of personal conscience, personal responsibility and personal intelligence.

Those honestly working for peace and nuclear sanity have the support of all of us who care deeply about future generations and the responsibility that we, as individuals, have to them.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of my party to associate myself and our party with the remarks made by the Premier in his sensitive statement today. I am one of those who, I am sure like many members of this House, are terribly impressed with the broad-based movement in this regard and the number of people from all walks of life who have associated themselves in a sometimes spontaneous and sometimes organized way to bring some sanity to international negotiations today. I am one of those who is very happy to see individual communities and municipalities involving themselves in this great and most significant of international debates.

It seems to me there is more we can do as provincial members of parliament than just make pious speeches. We have been asked by many people to get involved in allowing the municipalities, through enabling legislation here, to include the matter of international disarmament on a referendum in the municipal ballot. There is no question that a lot of us feel that is a legitimate exercise of municipal responsibility.

My colleague the member for Waterloo North (Mr. Epp) has introduced a bill. If the government would prefer, I would be very happy to support any bill they would like to bring forward on this subject. I am sure, with the good feeling in this House, we could arrange for speedy passage of that legislation which would give substance to our collective feelings on this issue.

I recognize that this is not a partisan issue. I recognize that each person is involved, as the Premier said, with his own conscience and his own feeling. But at the same time, rather than just speaking or feeling, perhaps we should ask ourselves what we can positively do. I believe this one small step by this Legislature would help to give credence to this important and significant movement right across this province, right across this country and right across this world.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I also want to associate myself on behalf of the New Democrats with the remarks made by the Premier and by the leader of the official opposition.

As members know, I have been working with my friends the members for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway) and Brantford (Mr. Gillies) and circulating some resolutions expressing concern about disarmament and support for a world referendum on disarmament. That has been done on a tripartisan basis for some time. I think it is appropriate that we in this Legislature should be able to speak on the most important issue facing mankind -- survival -- with the participation of every party and all sides of the political spectrum instead of seeking to do it just from one party or another.

Some weeks ago I was up on Parliament Hill at a rally and I shared a platform with an Ottawa alderman, Darrel Kent, who is a well-known Conservative. Afterwards I said to him, "I am surprised to hear you making those comments about peace and disarmament." He said, "This is an issue that does not respect party lines; it is something that touches us all." I felt good then, as I do now, to be associated with people in all walks of political life in expressing concern over disarmament.

A number of members of the Legislature took half an hour this afternoon to view the film If You Love This Planet, which featured Dr. Helen Caldicott, the chairman of Physicians for Social Responsibility, and which showed some of the implications of what nuclear war would do to this planet were it ever to break out. As she said, the Americans and the Russians both have enough weaponry now not just to kill the populations of each other's countries once or twice, but 20, 30 or 40 times overkill is now in the nuclear arsenals. Sad to say, there are still plans to increase them unless we, all of the citizens of this world, can find some way to stop it.

A single Polaris submarine or a single Russian nuclear submarine with multitargeted missiles has enough power basically to wipe out every city and town in the Soviet Union, in western Europe and in the United States in the course of one exchange. A nuclear war would not be war as we know it; it would be over in the course of half an hour or an hour. Whether civilization would survive in any way after that is hard to say. As Dr. Caldicott said, it may be that those who lived would envy those who had died.

Some of us have been watching very closely, as the Premier said, the tragic war now taking place in the Falkland Islands. We saw today that report of a black day for the British when their landing ships were bombed by Argentinian planes and a large number of crewmen and soldiers were tragically wounded and killed. That is just a small number, though, compared to those who would be affected by even the smallest nuclear exchange.

If a nuclear war were ever to break out we would have no guarantee -- this is one of the tragic parts of it -- that either side, that any of the parties, would know how to restrain themselves. There is no guarantee they would know how to prevent one small exchange from escalating into a global exchange that would mean a nuclear holocaust and bring an end to society as we know it.

We have to find a way to take our nuclear swords and turn them into ploughshares. Of course, we have to try to do it in a way that is balanced, that is staged and that recognizes that there are opposing systems and that people do have deep-seated distrust which has developed over many, many years. It is worth noting, however, that there have been no violations of the nuclear treaties that have been made up until now and that the nations of the world have been prepared to respect those treaties. Perhaps they could carry that principle further.

Canadians have been prepared to fight when necessary. We are also a peace-loving people, and I hope we can find means of leading where necessary too. Such initiatives as the letter that Mayor Marion Dewar of Ottawa is now sending not just to municipalities in this country but around the world suggesting referendums, I think should be encouraged in whatever ways we know now. Such initiatives may lead to finding a way in which the people of this planet can say some things to the leaders of this planet about what priority they put on survival.

What can we in this Legislature do? I hope that, in addition to those many MPPs who have already endorsed the two resolutions being circulated, all MPPs can see their way fit to endorse those resolutions. I hope we can find other means to continue a concern about peace and disarmament. I hope we could find a way among the three parties, without trying to claim advantage to any particular side, to make it possible for those municipalities wishing to have referendums not to be held back because of the fear of legal constraints.

The large municipalities do not see that as a problem because they have the resources, if needs be, to fend off a challenge, but the smaller municipalities do not have those legal resources. I believe we can act in order to make it possible for them to proceed.

No issue is more important than survival on this planet, than life or death, than the kind of world that we bequeath to our children, and our children's children, and our children's children's children. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I associate myself with the Premier's remarks and hope that we in this Legislature, although this is not in our primary area of confidence or of responsibility, can do what we can in order to encourage the cause of peace and the cause of balanced disarmament.

2:20 p.m.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the statement made by the Premier on the vexed question of peace and disarmament, and on nuclear peace and nuclear disarmament, and peaceful uses of atomic energy and warlike uses of atomic energy. I want to take the opportunity of participating very briefly in this exchange on such an important issue.

I cannot help but recall to the assembly, however, that Canada was a participant, with the United Kingdom and the United States, in the original use of nuclear power. Unfortunately for us, it was used for a warlike and destructive purpose.

I was astounded to read just recently, as more and more information becomes available about the events leading up to the decision by the major powers to drop the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, that whatever justification there may have been for the dropping of the initial bomb with a view to bringing to an end the war in the east with Japan, there was in my judgement no justification whatsoever for the dropping of the second bomb by the powers at that time.

I have great respect for the leadership of the nations at that time, but this is a warning to the leadership of the nations at this time. The second bomb was not dropped for any other purpose than to test a second nuclear device of a different kind from the first. It is only recently I learned that. The distinction is one that had never been made before.

As we in Canada take the position that we are for peace and disarmament, I think we have a special responsibility to cross party lines and indeed unite the nation on this issue.

I hope we will stand united on the issue of peace and disarmament in the face of a virulent reassertion of nationalism in various parts of the world. That kind of nationalism will always defeat the cause of internationalism, the cause of peace, the cause of disarmament, which cross the borders of all the nations of the world. It will do so unless it is possible to reflect in our institutions this significant wave of concern existing among people throughout the world about the possible horrors of nuclear war, about the possible horrors of war generally, as it is brought to our attention almost every day in the newspapers.

There is a point I wish to address to the leadership of the government of this province. If I could in any way find myself capable of believing that one can distinguish the peaceful uses of atomic and nuclear energy from nonpeaceful uses, then I would support the development of the technology for those peaceful uses. But I do think that we, in this province, are a participant in a borderline question when we are engaged in exporting for our own economic purposes the Candu reactor to other countries, believing with the best will in the world that somehow or other the recipients are going to abide by the kind of rules we hope we could learn to abide by ourselves with respect to the misuse of nuclear power for warlike purposes.

I am not suggesting for a moment this is a matter which can be settled in a debate in this assembly. It is a matter of ongoing concern. But my present position has led me to believe over the course of time that one cannot effectively distinguish nuclear peace from nuclear war and the use of the technology for peace from the use of the technology for war.

Therefore I am, and have been over a period of time, driven to the conclusion that this province and country should be one of the first jurisdictions of the world to renounce the use of nuclear power for any purpose until such time -- if there ever should be such a time when one can distinguish the peaceful uses -- as it can be ensured that nuclear power is used for peaceful purposes and it can be made certain it cannot be used for nonpeaceful purposes.

With those comments I appreciate the initiative taken by the government in which all parties join.

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, following the Premier's remarks, I think he seems to be following the crowd to see which way it is going. This statement has been long overdue.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Sargent: I am suggesting --

Mr. Speaker: You are out of order. Please resume your seat.

Mr. Kerrio: You were mistaken --

Mr. Speaker: No, I am not. He has not really identified what he was going to do.

Mr. Sargent: I have the same rights they have on this very important matter.

Mr. Speaker: All right. That is all I wanted to hear. Thank you.

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, you should have known that. I said the Premier's statement is long overdue. As a private citizen and member of this House, I think he should move to condemn the pending shipment of atomic fuel bundles to Argentina at this time because of the unknown end use of that material. He should make a positive statement in this regard.

MUNICIPAL ELECTION REFERENDUM

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, last week the Premier was asked a question relating to municipal votes on nuclear disarmament. I am pleased at this time to share with the House my opinion and that of my senior crown law officers with respect to this issue.

Of particular concern to the public, members of municipal councils and members of this Legislature is the question of whether a municipal election would be declared null and void by a court if a municipal council authorized the placing of a question on nuclear disarmament on the municipal election ballot.

It is not possible to state categorically that no municipal election could ever be declared null and void as a result of a court challenge in such circumstances. However, it is my opinion and that of my senior advisers that it would be most unlikely a municipal election would be declared null and void only for the reason that a question on nuclear disarmament appeared on the ballot.

An election could be set aside only if it were established that an irregularity occurred of a kind which affected the result of the election for a particular candidate. It is almost impossible to conceive of a situation where any candidate could convince a court that the placing of such a question on a municipal ballot had affected the vote in relation to that candidate.

The issue of whether a particular municipal bylaw placing a referendum question on a municipal ballot is lawful or not may be for the courts to decide. However, I would offer the opinion that anyone seeking to upset the results of a municipal election because an unauthorized question was also put to the electorate undertakes an almost impossible task.

2:30 p.m.

REORGANIZATION OF MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, the Ministry of the Environment faces a set of challenges which are radically different from those challenges it faced at the time of its inception 10 years ago. These new challenges have led the ministry to reconsider its raison d'être.

As a result, the ministry recently adopted the following goal statement: To achieve and maintain a quality of environment, including air, water and land, that will protect human health and the ecosystem and will contribute to the wellbeing of the people of Ontario.

With these needs in mind I am pleased to introduce today a new Ministry of the Environment organization, one which will have solid foundations to meet the environmental challenges facing Ontario today and in the future.

The primary objectives of the ministry's reorganization are: to ensure systematic planning; to provide better service to various client groups and strengthen several existing programs; to increase the capability of the ministry to respond effectively to pressing issues; and to establish and reinforce the vehicles for policy development and long-range planning.

Mr. William Bidell has been appointed to co-ordinate the implementation of this reorganization, which will be effective not later than August 3 of this year. Mr. Bidell will apply his extensive administrative and managerial experience, acquired through many years of service to the government of Ontario. I might say that my colleague to my left hastens to remind me that much of that experience was in the Ministry of Transportation and Communications, and that is correct. Mr. Bidell will apply that experience and skill to the task of implementing the reorganization plan.

A new position of senior adviser to the minister has been established to assist the minister and the ministry in developing a new mechanism for arriving at environmental standards that will ensure public input into the development of such standards. Mr. Brad Drowley has been selected to fill this important position. He will also continue to chair the Ontario- Canada task force until the submission of its report in October of this year.

There will be an enhanced environmental planning division consisting of the existing branches in air resources, water resources, waste management, and laboratory services and applied research, as well as a new hazardous contaminants and standards branch and the creation of an environmental assessment branch. The head of this division will be selected through a competition process.

The new hazardous contaminants and standards branch will have very major responsibilities. The branch will be responsible for coordinating the 'development of regulatory programs for the control of hazardous contaminants, and for establishing environmental standards which are integral to the environmental protection programs.

The new environmental assessment branch will co-ordinate the ministry's responsibilities under the Environmental Assessment Act. There will be a competition for the position of director of this new branch.

An intergovernmental relations and strategic projects division is being established to coordinate the ministry's efforts in dealing with pressing environmental concerns where solutions require co-operation and involvement with other jurisdictions. This division is of paramount importance. It will have to address issues that transcend organizational lines and indeed provincial and national boundaries. This approach will, I feel, serve us well in addressing the many complex issues of the day.

As head of the intergovernmental relations and strategic projects division, Mr. Walter Giles will have the title of associate deputy minister, commensurate with the importance we place on the activities that have been assigned to this division and on our negotiations to resolve transboundary problems. This is not, however, creating a three-tier structure, and all division heads in the ministry, including this position, will continue to report directly to the deputy minister.

Initially, the following groups will be assigned to this division: the acid precipitation study co-ordination office, the Niagara river improvement project, the waste disposal site project, and the intergovernmental relations office.

The policy and planning branch, to be headed by Mr. André Castel, will have the responsibility to evaluate the ministry's policies, programs and resource needs, and to co-ordinate the effective management and utilization of ministry resources. The branch will provide the technical links essential for the divisions jointly to achieve the ministry's corporate objectives. The branch will also assume responsibility for external research.

The responsibilities of the regions will remain basically as they are and the regions will continue to report through an assistant deputy minister, regional operations division. There will also be a competition for this position. A new environmental approvals and project engineering branch will form part of this division as well.

The consolidation of most of the approvals functions and the engineering expertise within one branch will enhance the one-window approach and permit a more efficient use of the staff. This branch will review and process applications under the Environmental Protection Act, the Ontario Water Resources Act and the Pesticides Act. It will also encourage the development of water supply and sewage treatment facilities and continue rendering this vital service to the municipalities.

I have, for the convenience of the honourable members, copies of our report entitled, Meeting the Environmental Challenges of the 1980s, which explains and describes the role and objectives of each organizational area.

I believe the organization I have outlined today will give the ministry the means and scope to deal effectively with environmental concerns of the future as well as to continue to provide a high level of service to the people of Ontario.

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I have always listened with much interest to the member for Kingston and the Islands (Mr. Norton) report at length about major departmental reorganization, so I was concerned to read today's Order Paper in which the Honourable Alan Pope, QC, MPP, is reported to be the Minister of the Environment. I was wondering if there were parts of the reorganization that the member for Kingston and the Islands did not speak to.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I am beginning to think I may have a profile problem. I notice in an article which was handed to me from the Sarnia Observer that reference is made, quoting a person from Toronto, suggesting that she received a letter on Wednesday "from the Ontario Environment Minister Claude Bennett," so I am not sure where we stand.

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps you had better check your mail when you get back.

WITHDRAWAL OF UNPARLIAMENTARY LANGUAGE

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege:

On Tuesday evening after one of my moderate and controlled chastisements of the people on that side, you brought me to order by saying that I had used unparliamentary language. At that time I had called the people on the other side hypocrites, or at least I had said their policies were hypocritical.

I was surprised by that ruling and, being the good practitioner that I am, I thought I would go to the library and verify the precedents about the use of "hypocrite." I found that prior to 1958 there may have been some basis for the --

Mr. Shymko: You said "bandit."

Mr. Roy: I will deal with the word "bandit" later.

Mr. Speaker: No, please don't.

Mr. Sweeney: That has already been declared appropriate.

Mr. Roy: Prior to 1958, apparently there were precedents indicating the word "hypocrite" may have been unparliamentary. But the latest ruling in 1975 from the then Speaker, the Honourable Lucien Lamoureux, who had a great reputation for establishing very fair and judicious precedent, was this: "The honourable member for Prince George-Peace River says that his alleged question of privilege will provide the opportunity for an apology to be made, presumably for the calling of members of the opposition cynics and hypocrites. There is nothing unparliamentary about that language." He states: "It is a matter of disagreement. If I were to take steps to purge all discussion in this House of language of that sort, it would become a dull place indeed."

Mr. Speaker, I thought I would bring this precedent to your attention and ask for a perusal of the authorities. I say in all honesty, according to the precedent, there was nothing unparliamentary.

There may have been something unparliamentary about the word "bandit." I researched that as well, and there is no precedent on the word "bandit," although there are precedents on the words "criminal" and "crook." I thought I would bring these matters to your attention, Mr. Speaker.

2:40 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: I appreciate that very much. The honourable Speaker to whom you refer is entitled to his opinion, as I am entitled to mine, and I stand by my ruling.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: There is ample precedent for it, and I am not going to quote it again. As I say, we have established a precedent of our own, perhaps.

Oral questions, the honourable Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Laughren: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: I wonder if you could tell us whether or not the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay) intends to make a statement concerning the very disturbing rumours out of Sudbury today that would have Falconbridge extending for another three weeks what is already a 10-week shutdown and laying off up to 1,000 more workers.

Mr. Speaker: I think that may be more appropriately asked in the proper period.

Mr. Foulds: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: We are in fact seeking a ministerial statement on the matter before --

Mr. Speaker: The time for ministerial statements has expired.

Mr. Laughren: That is why I asked the question when I did.

Mr. Foulds: The point of order was raised when it was before ministerial statements expired.

Mr. Speaker: No, it was not, with all respect. The time for ministerial statements expired five minutes ago. I remind all honourable members, in case they have forgotten, that it is Thursday afternoon, private members' afternoon.

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether this is a point of order or a point of privilege, but I think it is a legitimate point and I would like it to be heard. The minister involved is not present, but I would like you to review Hansard and report back to the Legislature.

On May 31, I raised a question in the Legislature regarding a nursing home in St. Thomas. The minister indicated that he would get the information and report back to the Legislature, as he did on June 4. I would like very briefly to quote what he said.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not really interested in what he said; I would just like to hear your point of privilege or order.

Mr. Cooke: The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, that you have to listen to these two paragraphs for me to make my point.

Mr. Speaker: With all respect, I will have to rule you out of order because of your opening statement. Would you resume your seat, please? I have mentioned to all honourable members that it is not my duty or responsibility to look into matters and report back to the House.

Mr. Cooke: Then will you let me ask you a question, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: There is nothing in the standing orders that provides you the opportunity of asking me a question.

Mr. Cooke: Could you tell me what I am to do as a private member when a minister deliberately prevents --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will you please resume your seat? The most appropriate way is to ask the minister a question when he is here, quite obviously.

ORAL QUESTIONS

RETAIL SALES TAX

Mr. Peterson: I have a question for the Treasurer, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of four gentlemen who are sitting in the Speaker's gallery representing the mobile catering association. In two days they have collected some 50,000 signatures -- if the Treasurer does not believe it, he can count them -- to a petition that says:

"I am herein acknowledging that this provincial government has abused their use of power in taxation. We the undersigned are joining all retailing merchants in protesting and denying you this further abuse of our livelihoods."

They have a very important case to make. They requested a meeting with you, Mr. Treasurer, and you will not meet with them; they requested a meeting with the Treasurer and he will not meet with them. They are asking, I am asking and many people in this province are asking the minister to allow the Retail Sales Tax Amendment Act to go to committee for a full and open hearing in order to hear these people who have become disaffected because of this bill.

I would like to deliver these 50,000 signatures to the Treasurer. There are many more thousands to come. Why will the Treasurer not allow these people to present their case to this House?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, getting that many responses today makes the horoscope the Star has printed about me today sound a little true. It says, "You could win a 'popularity contest.'" I am not sure that is a popularity contest.

I would like to say I do not know of any refusal to meet. If the member is talking about the Ontario Restaurant and Foodservices Association --

Mr. Peterson: No, the Mobile --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. F. S. Miller: -- I am only suggesting that up to this point I have been very careful, in so far as I know, in the letters I have signed replying to people who have written in after the budget, not to say that I cannot see them. We saw two groups of people this morning. The Ontario Restaurant and Foodservices Association saw my staff and I in turn saw the Ontario Trucking Association. It is a logical part of every post-budget period to have a number of groups of people wanting to see the Treasurer.

In the main, I try to see representative organizations. The representative organization that looks after the hospitality industry in Ontario is Tourism Ontario. It has several component parts, one of which is the Hotel Association of Metropolitan Toronto and another is the Ontario Restaurant and Foodservices Association.

If the member goes back in history, he will find that not only did I see the cover organization but the components separately and together; that I received a brief from the restaurant association which said that while they wanted all taxes taken off all food and liquor for a period of time, if they looked at their industry, the part of it that was hurting most was the middle to upper restaurant area where the 10 per cent tax arose.

Secondly, the hotel association came in --

Mr. Peterson: This is the mobile catering association.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I understand --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the Treasurer just address his remarks to the original question, please?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I will gladly go back and see where there was a refusal. If the member has a copy of one, will he please send it to me and I will accept it as evidence. So far as I know, I have not being saying too many noes. I have said a few to individuals but not to associations as far as I could help it.

Mr. Peterson: Surely the Treasurer has missed the point of the question and this whole discussion in this House. We believe that bill should go to committee. These people want to represent themselves before that committee to explain to the Treasurer the mistakes he has made in that budget.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary, please.

Mr. Peterson: The supplementary is this: I want to point out to the Treasurer that he is aware there is precedence for budget bills going to committee. I refer him to Hansard for Monday, March 19, 1962, which reads as follows:

"Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister) moves that the orders of the day for resuming the adjourned debate on Bill No. 47, An Act to amend the Retail Sales Tax Act, 1960-1961, be discharged and that the subject matter of the bill be referred to the standing committee on public accounts for consideration."

Mr. T. P. Reid: I accept.

Mr. Nixon: I was at the committee.

Mr. Peterson: So there is precedence for going to committee for a detailed review. Given the fact that the Treasurer has already backed off, as have other Treasurers in the past, and given the significant impact that this bill is going to have on hundreds of thousands of residents of Ontario, he should at least have the common decency to hear them out and let them put their case forward in a public and open way, not just --

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary question, the member for Windsor-Riverside:

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Speaker: That was not a question, it was a statement. you did not ask a question.

Mr. Peterson: What kind of unfair ruling is that?

Mr. Speaker: You did not ask a question.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Will you please resume your seat?

Mr. Peterson: The question was, "Were you aware of the precedence?"

Mr. Speaker: No, you did not word it that way, with all respect.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: No, he did not.

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Treasurer --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, surely there is a special importance to the questions asked by the Leader of the Opposition. In your opinion there was nothing interrogative in his statement. In our opinion he asked for the reconsideration that this precedent must obviously bring from him either now or later. I assure you the Treasurer was rising in his place to answer when you simply took the play down to the other party. I would ask you to reconsider so that we can hear from the Treasurer on this matter of importance.

Mr. Speaker: With all respect, I think the honourable the Leader of the Opposition made his point. He did not in fact ask a question. I do not want to hang my hat --

Ms. Copps: He asked, "Are you aware?"

Mr. Speaker: Order. No, he did not, with all respect.

Mr. Nixon: Whether he said it or not, the implication was there.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

2:50 p.m.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I hate to rule on my friend and I would not have done this had my friend the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk not seen fit to do so last Monday. Rule 28(a) of the standing orders says, "The Speaker's rulings relating to oral questions are not debatable or subject to appeal." He must take his chances. He can appeal it but he cannot debate it. He should make up his mind.

Mr. Speaker: With all respect, in my opinion the Leader of the Opposition made a statement. He made his point very clearly, in my humble opinion, it did not contain a request nor did it require an answer.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, rather than your having to read Hansard and embarrass yourself, I would like to appeal your ruling in this case.

This is very important. The other day, the Treasurer rose in his place and said there was no precedent. He said my colleague the House leader would agree with him. That is just not the case. The question was, was he aware of that precedent and would he reconsider given the fact there is a precedent? That was clearly the question, and I think if you have any fairness at all, you would allow the question to go through and allow him to answer it.

Mr. Speaker: It is not a question of fairness; it is a question of fact. With all respect, you did not ask a question. I have made my ruling. I do not see how anyone can answer a statement.

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Treasurer is aware that on the day after the budget we asked that the retail sales tax bill be referred to committee. We renewed that request a week ago.

I would like to ask the Treasurer if he remembers that in the blueprint they presented to the federal government at the first ministers' conference, the following was stated: "All governments should agree that any major restructuring of the tax system should be subject to a process of public consultation and review."

How can the Treasurer not follow his own recommendation and by that demonstrate that he is hypocritical, two-faced and undemocratic in not allowing this bill to go out for public hearings?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I thought I detected a couple of unparliamentary words there, but that is fair enough.

First, I would gladly have answered the question of the Leader of the Opposition had there been one and had it not been ruled out of order. I have been used to statements before. I will try in a general way to discuss these.

If my colleagues have found a precedent, I am the last one to try to deny what is a fact. If it is there, it is there. However, I would like to know the conditions and reasons for it. I suggest that at this point in history there is a forum in terms of review with ministers. The public has talked to ministers through associations. We have done that every year.

Our regulations in general reflect the kinds of things suggested to us in those post-budget decisions. The purpose of regulations is to allow for the great difficulty of putting into regulations the principles enunciated in a bill and all the nitty-gritty, administrative problems one finds. That is always part of the post-budgetary process and always will be.

When an amendment to a bill is required, I think the committee of the whole House is the best route. Unlike Ottawa, the many months we spend discussing it in advance with the public is a useful and well-received system.

In answer to the member for Windsor-Riverside, I did not dramatically change the tax system. I can refer him to an article in the Toronto Star a while ago. One of its columnists wrote an article some time after the budget, pointing out that I was suggesting a review of some fundamental tax restructuring both in the Ontario health insurance plan and in personal income tax. I put out a paper --

Ms. Copps: You suggested that last year. It's a year old objection.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Treasurer has the floor in response to a question by the member for Windsor-Riverside.

Hon. F. S. Miller: That article made a comment saying they thought this was the proper way when major tax changes were proposed. We see the extension of items covered by the retail sales tax as something that happens every year. Let me tell the member he has not called for this kind of review before, when we took some off.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, before I rise on my supplementary, I would like to rise on a point of personal privilege. I would like to read from a letter from I ames M. Parks, of the firm of Cassels, Brock, Barristers and Solicitors, to Mr. Alfredo Andriano, president of the Ontario Caterers Association:

"Dear Alfredo:

"I confirm our telephone conversation of this afternoon during which I informed you that I had had a telephone discussion today with Mr. John Godlewski of the consumption taxation policy branch of the Ministry of Treasury and Economics.

"Mr. Godlewski is the person to whom I had spoken last Friday after I had sent my letter on Thursday to Mr. Miller requesting a meeting to present the association's brief.

"Mr. Godlewski informed me that the matter had been discussed with the assistant deputy minister and that a decision has been taken within the Treasury department that there is no need for a meeting to be held with the association. The Treasurer has adopted a position on tax policy as it relates to retail sales tax on prepared food products and the Treasurer (through his staff) sees no point in meeting with you."

So much for the consultation.

Why will the Treasurer not meet with these people? Why will he not hear from these people who are so broadly affected by his retail sales tax? Why will he not hear from these people in view of the fact that it also appears there are a number of mistakes in his legislation? For example, he has said that livestock will not be subject to taxation, but under subsection 3(6) of Bill 115, the exemption for livestock is cancelled and is nowhere else specifically reintroduced in the bill.

The legality of that is a question mark because we believe, as do thousands of others, that he has not thought out what he has done either legally or in economic terms. Why will he not at least allow all of these people to express their points of view rather than refusing to meet them?

Hon. F. S. Miller: The letter the member has read, and I am going back to verify the facts too, is from a staff member and alleges to speak for me. Obviously, staff members often do and I would assume in this case he has verified with somebody. I tell the member that I do not recall that and I am quite willing to meet with them.

TAX BURDEN

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I want to tell the Treasurer that we were in Hamilton yesterday and we heard from Alderman Bill McCulloch, a former Tory candidate, who is representing the point of view of Hamilton with respect to the impact of the budget on that community. He believes that the Treasury did not understand the impact that the budget would have.

In view of the fact that it is going to have a tremendous impact not only on the current budget but future budgets with respect to debenturing for the arena, which could cost up to some $300,000 a year extra, will the Treasurer not consider listening to Alderman McCulloch and a variety of other municipal officials with respect to the effects of this bill and what it is going to do to the property taxpayers?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, as Treasurer, I recognize that virtually every municipality will voice that kind of suggestion. I have suggested to my staff and to my colleagues that it would be best to meet with their association representing all municipalities, and I assume all school boards will want to do the same thing.

I would like my colleague the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mr. Bennett) to he present when the municipalities make their briefs. I would like my colleague the Minister of Colleges and Universities and Education (Miss Stephenson) to be present when they make their briefs. That is exactly what overall associations are for.

Mr. Peterson: The Association of Municipalities of Ontario is apoplectic about the Treasurer's budget and there is fighting all across this province because of it. I want to ask him what kinds of studies he did about the effect on the 838 municipalities in this province. What studies has he done? Why did he not share those with the municipalities, or did he walk into this thing blind without having thought about it?

Hon. F. S. Miller: That has been the member's assumption and he has pointed that out time after time. I pointed out that the average impact on municipal budgets was estimated at 0.5 per cent of spending for this year. I think for the school boards it is 0.4 per cent and for the hospitals, 0.1 per cent. I point out that that kind of tax change is no different from those we impose on industry and individuals year after year, whenever tax bases, tax rates or Ontario health insurance plan premiums are changed.

3 p.m.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, is the Treasurer aware that the effect on the Hamilton-Wentworth area and the city of Hamilton is roughly the same kind of effect that the federal government had on the provincial government when it unilaterally declared its transfer cost-cutting program? At that point the Treasurer complained, rightly in my view, loud and long about the lack of consultation ahead of time.

Since this involves for Hamilton and for every other municipality a massive shift in taxation, does the Treasurer not agree that the increased costs to the municipalities are worthy of at least public hearings before the committee we have called for?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether 0.5 per cent is a massive shift or not. There is quite a fundamental difference in the two problems that the member for Port Arthur likes to link together. The change in the sales tax base and the fact that the federal government withdrew from statutory obligations to the provinces are quite different matters, and he knows it.

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, the minister did not understand my leader's first question. In the city of Hamilton alone, notwithstanding the debenturing of the arena, the impact on the region and the city is going to be more than $1 million. The question is --

Mr. Speaker: "Is the minister aware?"

Ms. Copps: The former Conservative candidate in my riding has asked the minister to bring this to committee. Will the minister listen to the former Conservative candidate in the riding of Hamilton Centre, his colleague, who is begging him to allow this to go to committee so the public can be heard? Will the minister listen to his Conservative colleague or not?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I am intrigued that Conservative colleagues find that they need to come to the member for Hamilton Centre for a proponent. It is nice to hear.

Mr. Epp: You don't even listen to them.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I want to tell the honourable member that when municipalities or school boards talk to provinces, when provinces talk to federal governments, they talk from a point of view of business, and not from a point of view of partisan politics. It has been that way since time began. Many very good friends of mine who are Conservatives, and most of the elected people in Muskoka are, have come to me and complained about something the province has done. That in no way stops them from being supporters when the chips are down.

Ms. Copps: Are the chips down?

Mr. Cooke: No. The chips are taxed.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

INCREASE IN INSURANCE COSTS

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Treasurer about his disastrous budget and a new side effect that has not yet been discussed in this House.

Is the Treasurer aware that one of the side effects of his seven per cent sales tax on labour repairs will be an increase in insurance costs for home and automobile owners in Ontario, amounting to $40 million to $60 million annually, and has he estimated the amount of increase in premiums that will result for home owners and car owners in Ontario?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I can answer yes to both.

Mr. Foulds: Will the minister then give us the estimate of that cost? Also, can he confirm that he has been approached by the Insurance Bureau of Canada, I believe it was the day after his budget, and that he has responded by saying he "will look into the matter"? Is he now prepared to withdraw the sales tax, given this consideration that he seems to be giving the Insurance Bureau of Canada?

Hon. F. S. Miller: We have seen the insurance group. A number of individual companies wrote in. They had a hearing, I believe during the week of May 24. A complete review was made in my presence last week. A letter was sent back to them upholding our decision to go ahead and tax.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, in response to one of the questions by my leader and subsequently by the acting leader of the New Democratic Party, the Treasurer seemed to suggest that one of the reasons for denying this bill to go to committee, first of all, was that there was no precedent. The minister has now heard that there was a precedent. As a result, does that not give the minister cause for reconsideration?

Secondly, if I heard correctly, the Treasurer stated that there was no reason for a public hearing because he had much discussion prior to the budget with all those groups. Is he trying to tell us he discussed it with municipalities, school boards, charitable institutions or the people who are here today? Is he suggesting he had a discussion about the impact of the sales tax on them prior to the budget? If that is not the case, why will the Treasurer not give them a forum to do it after the budget? Why will he not confirm that the only reason he does not is that he does not want this political flak to carry on any longer than it has to?

Hon. F. S. Miller: No, Mr. Speaker, I am quite proud of my budget, much as the honourable member may find that difficult to believe. I point out that the people in the restaurant business who are complaining about the sales tax will discover they no longer pay corporation tax and they have some money to reinvest.

Mr. Nixon: Do you mean these guys with the coffee trucks? They are not corporations.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Those people forgot that we have had sales tax off the purchase of equipment for the past several years.

In this process people assume that if you do not do what they suggested, you neither saw them nor heard them. The democratic process does not mean you accept the advice you get; it means you listen to the reasons for it, and that I did.

I have said I will meet with the representatives of municipalities and with the representatives of the school boards, with the ministers present. That will be done. I will meet with other organized groups. That is being done. Where we find legitimate, technical problems, we will do our best to solve them in the regulatory way.

Mr. Foulds: Is the Treasurer telling us that he met with the Insurance Bureau of Canada and individual insurance companies?

Hon. F. S. Miller: No.

Mr. Foulds: He did not say that?

Hon. F. S. Miller: May I clarify --

Mr. Speaker: Was that your question?

Mr. Foulds: That was a point of clarification, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps the Treasurer can clarify when I proceed with the question.

If he has met with those representatives or has had representations from them, which he has denied, will he give at least the same consideration to school boards, municipalities and groups of restaurant owners before the tax is finally passed? Is not the most expeditious way of doing that before a standing committee of this Legislature?

Hon. F. S. Miller: No. The member knows that in budget procedures, the tax day of effectiveness is named on the night of the budget. Many tax measures take place effective midnight of that night, while others take effect on predetermined dates according to whatever factors influence them, such as the need to send out information data, the need to allow collectors of tax to become ready, etc. We have done that. The date of tax will not be delayed through the process we are going through.

I assure the member, as I have told the others, that I will be meeting sooner or later, I am quite sure, with the group that represents the boards of education and the group that represents the municipalities, and I will be listening to them.

To answer the member's specific question, I think it was during the week of May 24 when my deputy minister specifically met with a representative of the industry representing the insurers. I am not sure whether a second meeting was held with the organization representing the industry, but I believe it was; I can verify that for him a little later. I had at least two meetings, one with my staff for an hour or more, discussing the pros and cons of the arguments made. They were very carefully laid before me and, following that, I ruled that the principle should stand and that the tax should stand.

SKF CANADA LTD.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Premier. I would like to send the Premier a diploma with a Tory-blue ribbon around it. I will explain why when I ask the question.

Is the Premier aware that there is a public auction, which started at 10 a.m. yesterday and is continuing today, to sell off the remaining equipment of the SKF plant in Scarborough, which has been closed by its multinational parent company? Since the Premier is so fond of attending ribbon-cutting ceremonies when plants or buildings open, will he consider cutting that ribbon, because of his government's inaction, which sealed the fate of and killed 325 jobs in Scarborough?

3:10 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, to answer the first part of the question, I was not aware that there was an auction. I am aware of the difficulties at SKF. In answer to the second part of the question, with the greatest of respect, it was not because of government inaction.

Mr. Foulds: A study carried out by York University and funded by the Ministry of Labour indicated, and I will give three brief quotes:

"The SKF manager in Philadelphia said with regard to the Canadian plant, 'They closed the wrong plant.'"

"An SKF manager in Canada said: 'If this were a Canadian operation solely, there is no way it would be closing. In fact, it would be booming.'"

The authors of the study itself said: "A condition facilitating closure was the absence in Canada of legislation that effectively controls the circumstances under which firms can cease 4 operations."

After this tragic loss of a booming, effective, money-efficient, work-efficient plant, will the Premier now bring in legislation to control plant closings and to protect Canadian jobs here in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think the honourable member is aware of the legislative changes that have taken place and of the record of this government in terms of the stability of economic growth in this province. I am quite aware of the contents of the study. I am quite aware of the fact that we do not have legislation in place that forces a company to remain in operation, whether it is a multinational or a Canadian one.

I recognize that the New Democratic Party, as part of its philosophical approach to life in an attempt to direct the lives of individuals and companies, would perhaps have such legislation. I guess that is one of the differences between that party and the point of view of the government.

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, while the Premier might not know the auction is going on, I wonder whether he does know that in many places when they have auctions, they will take consignments. I wonder whether he will add his jet to the auction today and see if they will auction it off with all the assets of that company?

Mr. Speaker: That really is not a supplementary. It had nothing to do with the main question.

Mr. Kerrio: Oh yes, it had.

Mr. Speaker: We were talking about SKF, as I remember.

Mr. Foulds: Is the Premier admitting to this House that his own philosophical and ideological hangups are such that his government refuses to bring in legislation that will protect the jobs of Canadians here in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Davis: No. That is not what I said.

Mr. Foulds: Yes, it is.

Hon. Mr. Davis: No, it is not.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

RETAIL SALES TAX

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, you will be glad to know that I am in fine voice, and I understand the order of business will be Bill 111 again at eight o'clock this evening.

Mr. Speaker: I hope you have a question now.

Mr. T. P. Reid: I have a question for the Treasurer, who is going to be the unseen guest at every meal as of Monday, June 14, in regard to the tax on meals.

Given that our views on the regressivity of taxing low-priced meals and take-out food have now been vindicated by the spokesmen of Ontario's food service industry and the mobile caterers -- and I am sure the Treasurer has seen the ads that are appearing in the papers -- I would like to ask the Treasurer about the about-face the government has taken on the need for providing an essential meal on a tax-free basis to certain groups in Ontario.

I remind the Treasurer of what was stated in the 1977 budget: "Ontario has over the past few years increased the level of the retail sales tax exemption for prepared meals so that residents and visitors alike are able to purchase essential meals free of tax."

Can the Treasurer tell us what circumstances have changed the economic circumstances that are now requiring him to bring in this tax on black Monday?

Ms. Copps: Bye, Bette.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I am going to Hamilton to make sure you don't get re-elected.

Ms. Copps: He who laughs last, laughs best.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Did your candidate really refuse to answer a question the other night?

Ms. Copps: Your candidate did not even show up.

Hon. Mr. Davis: What, at your meeting?

Mr. Peterson: The Premier is such a liability to him.

Mr. Bradley: The Premier is out of order.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Treasurer was answering a question of the member for Rainy River.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I tried to explain that the food services of the province are delivered by a number of different kinds of groups and organizations of different entities. They banded together under something called Tourism Ontario. It includes all those people who either handle food or hospitality services, such as motels and hotels, or those who do both, such as some of the tourist lodges. Each has its own separate organization and, of course, they do not always agree. The fact remains that I saw the umbrella organization and I saw two of the component parts, both in advance and one after the budget. I got letters from them.

Going back to November, the honourable member may recall that we had given a year's notice that the sales tax was going to go back on room accommodation on January 1, 1982. At that time the hotel organization asked me to see them. They wrote me a letter, which I would not consider to be my greatest fan letter but which says:

"Your disappointing letter of December 2, which said that you are putting the tax on, has been received today. From the comments contained in it, our meeting with you satisfied the form of listening to an industry while at the same time paying no attention to the suggestion proposed by it. As an industry, we feel that you tolerated our meeting but had little concern for it or the problems which will result in hardship for our industry."

Does the member know what the recommendations were? The recommendations were that I should tax all meals at a rate lower than 10 per cent and that I should reduce the rate of taxation on rooms. I did that.

Mr. T. P. Reid: The Treasurer has been sitting too close to the Premier. The answer had nothing to do with the question. But I will ask a supplementary in any case and try again.

The point of all this is the regressivity of the tax on people at the lower income levels.

In the 1962 budget of the Honourable J. N. Allan, who was a Treasurer who really knew what he was doing, he said, "By exempting food, fuel, rent, children's clothing, books, school supplies and medical expenses, we have avoided taxing most of the items that represent the greatest expense to families with small budgets. It bears lightly on low-income groups and more heavily on high-income groups in accordance with the principle of ability to pay."

That is what we are complaining about. Why has the Treasurer put a tax on those meals? Is he telling those people in the lower income levels, "Do not eat out. Do not have your pizza once a month. Do not have your chicken," or whatever?

Hon. F. S. Miller: First of all, I agree with the member completely. If there was ever a Treasurer of this province whom I respect for his intelligence and warm personality, it was James N. Allan.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Right. But apparently he couldn't pass that on.

Hon. Mr. Davis: You should read what the Liberal critic said about that budget, Pat.

Mr. Kerrio: You could use Jim Allan right now.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. F. S. Miller: At 87 years of age, he still is going and contributing to the province.

Mr. McClellan: Especially at Niagara-on-the- Lake.

Hon. F. S. Miller: In the Niagara area, let me tell the honourable member, there has to be someone in that area who contributes to the province.

But getting back to the comment: The member would imply that there was never ever any need to review the state of the economy or the tax base or the things we do in this province. Of all the dollars spent by consumers in this province, it is my understanding that fewer than 50 cents out of every dollar draws any sales tax.

Mr. T. P. Reid: I have a supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: You have had your supplementary.

3:20 p.m.

UNIVERSITY FUNDING

Mr. Chariton: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Colleges and Universities (Miss Stephenson), I have a question of the Treasurer.

Is the Treasurer aware that his budget has increased the operating costs of McMaster University to the tune of 51,480,000 this year and, in addition to that, has added a cost of $770,000 for sales tax on research equipment and supplies? Does he not understand that these additional costs will jeopardize many important research projects and, as a result, will cost jobs as well? What is he prepared to do to deal with situations like this?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member asked if I was aware. I am getting many specifics read into the record. I am in no position to verify that the figures the member has just read are accurate. I assume that they are.

I point Out to the member that we gave the universities of this province a 12.2 per cent increase this year, which is more than inflation --

Mr. Martel: And took seven back.

Mr. Sweeney: And took half of it back.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. F. S. Miller: We believe that is a fair increase. In the budget itself I allocated certain moneys for the Minister of Colleges and Universities to give to universities to help them carry out certain necessary major repairs which also were not in their budgets when the year began.

Mr. Chariton: I should point out that the 12 per cent increase this year only helps the universities to catch up with part of the amount they have fallen behind in the past number of years.

In the case of the research projects, most of the funds are federal funds which are already allocated; there are no additional funds. We have a specific case involving Dr. McCandless of McMaster University, who is conducting a research program dealing basically with food chemistry, which is a very important research project; all the funds are already committed. The Treasurer's budget has put in place an additional $700,000 of tax costs which they do not have the money to pay. What is this professor supposed to do? Pay it out of her own pocket?

Hon. F. S. Miller: As in any university, I trust the management of that university will carry out its allocation.

I point out to the member that through two agencies of government we have earmarked considerable research money, most of which I believe will end up in universities.

The Innovation Development for Employment Advancement Corp., through the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development, has received a major amount of money for research, and the technology centres have also got major amounts of money for development. A good deal of those moneys is going to be spent with universities. Not only that, but through BILD last year we allocated about $8 million for research equipment that was not in their original budgets.

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, is the Treasurer aware that a further impact of this budget will be to cause the curtailment of courses such as engineering and computer sciences, and that as a result of underfunding by this government over the past four years, McMaster University has fallen back almost 27 per cent in relation to the funding it received in 1982 compared with 1977-78?

This budget will further undermine the quality of education not only at McMaster University but also at universities across Ontario. How can the Treasurer continue to carry on with these inadequate budget measures when the universities are already hit with underfunding, which in the case of McMaster University will amount to a further 27 per cent?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I find it very difficult to reconcile what the honourable member is saying with the comments made by the member for Rainy River (Mr. T. P. Reid), who said I was spending too much money.

Ms. Copps: That is ridiculous. He was talking about Suncor and jets, not about engineering courses.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

EMPLOYMENT IN SUDBURY

Mr. Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I have been given to understand Falconbridge Nickel Mines announced at two o'clock today that up to 1,000 workers will be laid off permanently, effective January 2, 1983. What I want to know is what the Minister of Natural Resources is prepared to do, along with his federal counterpart, the Honourable Mr. Axworthy, to see that this permanent layoff is ameliorated as much as possible. I think it is a good indication of what happens in the north when we are so dependent on one resource.

Hon. Mr. Pope: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I am now reported to be Minister of the Environment; so I do not know who should be answer in this.

I am aware of the announcement by Falcon- bridge, which I greet with regret. The analyses of the nickel market by our experts in the Ministry of Natural Resources, who are recognized throughout this country and the world for their expertise, indicate that there are no great long-term prospects for any significant increase in demand for nickel or in the price of nickel. Therefore, there is no relief in sight in terms of the health of the nickel industry. That is something I said to the media in Sudbury when I was up there recently for a meeting of some of the municipal organizations in northern Ontario.

We have already made contact with officials of the federal Department of Employment and Immigration, specifically with the deputy minister at noon hour, to attempt to find out what he was aware of in terms of the impending announcement and to indicate that we are prepared to work with him in long-term and short-term programs for these workers and for the Sudbury area.

Under section 38 of the Unemployment Insurance Act, we already have in place a joint employment program where the Treasurer and the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development committee of cabinet have contributed substantial sums of money to employ laid-off workers, from Inco principally, with the cooperation of the regional municipality and the conservation authority and with the advice and assistance of Inco. We are prepared to look at specific project proposals from Falconbridge and from the regional municipality of Sudbury.

We are also prepared to look at how we can adapt the Ontario mineral exploration program to the entire Sudbury area. We think there are some changes we can make within the context of our existing budget, and without changing the program too dramatically, which could have some impact on employment in the mining sector there and in surrounding communities.

We have got together groups of officials from my ministry with respect to developing some of the industrial mineral potential outside the immediate Sudbury basin while at the same time providing some benefits to the Sudbury area.

We are also prepared to look at a couple of proposals that have been made recently by a member from the Sudbury area with respect to existing mining operations in the area that have been shut down in the past but have some potential.

We will do what we can in terms of additional programs. We are analysing what we can do within the current budget at our disposal. We have made ourselves available to the federal government to assist them in planning for the Sudbury community. We are also willing to listen to suggestions from interested parties about potential government programs.

I emphasize that, given the programs we now have, there is no way we could possibly alleviate the situation for each and every one of those workers in that community, unfortunate though that may be, and that the long-term prospects are not good for the nickel industry.

Mr. Gordon: I hope the Minister of Natural Resources, along with the Minister of Industry and Tourism, is prepared to get the Minister of State (Mines) in Ottawa and her confrères off their collective butt to get something going with regard to a mining machinery business within northern Ontario. It is my understanding that they are looking at ways and means to renege, because they are not interested in seeing northern Ontario as being anything but a resource area. That is the way the federal cousins sit.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Sudbury East; final supplementary.

An hon. member: The minister didn't answer the question.

Mr. Speaker: That was not a question and does not require an answer.

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order. For the information of the member for Sudbury, who seems to be so informed, the Ministry of Industry and Tourism in this province no longer exists.

3:30 p.m.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, if the feds are not prepared to enter into the Jarvis Clark agreement, is the province prepared to go it alone despite the disclaimers by the federal member from North Bay, Jean-Jacques Blais, that we should, and despite the federal Conservative from Parry Sound?

Second, I agree with the member from the Sudbury area who asked the minister whether he is prepared to use National Steel for some other things such as the milling of gold, which has been requested, even though it would only create maybe 50 jobs. I would like to know if the minister is prepared to move in on both of those immediately to ensure there will be at least some jobs to take up the slack. And I do not mean make-work projects.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Pope: The member for Ottawa East (Mr. Roy) --

Mr. Speaker: He did not ask the question, with all respect.

Hon. Mr. Pope: -- and the member for Hamilton Centre (Ms. Copps) have once again proved that a northern Ontario Liberal is a Liberal is a Liberal.

Ms. Copps: You used to be one. You should know.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Pope: Mr. Speaker, the highlight of your trip to Timmins was the --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Would the minister resume his seat, please?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister of Natural Resources with an answer to the question from the member for Sudbury East. One.

Mr. Martel: Two.

Hon. Mr. Pope: Yes, there were two questions. I apologize, Mr. Speaker.

I cannot give the undertaking of the province that we are prepared to go it alone if the federal government should back out. I had always been led to assume the federal government was aggressively promoting the company and the mining equipment manufacturing industry in Sudbury. I had always assumed the honourable Minister of State (Mines) for the federal government was behind us and was working for it.

I have not had any confirmation at all that the federal government has decided not to go ahead with this project; I had understood that it was with federal government support that the proposal was put forward to the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development committee of cabinet. I will be very surprised and disappointed if the federal government does not come through with a contribution; but if it does not, obviously the BILD committee, which meets to decide these matters, would have to review its position. So I cannot, on behalf of the BILD committee, give any such undertaking to the honourable member.

The member is quite right about National Steel. We have been examining it. There are some financial impediments to private-sector involvement, but we are working today on putting together some proposals, which we will discuss with the members from the Sudbury basin, with respect to that site. We are doing some geological work right now with respect to gold occurrences not only in the Sudbury basin but in the perimeter surrounding the regional municipality of Sudbury.

ONTARIO DEVELOPMENT CORP.

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry and Trade. Is the minister aware that Hughes Boat Works, located in Huron Park, which is owned by the Ontario Development Corp., was put into receivership? As the Minister of Industry and Trade, will he look into this matter to ascertain whether indeed it was the Ontario Development Corp. along with the Toronto-Dominion Bank that put it into receivership? If so, does he not think it would be better to see if special concessions could be granted to Hughes Boat Works, such as waiving the rent, in order to keep them in business rather than to put them into receivership and put about 92 employees out of work?

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, I suspect a number of the honourable member's assumptions are inaccurate, but I will certainly attempt to have an answer for him.

Mr. Riddell: If the minister finds there is nothing that can be done and that the company has gone into receivership or bankruptcy, whatever the case may be -- I have heard both stories -- would he see the employees are given preferential treatment and that they receive the $500 vacation pay they are entitled to along with the month's salary that is still owing them?

Hon. Mr. Walker: It would be appropriate for us to make sure we have all the details before answering.

EMPLOYMENT IN SUDBURY

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour concerning the labour problems in Sudbury, which affect the entire community.

Inco Metals has not made another offer since its last offer was overwhelmingly rejected by the union in Sudbury. The union has been extremely flexible in its demands and is most anxious to get back to the bargaining table. In view of this, would the Minister of Labour have a meeting with Inco officials and tell them to get back to the bargaining table and make a decent offer to the workers in Sudbury? The consensus in the community is that unless they start talking very shortly, it will be a protracted and agonizing strike.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I share the concerns of the member for Nickel Belt. We have been holding meetings separately all this week with representatives of the union and the company.

Perhaps I could read a telegram that went out earlier today. It says, "I wish to confirm that I am convening a meeting at 400 University Avenue on Friday, June 11, commencing at 11 a.m. The purpose of the meeting is to enable representatives of the parties to exchange information. I would hope this information exchange would lay the groundwork for a subsequent resumption of bargaining. I understand three senior officers of the company will be present and approximately six representatives of the union will be attending. I sincerely hope this initial step will be important in moving towards an early resolution of this dispute."

As I have said before, this is an extremely sensitive matter. I do not want to get anyone's hopes up just because we finally managed to get the parties together tomorrow. We are going to do everything we can to build on this meeting, but the subject matter is extremely serious.

Mr. Laughren: I asked my question concerning the labour problems in Sudbury very deliberately because my supplementary has to do with the problems of workers at Falconbridge.

Would the minister look into the ethics of this announced layoff of up to 1,000 workers and the extended shutdown in the midst of bargaining with the Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers Union? Would he also look into the pattern that seems to occur in Sudbury about layoffs and shutdowns during years when bargaining occurs?

Finally, would he look into the legitimacy of the shutdown of a mine called the Onaping mine by Falconbridge about a month ago? They did not lay off workers but rather transferred them to other operations within the company. That means, of course, they did not have to provide severance pay to those workers.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Perhaps it might be appropriate to give a brief background of the announcement today for the benefit of everybody in the House.

Falconbridge employs approximately 4,031 employees, 2,830 of whom are represented by the Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers Union. The company had previously announced a 10-week summer shutdown commencing June 27, comprising five weeks' vacation for most employees and five weeks of layoff.

As of two o'clock this afternoon, the company announced the following additional layoffs: The temporary layoff has been extended to 13 weeks from 10 weeks and will now commence on June 27 and end on September 26. On September 27, it is expected that all employees will be returned to work. There will then be a phased layoff of up to 1,000 employees being placed on indefinite layoff between September 1982 and January 1983. These layoffs will affect both the Falconbridge mine and the Fraser mine as production is reduced.

3:40 p.m.

The total reduction in employment will affect 1,000 employees by January 1983. However, the staging of the layoffs is not known at this time. In addition, the number of employees actually laid off could be reduced depending on how many employees take advantage of a previously announced early retirement plan. There are now 500 employees who are eligible for early retirement.

In direct response to the member for Nickel Belt, I am aware of the Onaping mine closing and the circumstance which he has described. That is in the hands of our plant closure review and employment adjustment branch at the present time. It is looking into it.

I would also advise that the Falconbridge people did consult with our plant closure review and employment adjustment branch before it made this announcement today to make sure it was following the legislation of this province. The company has assured us -- and I pass this along only on the basis of a statement it has made without any editorial comment from myself -- that the strike at Inco is not expected to affect this decision.

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry I missed it, but did the minister indicate in the telegram that was sent that he will be involved in the meetings tomorrow? If he is not prepared to be involved in the meetings between Inco management and the union, will he do so? Did he indicate he would be meeting with them personally?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I believe the first sentence of the telegram read: "I wish to confirm that I am convening a meeting." I will be in attendance. I have personally been in touch with the principals. I have asked them to come and they have agreed.

GROUP HOMES FOR MENTAL PATIENTS

Mr. Ruprecht: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing about group homes. Does the minister realize the establishment of group homes for former mental patients is a matter of critical urgency? I think the minister realizes the Minister of Health made statements like that in the past. Does the minister believe it is proper for each Metro municipality to be required to provide a fair share of such homes?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Ruprecht: The minister will also realize Metro council in 1979 passed a policy that each municipality in Metropolitan Toronto should create as-of-right zoning for group homes. It reaffirmed the same decision in 1980. Both these decisions were made. As of this point, from what we can determine, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing has not yet referred this group home bylaw to the Ontario Municipal Board.

When will the minister refer the group home bylaw to the Ontario Municipal Board? If he has not done so, why has he not done so and when is he intending to do so?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I am very much aware of the actions taken by Metro council and indeed by some of the member municipalities that find some objections to the ruling made by their own Metro council.

Some of the municipalities have moved forward to try to provide groups homes and amend their official plans to correspond to that of Metro. One or two have not and I am well aware of that. What we have attempted to do, before we take it to the Ontario Municipal Board, is to try to find some way of rationalizing the situation between some of those associate municipalities, Metro and the provincial position. I am still in that position and indeed the ministry planning people have been discussing it at the various levels.

We do not believe we have arrived at the point where there cannot be some compromises to bring into being group homes in all of the adjoining municipalities in the Metro government area. Until I am certain that position is being completely frustrated, I reserve the right to continue with those negotiations. At the point that we believe -- on the advice of counsel for Metro and the adjacent or associate municipalities, and my people -- we are frustrated and cannot go any further in negotiating a reasonable settlement of the situation, I will decide whether we should send it to the Ontario Municipal Board.

If the member would listen, I said very clearly I will be taking the advice of the legal counsel of Metro, the adjoining municipalities that are involved in the dispute, and those negotiating on behalf of the ministry.

REPORTS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Harris from the standing committee on resources development reported the following resolution:

That supply in the following amounts and to defray the expenses of the Ministry of the Environment be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1983:

Ministry administration program, $10,531,800; environmental assessment and planning program, $33,679,500; environmental control program, $285,853,600; waste management program, $15,997,000.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

Mr. Treleaven from the standing committee on administration of justice presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bill without amendment:

Bill Pr32, An Act to continue the Corporation of the township of Fauquier under the name of the Corporation of the township of Moonbeam.

Motion agreed to.

MOTION

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon. Mr. Gregory moved, notwithstanding standing order 64(d), Mr. Epp and Mr. Mancini exchange positions in order of precedence for private members' business to be debated.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

ONTARIO HYDRO ACCOUNTABILITY ACT

Mr. J. A. Reed moved, seconded by Mr. Kerrio, first reading of Bill 141, An Act respecting the Public Accountability of Ontario Hydro.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. J. A. Reed: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to provide a means of clarifying the functions and duties of Ontario Hydro related to the production, generation, transmission, distribution, supply, sale, use and development of energy resources in Ontario.

The bill requires that the Minister of Energy, on behalf of the government of Ontario, issue a policy directive setting out the policy framework within which Ontario Hydro is to make operational and management decisions. The Power Corporation Act is amended to clarify that it is a responsibility of the board of Ontario Hydro to ensure that the business of Ontario Hydro is conducted within the limits established by the policy directive issued by the Minister of Energy.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

NATIVE PEOPLES' RIGHTS

Mr. Nixon moved, seconded by Mr. McGuigan, resolution 27:

That this House instruct a standing committee or select committee to initiate a review of the rights of the native peoples in Ontario as presently existing and to modernize and upgrade such rights to achieve justice and equity for the native people as full participants in our national community, including such matters as language and education rights, land claims, hunting and fishing regulations, compensation for pollution damage, the teaching of the historical place and cultural role of native people, and such other matters as pertain to the fulfilling of our provincial constitutional commitment in this regard.

3:50 p.m.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I feel a special responsibility to bring forward this matter to your attention and to the attention of the House since I have the honour to represent the Six Nations Indian community -- the largest, or at least the most populous, Indian reserve in Canada.

Many of my constituents expressed their concern to me as their member, and to many others, when the constitutional agreement recognized and guaranteed existing native rights and made a commitment that the matter of evolving rights be considered by the first ministers with a minimum of delay. Their concern was that existing rights are poorly comprehended and that many feel the other residents of Canada, the white population, are completely unaware of their background, what their role in our nation has been and what they hope to achieve among their peoples and in their community in the future.

I know that many of us as elected members of the Legislature have been aware of the very deep and continuing dissatisfaction expressed by the Indian people in constitutional matters and in general in their dealings with all levels of government and even the white community at large.

I believe it is our responsibility to see that the commitment undertaken by the first ministers, including the Premier of Ontario (Mr. Davis), is not roughly set aside or ignored, but that we deal with the legitimate claims of the Indians in Ontario in as broad and as sensitive a way as we possibly can.

I am aware that the executive council of the chiefs of the Indian community in Ontario met with the Premier in May, just a few weeks ago. Not all of the Indian chiefs were able to attend but certainly this is a good beginning. The Indians obviously will appreciate having met with the Premier himself, and he is not unaware of his responsibility both as Premier and on a personal basis, having been one of the original signatories to the constitutional agreement.

Members may recall that the constitutional situation was pretty well on the rocks until at the final meeting of first ministers, a rather informal agreement, as in somebody's kitchen, was arrived at. The Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry), the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Mr. Wells), Roy Romanow, Jean Chrétien and others were there, working on a rough structure upon which all the first ministers could agree and get the matter on the road.

It meant ignoring some of the real and continuing problems and among those was the whole matter of native rights in our nation and in our Constitution. That is something we must now address.

I hesitate to report that the Indians have lost a good deal of confidence in politicians at all levels. Some of them have said very clearly that they feel bereft of almost any sort of an appeal. When they went to Westminster at the time of the Constitution and attempted to appeal to the law lords and finally to Her Majesty, they were not doing this in any kind of grandstand play. Rather it was on the basis of their understanding of their role in this part of the world, not so much as Canadians but as allies of the crown.

This seems to be an almost unimaginable situation. But we must really be aware that the original treaties and grants were given to the Indian people in recognition of their strong support of and alliance with the British crown. They had nothing in them which allowed or even indicated any sort of change of allegiance or citizenship and which treated them in those early days as a separate nation.

Many of these Indians, traditionalists, look on themselves as a separate nation and wish they could be so regarded. Frankly, I can see a procedure through which we might recognize that nationhood and work out an amicable and useful agreement with the Indian communities. Granting them complete independence over the control of their own affairs might well be one of the alternatives.

Most people feel that in this day and age we cannot really countenance a nation within a nation. We hope that both sides, white and Indian, will look to the specific grievances that have come down for so many years and try to accommodate, on a fair and equitable basis over a period of time, the kind of agreements, monetary and otherwise, which will allow the Indian nation -- if they choose to call themselves that -- a role to play in the expanding fabric of the Canadian nation.

I want to speak specifically about some of the matters that have been brought to my attention. We should be aware that in 1979, the latest year for which I have definite statistics, there were 310,000 registered Indians in Canada. This is a substantially larger number than there were at the time of Confederation and even at the time of the British conquest of this part of the world. Then the part of Canada which is now Ontario was peopled by well-developed Indian communities who had established in their own right procedures for imposing peace on their own 4 community and a standard of living which was excellent as far as they were concerned -- and even as far as we are concerned, looking back on it.

In Ontario we now have 67,000 registered Indians, which includes an increase of about 25 per cent in that population since 1967, or about two and a half per cent per year. Therefore we must realize that people with Indian heritage are growing in number, and it appears the problems they are experiencing in our community are growing almost at the same rate.

I also want to bring to your attention, Mr. Speaker, a publication entitled The Ontario Indian, which is found in our own library. It is published by the Union of Ontario Indians and comes out regularly. Having had a chance to look at its articles, and read the ads and the opinion pieces in it, I find it extremely useful. It is characterized not only by being factually and statistically well-based but by having an interesting and very broad view of the problems. I want to quote one section from an opinion piece in the The Ontario Indian for May 1982:

"We speak to the world of our poverty, yet we" -- that is, the Indians --"currently have $300 million in trust accounts while we generate another $300 million in band revenues (per year). We are subsidized to the tune of approximately $1 billion a year by the Department of Indian Affairs. All this is supplemented further by program moneys from Health and Welfare, Secretary of State" -- those, of course, are federal -- "and numerous provincial government sources, in addition to grants from various foundations."

So, basically, there is substantial support for Indian programs but it is based essentially on the treaty obligations the government of Canada entered into many years ago.

The Indians are organized in a rather loosely knit group made up of about four to five basic sections: those Indians coming under what is referred to as Treaty 3, those from Treaty 9, the organization of Iroquois and associated Indians, the Union of Ontario Indians and, finally, independent bands. They have come together under an organization called the Executive Council of the Chiefs of Ontario Indians.

Those people are knowledgeable, and this organization will, I hope, forgive me and see that any misdirection that I might have in my words is corrected. There are a number of organizations, but probably the union itself which publishes the magazine to which I referred, and the organization known as the Chiefs of Ontario Indians, are the most effective and the ones to which we as members of the Legislature must turn in dealing with the organization at large.

To begin with, there is a general feeling among the Indians that we are already showing a certain reluctance to come to grips with the sorts of changes in the constitutional rights the Indians wish to enjoy which were guaranteed by the undertaking signed by the Premier. They also feel there is a reluctance regarding the undertaking that the changes would be reviewed with the Indians themselves.

4 p.m.

Land claims are a continuing and extremely troubling matter. Other jurisdictions have come to grips with this, realizing that in some instances it is possible to buy out the Indian rights to properties already developed or about to be developed. The state of Alaska is one clear indication of where that is possible.

One closer to home is in the province of Quebec where the government undertook a discussion and finally reached an agreement with those Indians having their hereditary living areas on the eastern shores of Hudson Bay and James Bay. This was made necessary by the elaborate hydro developments there. Substantial sums of money were taken from the public treasury and credited to the Indians. In other words, an agreement is possible.

In some instances it may not be possible. We are well aware of the continuing concerns in this matter that affect us here in Ontario. I quote briefly from a Toronto Star article dated April 12, 1982, by Daniel Stoffman:

"The Deep Water people will ask the Supreme Court of Ontario tomorrow to decide that Daki-Menan belongs to them. That is an Ojibway name for 3,800 square miles of land around Lake Temagami, northeast of Sudbury. The land is rich in lumber and minerals and has some of the prettiest wilderness in Ontario.

"Some 600 Indians. . . share the land with about 1,500 non-natives. The Indians say all the land belongs to them because their ancestors never signed a treaty giving it up. Legal experts say the Indians appear to have a strong case and may win. The results, says a Temagami lawyer, would be unthinkable.

"Because provincial laws, under the British North America and Indian Acts don't apply to Indian land, the Temagami region would no longer be under the jurisdiction of the Ontario government. . . . The status of local institutions such as municipal governments and school boards, as well as the provincial highways and hydro lines, would be uncertain, he said, noting that the Temagami case could also set a precedent for other unsettled land claims in Ontario."

There are other instances much like that. I am not sure any amount of money could buy out the claims of the Indians for the hereditary lands for which they have never signed over title either inherently or on any piece of paper. There has never been any agreement with any other group that they are anything but owners of the land which they lived on and occupied from time immemorial. So eventually we have to come to grips with these matters.

Members may recall that the government at one time undertook to plan a major recreational area in the Temagami region that I refer to. They were going to call it "Maple Mountain." There was a lot of excitement about it. The Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Bermer) and his platoons of public relations officers -- he has the biggest public relations staff of any ministry of government -- were cranking out stuff by the boatload about Maple Mountain.

The Indians said, "Just a minute. That is our land." Their claim was not scoffed at. The government drew back immediately. There has been a hold or warning on the titles to those properties ever since. The Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Pope), being a highly skilled lawyer himself -- and we are going to send him back to his law office as soon as possible -- is well aware these claims are very significant indeed.

It really is silly to let the thing just go on without at least attempting to work out some sort of agreement with the Indian people that is fair and just on each side. If there is not such an agreement, then we should recognize they are Indian lands and govern ourselves accordingly. Then if we want to build a recreation area there on behalf of the community at large, it could only be done with the concurrence and full participation of the Indian owners.

I have mentioned the Constitution and land claims. Hunting and fishing rights are a matter that really must concern all of us. The right to hunt and fish was inherent in the Indian people in this part of the world and never removed.

The only way the courts can impose these rules and regulations on the Indians is by assuming that somehow they are Canadians like the rest of us. The Indians say they are not. Many of them want to be called Canadians, and so many of them have been extremely valorous and courageous warriors in two world wars, and on other occasions, that many feel they are Canadians. The old idea of a separate nation does not appeal to them, but they do say they have the right to hunt and fish without the regulations of the minister being imposed on them, particularly on their own lands. That is something they are not prepared to bow down to and knuckle under to.

We have discussed pollution matters in this House for years. There have been some payments made to the Indians in Grassy Narrows and Whitedog, particularly associated with the mercury pollution in the English and Wabigoon river systems. I talked to some experts on that and they feel perhaps the Indians were not well advised under the circumstances, and the government might find that matter has not been fully disposed of.

There are pollution problems in many Indian ands for which no reparation has been paid. Nothing has been done other than in a couple of instances where cold storage lockers were bought so the Indians could get their fish in nonpolluted water, take it back to their own community and keep it cold, so they can eat the fish some other time. That is a terrible solution. It might save them from getting mercury poisoning or something like that, and of course that is essential, but in the long run we have to have a better solution.

Indian education itself should be, and is, under the responsibility of the Indian bands in most instances. Being a teacher, I would be honoured to teach in the Pauline Johnson secondary school in the city of Brantford. It was named after the Indian poetess. She is one of our national luminaries and one of whom we are very proud. But many Indian kids, having graduated from grade eight in schools on the reserve, came into this school and suffered all the special problems of being dumped into a white community, even though I do feel this particular white community has a good deal of respect for the role the Indians have played in the past in the development of Brant county and the city of Brantford.

I taught many of the young Indian people, who were outstanding students. They certainly had excellent athletic abilities, and their personalities were such that they could adjust to the shock of coming out of a relatively small community and going into a nearby city. But there is a special pressure on them. I think that is something we must be aware of; not that we as a province have a responsibility for their education until they come to our schools, but I personally believe that when they do come to our schools our curriculum ought to emphasize the role of the Indian people in the development of Canada, and the fact many people are not even aware of, that we would not be a nation if the Indians had not been our allies during the American invasion of 1812. They actually saved the country. There is absolutely no doubt about that.

There are many such things that ought to be a part of the knowledge of every kid, every student, every young person and the rest of us in this country. The developmental potential -- I see Mr. Speaker is very concerned about the time. I read that I have three minutes.

The Deputy Speaker: Well, good. You are right. I was not --

Mr. Nixon: The Speaker was jumping up and down, so I thought there was some message inherent in all that activity.

The developmental potential of the Indian lands is something the rest of the community ought to be aware of, and with which we might help them. I almost tried to get up on a supplementary to the question that was put to the Minister of Natural Resources about the closedown of the nickel mines in Sudbury, or the permanent laying off of 1,000 workers. One of the reports I have indicates that 15 per cent of our metal resources still underground, of those that are of the highest quality and easily workable, lie on Indian lands.

In many instances, I believe they are not developed simply because of the problems of title to the property. We could assist them in that development. It might bring in the kinds of revenues the indians down in Oklahoma have had over the years, as that black gold was pumped out of their reserve and financed a way of life for them that put them on a level with the sheikhs of Araby rather than the cornplanters in the rest of Oklahoma. I do not mean complanters in the Indian sense, but in the sense that they actually are farmers.

The whole area of development and tourism, in crafts, in farming, and I have already mentioned the development of minerals, is there for us to contemplate.

4:10 p.m.

I call for a committee. I have some reluctance to do that because we have lots of committees and there may be some alternative. I do not believe it should be done by the minister making a recommendation to the cabinet, followed by an announcement to the House. I believe the members of the House should constitute themselves as a committee and undertake to go to the Indian communities and meet with the Indian leaders and the people themselves, right in their own council houses around their council tables.

The government tends to invite them to Toronto. It wines and dines them at the Sutton Place Hotel and asks a few members over to take part in whatever the festivities are. They may sit down for a long discussion. I do not think it would be improper to call it a powwow in which the views of the Indians are put to the executive of the government and the rest of us sit there.

I would like to go into the Indian communities and see what they have to say. It is our responsibility to organize this Legislature in such a way that we can deal with the Indians on their own turf, hear what they have to say and participate with them in bringing them into the fabric of Canadian nationhood in a fair and equitable way.

The Deputy Speaker: I point out to the member that I gave him a few more minutes of time due to my jumping up and down and distracting him.

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the resolution brought before the House by the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk. I recognize the heritage of the Indian people in the area he represents, with the great leader Joseph Brant, that led to the establishment of the Six Nations community in his area.

I recognize the tremendous heritage and contribution of the Indian peoples to the development of this province. I believe it is necessary for this province, through both the Legislature and the government, to make a straightforward policy statement on Indian rights that is not open to the kind of confusion we have experienced about Indian rights since the proclamation of 1763.

I am a little concerned, however, about some parts of the resolution, which I will explain in a moment. It is our view the Indian peoples are unlike other ethnic and racial groups in this province and country in that their relationship with the crown and the governments of Canada and the provinces, including Ontario, is defined by treaties signed by their ancestors. This makes them a racial and ethnic group quite different from any other racial or ethnic minority in this country.

Those treaty agreements were political agreements negotiated and signed by representatives of sovereign peoples and I think we have to recognize that. The comments made by the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk with regard to the difficulties surrounding the idea of a nation within a nation thus caused me some concern.

His suggestion that if this committee is established, one of the ways we as a committee might look at dealing with the land claims and the ongoing claims of the Indian peoples of this province is in regard to things like monetary settlements, such as the Baie James experience in Quebec, also leads to serious concerns.

Obviously, the decisions on what kinds of methods should be used for reaching agreements should be left to negotiation directly between the Indian peoples and the governments involved. I think we all support that. If a decision is made, and accepted by the Indian peoples for monetary compensation, so be it. However, the experience at Baie James does not bode well for the future in terms of compensation as a method of resolving claims for lands or rights that have been lost.

Also, the portion of the resolution which says that we should be looking at ways "to modernize and update such rights to achieve justice and equity" sounds fine in itself, but I am a little concerned about what the words "modernize" and "update" might mean.

If that means we recognize that many of the treaties originally signed were signed without the full understanding of the people involved, and that some of those treaties were negotiated and written in legalese that a person educated and schooled in the law might have difficulty understanding, much less people who were dealing through interpreters, that is fine. Then we should be looking at what the people at the time understood was meant by the treaties they were signing, and we should therefore recognize those rights.

If, however, it means to modernize and update them in some other sense that might, in fact, lead to the limitation of Indian rights, then I cannot support that proposal.

I hope that all politicians of all parties, whom the member indicated many Indian people have a great deal of distrust for, will be prepared to guarantee that any discussion of Indian rights will not lead to a limitation of those rights without the full and direct consent of the Indian peoples themselves. I believe we must recognize that Indians in this province and throughout Canada must have the opportunity and the resources to develop their own forms of self-government and control their own lives, the lives of their communities and the development of those communities.

I would like to know exactly what is meant by the phrase in the resolution, "full participants in our national community." I am sure the member who introduced the resolution does not intend this to mean integration, but some people might interpret it that way. A few years ago, the federal Liberal government introduced a white paper that dealt with integration, and we know that the Indian peoples across this country reacted to it to such an extent that the government withdrew this white paper and took no action on it.

We cannot in any way advocate an integration that would in some way limit the rights that were extended or recognized at the time of the negotiation of the treaties. It is our responsibility to determine what those treaties mean, what hey meant to the Indian peoples, what they meant to the people who signed them and what they meant to the crown, and then to enforce those rights.

The resolution also recognizes, in a way, the "provincial. . . commitment" to Indian rights. I have grave concerns about that quote. In my view there is not an adequate commitment in any way from this provincial government to the recognition of Indian rights. One only has to look at the letter written by the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) of this province to the Minister of Justice in Ottawa, Jean Chrétien, at the time of the negotiations on the Constitution. That letter raised a lot of questions about the recognition of Indian rights and indicated to me that the Ontario provincial government does not have a real commitment to the recognition of those rights.

One also has to look at the history of the enforcement of treaty rights by governments and bureaucrats at both the federal and provincial levels since those treaties were signed. Obviously, that enforcement leaves a lot to be desired when one considers that there have been problems with many issues, such as land claims, hunting and fishing rights and harvesting rights, throughout the history of Indian reserves after they have been established.

I also doubt that governments, whether they be at the federal or the provincial level, really have demonstrated a commitment to Indian rights when we have seen the despicable backing off from the original commitment to constitutional recognition of Indian rights that took place during the negotiations on the Constitution. There was the insertion of a word, "existing," that nobody understands, and then a commitment to a federal-provincial committee to negotiate and determine what Indian rights are and what they mean, a committee which in some way will involve Indian peoples but it does not say who will be involved, how they will be involved and what actual participation will mean to those peoples.

All governments involved in those negotiations backed off, and that does not indicate a commitment to me. Neither does the experience of the Deep Water people in Temagami, the Bear Island band and the court battle they are experiencing, to which the previous speaker referred, indicate a real commitment, in my view, to settle Indian land claims. Nor does the difficulty in achieving reserve status, for a number of Indian communities in the Treaty 9 area that are on what the province views as rown land, indicate a real commitment in my view.

4:20 p.m.

I mentioned hunting, fishing, trapping and harvesting rights. Obviously, there is a need to rationalize and put an end to the inconsistency in the enforcement of those rights by the Ministry of Natural Resources and our judicial system. We have to determine what is meant by unoccupied land, treaty area and what the various treaties mean. In my view, the Moraviantown incident does not indicate a recognition that this government has to live up to those rights.

We have to get involved in negotiations with Indian band governments on self-regulation in order to deal with the need for conservation. The stalling by the private and public sectors over the resolution of the Grassy Narrows and Whitedog bands' problems does not indicate a commitment to the resolution of these problems.

We have an argument from the provincial government in terms of wild rice. They do not want to extend the five-year moratorium in order to nurture that industry and ensure that the Indian bands of the area benefit from wild rice harvesting.

In our view, this government must respond to and deal with the problems of Indian rights, not just in hunting, fishing and land claims, but also in terms of taxation exemptions and social, educational and health problems. We believe a committee of this Legislature would be very timely, considering future discussions with regard to the Constitution on those rights. For that reason, I will support this resolution.

Hon. Mr. Pope: Mr. Speaker, I rise to discuss these matters with the members of the House. I have been the Minister of Natural Resources for one year and therefore have no real experience in the background of the issues and the frustrations that are being experienced by the native people of our province and the members of this House. However, having been involved for approximately a year, I have some ideas to offer.

First, I would like to say that the estimates of the Ministry of Natural Resources are now in progress. The member for Halton-Burlington (Mr. J. A. Reed) has given notice that a couple of issues referred to by the honourable member who has moved this resolution will be discussed and more detail will be forthcoming with respect to the current status of a number of these issues. I look forward to that opportunity. I hope those members of the Legislature who are so inclined will come to those estimates and engage in this kind of discussion.

Mr. Laughren: Tonight is a good night to come.

Hon. Mr. Pope: Tonight would be an excellent night because my friend the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren) will be giving a scathing indictment --

Mr. Laughren: Fully justified.

Hon. Mr. Pope: Fully justified -- of the ministry and the minister.

Based on his experience, the member has skilfully and accurately put his finger on one of the issues confronting us that is very difficult to sort through from my point of view.

As I understand it, the native people have indicated they feel they are a nation within a nation with a right to self-determination, to hunt and fish as they have in the past, to harvest wild rice and to control their own destiny with their own form of government, policing and standards. That is what I understand they believe, through documents they have issued.

The honourable member said those rights in some specific forms may not be understood by members of this Legislature or the public in general. He referred to the necessity of accommodating the needs of the Indian people with respect to certain specific activities within a context all of us would understand. I think that is the nub of it.

I will say, and I will refer back to it because it is the most important point I will make, that it is my feeling and it has been directly stated to me that the Indian people do not feel that at this time there should be any discussion or definition of their aboriginal rights or treaty rights by this Legislature or by any other government. They want those discussions and those definitions to take place within the context of the constitutional discussion. I say that to give the member one example and I will quote some other examples later.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Pope: I am sorry, but just hear me out. I wanted a discussion and a definition of the aboriginal and treaty rights to fish, to be involved in, or a part of, the memorandum of understanding where we discuss amendment to the Ontario regulations, under the Fisheries of Canada and the Game and Fish Act of Ontario. I thought it was imperative to have that kind of understanding between the governments and the native peoples before we could even accommodate the changes in the regulations and in the laws of the province.

I was told they were not prepared to have that discussion, that such discussion should take place at the constitutional conference, that they themselves would put forward the definition they wished to have of their existing rights, and in that form the issue could be debated by various government representatives. I will refer to a letter that was sent to the Premier, which I think supports that interpretation. It was sent by the chiefs of Ontario.

The honourable member quite rightly has raised a number of very important issues. The most important, on which I agree with him, is that there are a number of economic and social problems in the Indian community we have an obligation to address. We have an obligation to address them through direct action and through negotiation with the individual bands, their chiefs and the various organizations that are a part of the structure of our native peoples' organizations in the province. That is what we are attempting to do in a number of forms, which I will review with the member.

First of all, with respect to the Temagami area, the Bear Island claim, the member is probably aware that the court case is about to commence, that preliminary motions are pending before the Supreme Court of Ontario. He is probably also aware that about six weeks ago we appointed the former Bishop of Moosonee, the Right Reverend James Watton, and the former Provincial Secretary for Resources Development, the Honourable René Brunelle, as negotiators for the province. Together with Mr. Justice Hartt of the Indian Commission of Ontario, they have been up to the Bear Island community and have commenced negotiations on the claim within certain guidelines the province has given them.

It is my feeling that these gentlemen understand the government processes, and Bishop Watton, in particular. understands the social and economic problems of the Indian communities from his work as Bishop of Moosonee on both sides of James Bay and Hudson Bay. I do believe there is a serious effort under way that I hope will lead to some settlement.

The issue with respect to fishing rights is not really with respect to their own land. It is with respect to lands adjacent to their reserves.

Mr. Nixon: Crown land.

Hon. Mr. Pope: Right. It depends on the interpretation, but the second part of the point I as going to make is that there is an outstanding claim on the basis of headland to headland that could have an impact on how the boundaries of the reserve are defined under the Indian Act. However, the negotiations that are going on right now with respect to fishing rights for the native people of the province are not confined to reserve lands or to the waters contained between headlands, but rather deal with the whole prospect of trying to allocate fish resources in the province, to try to help the economic and social wellbeing of the Indian communities in the way the member has referred to.

We are past the stage of putting generalized proposals to each other. We are now at the stage of looking at quotas, standards of conservation, and practices to be adhered to by the native people and by the rest of us in the province with respect to fishing. We are at the stage of discussing specifics of policing this mechanism both on reserve and off reserve both for native people and for white people.

We are at the stage right now of discussing how we can accommodate an expansion of commercial licences, which the native peoples have for years obtained from the government of Ontario, to have an economic livelihood. Right now all these matters are being discussed in detail.

I know a couple of chiefs have said that it is a gimmick. They were arguing with their own negotiator, Mr. Charney, at a meeting of the chiefs of Ontario. Mr. Charney very clearly took the position, as their negotiator, that these were serious negotiations, that it was not a gimmick, that he saw some constructive results coming from these negotiations. I happen to agree with him.

4:30 p.m.

The James Bay agreement, as my colleague has so properly pointed out, has not been a success. It is now in financial difficulty, and the conflict resolution method that was set up has been a failure in the eyes not only of the federal government but of the Quebec government and the Indian people. They are now looking for alternatives. He is quite right that mere compensation and structuring of trust arrangements will not help.

The member also referred to the letter of the Attorney General. My interpretation of that letter was that the Attorney General was saying we could not operate with vague rights but had to have a definition of those rights; otherwise, any kind of interpretation would be possible. I hope that definition will result from the constitutional discussion. I would have liked to have had a clearer discussion with the native people with respect to those rights in the fishing negotiations but, as I said, they rejected that.

The Grassy Narrows issue, I agree, is one that has gone on far too long.

The Deputy Speaker: One minute.

Hon. Mr. Pope: With one final financial issue to be settled, it is my feeling that the remaining elements can fall into place. That is the present interpretation of a number of people on behalf of all parties.

I had a lot more I wanted to say about the structures of the government that deal with the day-to-day problems of the Indian people, but I will conclude by reading from a two-page letter from the chiefs of Ontario addressed to the Premier, signed by Grand Chief John Kelly of Treaty 3, Chief Wally McKay of Treaty 9, Patrick Madahbee of the Union of Ontario Indians, and Gordon Peters, president of the Association of Iroquois and Allied Indians.

"We would like to express our appreciation for the opportunity that we had to meet with you and your ministers on May 25 to continue our constitutional discussions. In view of the pressure of your other duties, your willingness to give serious consideration to our proposals was a very positive sign of the progress we can make together.

"We are pleased particularly with your commitment not to take a constitutional position before discussing it beforehand with us. It was important to be able to inform you directly about our national strategy. We trust you now understand better why it is necessary for the Indian leaders to hold preliminary discussions with the federal government to clarify the nature of its trustee responsibilities and constitutional obligations to Indian people. We will undertake to keep you fully informed about how these discussions proceed.

"We thank you for your commitment to refrain from taking legislative or other action which would affect our rights without our consent. We look forward to the opportunity to inform you more clearly about the kind of Indian government which our nation feels will make us truly part of Canada."

That clearly indicates to me that they want no action taken until they have sorted things out with the federal government in relation to the constitutional discussion.

I offer the honourable member this: I agree with him that we should be visiting the Indian leaders of the province and discussing these issues with them. I had discussions with the member for Nickel Belt this morning with respect to a trip, and part of that trip will include direct contact by opposition members of the Legislature with chiefs and other representatives of the Indian people of Ontario. We will have time for a full discussion in that regard.

The Deputy Speaker: Due to the relevance of the letter, I allowed the minister an extra couple of minutes.

Mr. McGuigan: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this private members' hour in support of the motion of the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk. The honourable member is one of the most knowledgeable people in this House on this matter, as has already been recognized, because he has the Six Nations reserve in his riding. I believe they have recognized his concern by making him a chief and taking him into the brotherhood. I remind members it is not something that is lightly done. Very few members in this House can boast that. I suspect he is the only one.

One of the great strengths of the British government when they extended their empire in former days -- I realize that "empire" is not the most popular word today -- lay in their policy of giving full rights of citizenship to the people over whom they claimed sovereignty.

The fall of the Roman empire is often blamed upon a lack of moral standards: they became decadent as they became powerful. Books have been written upon the fall of that empire. No doubt that was a factor. Some historians blame the fall of their empire on their failure to obtain the co-operation and respect of the people over whom they exercised control; they failed to grant full citizenship to those people.

The members may recall that some 2,000 years ago, the Hebrew couple Joseph and Mary were on their way to the annual registration as subject people. They were going forward, as they did each year, to register as aliens and to pay their taxes. When our Lord was brought before Pilate, Jesus was turned over to the mob because he did not have Roman citizenship. Pilate saw no wrong with the man, but he washed his hands of him because he did not have citizenship.

The British, while they may not have been perfect masters, did in most cases grant rights and privileges to conquered people.

We see another manifestation in the fact that we in Canada do not practise the melting-pot theory as they do in the United States. In Canada, we believe in the richness of our diversity. In some ways it has perhaps made Canada more difficult to govern, because we retain so many of our different roots in our ethnic, national, religious and cultural background. Nevertheless, that makes a people who cannot be stampeded in any one particular direction. We see the results of this in the world today in some of the great conflicts going on where people of one mind were stampeded into taking some precipitate action.

My contact with the Indians prior to becoming a member was as an employer of Indian people in the harvesting of fruit crops. During that time I gained a great respect for these people as warm and wonderful people. Their beliefs, their religion, their way of life, offer a way of life that makes us question our inherited European way of life.

When I look around the farm lands of southwestern Ontario, particularly in the past three or four years when we have had extremes of rainfall, I see a farming system that cannot be sustained. The erosion of our soils in southwestern Ontario is nothing short of a disaster, and the government is beginning to stir itself and take some interest. But the Indian people, by their very culture, by their religion and by their attitudes, preserved the soil, the water, the fish and the animals upon which they depended. Their culture recognizes these things, and we could learn from them.

I do not pretend to know the answers to our so-called Indian problem. I do know that in Canada and in Ontario we are building to a tragedy with our Indian people.

Two years ago, I attended the Calgary Stampede. Of course, that is outside Ontario, but I think the problem is the same; as a farmer, I believe I have a keen eye in observing plants and people. The Indian kids we saw on the streets in Calgary and in the Indian encampments on the grounds were handsome and bright, and their faces were full of hope. But as one observed these people as they got older -- the teenagers, the adults and then the older people -- one could see on their faces expressions ranging from hopelessness to downright hostility.

One can see it on the streets of Winnipeg if one visits that city. One can see it right here in Toronto as well. I see it every day when I walk back to my apartment on Yonge Street, perhaps one of the toughest areas in town. One can see this problem, and it makes one want to cry.

I do not know the answers, but I do question the practice of patronizing the Indians by looking on them as one per cent of the population to e wined and dined according to the situation, as my friend has said, and then mostly ignored.

If we need to deal with them firmly, and we have to deal with them firmly, okay, let us do it in their own interest. We should not shrink from doing it. But we should always deal with them fairly and honestly. I do not believe we have one that in the past.

4:40 p.m.

The Moravian Indian Reserve is in my riding. The great chief Te-cum-seh -- I say that in the Indian fashion, because I am told the Indian language is made up of single syllables; it is only by our European way of speaking that we changed that to Tecumseh -- Te-cum-seh was one of the great politicians of the world, one of the greatest it has ever known.

Mr. Nixon: Was he a Liberal?

Mr. McGuigan: I cannot verify that fact.

Mr. Wildman: He was a great general as well as a great politician.

Mr. McGuigan: Really, if one studies the man, he was a greater politician because he united the Indian people all over Ontario and all over a great deal of the United States, going down the Ohio Valley and covering a huge territory. He was one of the first men in the history of the Indian nation who was able to unite people. Later on, of course, we know he was the saviour at the battle of Moraviantown in the War of 1812.

In that vein, I go back to the Six Nations Indians. I understand they are the subject of study, because the Six Nations have one of the longest periods of peaceful history with their other Indian brothers of the time of any group of people in the history of this world. We could learn something from that period of history during which they were peaceful with their brothers.

Mr. Nixon: They are good hockey players too.

Mr. McGuigan: That is important today too.

The people on the Moravian reserve believed they had an understanding with the former Minister of Natural Resources that permission would be required before any provincial authorities would go on to the reserve. They had this in writing. I have seen the letters. Shortly after the new minister was sworn into office, some 21 provincial officers made a surprise raid on the reserve to enforce the provincial fishing laws.

Of course, I agree that spawning fish must be preserved. There are pickerel spawning in the Thames River, and it is one of the largest spawning grounds for the whole of that fishery covering Lake St. Clair and Lake Erie and, I suppose, even going up into Lake Huron to some extent. Fish must be preserved during the spawning period, but surely when we look at the few rights these people have left to them and the few opportunities they have left to them, those rights should be dealt with in a fair and honest way and not by a raiding party.

I can tell members that those people are very deeply hurt. I attended a rally they had this spring to more or less commemorate the event and to bring about public pressure. On listening to those people speak, it was evident that they were not out with their figurative tomahawks to be threatening or warlike; but there is a resolve and determination there that they are going to be dealt with properly.

I have listened to the minister talk about the timing, whether we should go forward now or not. He makes some convincing arguments on his side. But I submit that the resolution of my colleague, if it were supported -- and I am sure it will be supported by people on this side of the House -- would indicate that the Ontario Legislature is aware of the problems, intends to do something about them and is going to go forward.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution. I believe very firmly that there should be a committee to look into some of the issues outlined in the resolution of the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk. There are some others that I would add to that list.

It is always easy in a debate such as this to use high-sounding phrases and flowery language to express one's commitment and concern, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating. That is an old Indian proverb. In that regard, this government is lacking. There has been ample opportunity for the government to show its concern and integrity in this regard. I am not surprised that the government will not support this resolution, as I gather it does not intend to do. It does not surprise me in the least.

One way of measuring a political party's commitment is by what it is willing to put in writing and entrench as its policy. I would like to read into the record the policy of this party as passed at convention. I will not include the "whereases" -- in most cases they are obvious -- but the resolution itself:

"Be it resolved that the Ontario government should recognize and respect the Indians' aboriginal and treaty rights. These rights include but are not limited to the following:

"The right to sufficient land to maintain their people, their descendants and their culture without restraint;

"The right to hunt, fish, trap and harvest without interference;

"The right to compensation for forests and mineral resources taken by non-Indians from reserve lands;

"The right to be exempt from all forms of taxation;

"The right to govern themselves according to their own forms of self-government;

"The right to receive sufficient resources to develop economically and socially according to the wishes of each band;

"The right to establish and control their own schools and educational programs;

"The right to design and administer their own health and social service programs;

"The right to establish their own rules respecting membership in their bands and respecting order on their reserves and to police themselves through band constables;

"The right to safeguard all Indian sacred places and to practise their own religions, cultures and languages;

"The right to be fully involved in the process of revising the Canadian Constitution;

"The right to be fully consulted and involved in any changes in provincial or federal legislation, regulations and programs which affect Indian peoples.

"Be it further resolved that in order to redress the injustice of the past and to demonstrate respect for these aboriginal rights, the Ontario government should immediately:

"Negotiate settlements for any outstanding Indian claims for land and hunting and fishing rights;

"Provide sufficient resources to enable the Indian peoples to administer their own educational, health, social services and police programs; and

"Recognize the right of the Indian peoples to exclusively harvest wild rice throughout northern Ontario, to be represented on the control boards which regulate the water levels in the lake systems where wild rice grows, to have stabilized water levels at a level which maximizes the production of wild rice in these lakes, and to be provided with sufficient resources to enable these Indians to establish a fully integrated wild rice industry, including the harvesting, processing and marketing of wild rice."

This is a policy of this party primarily because of the efforts of the member for Algoma, who has done an enormous amount of work in all sorts of areas that affect Indian people in Ontario.

There is a great deal that the Ontario government can do. In the past five years or so, literally millions of dollars have been poured into the agriculture and wild rice industries in Saskatchewan and Manitoba. I can only let members draw their own conclusions as to whether that is because there were New Democratic Party governments in those two provinces when most of that occurred.

A great deal has been put into those two provinces, and, quite frankly, the federal government put a lot of that money in. I do not have the breakdown of how much, but certainly the approach of those provinces towards working out agreements with the federal government has been different from that of the Ontario government.

There is an enormous potential in this province to do so much more than we have already done. It is always fine to stand up and say the right things, but it is carrying through and making commitments and following them up that really counts. There is no better example of that than the five-year wild rice moratorium imposed by the Premier in 1978. When he imposed that moratorium, he was quite specific. He said:

"Ontario will extend its efforts to assist Indian licensees to develop appropriate technology and to increase utilization of available crops with the primary objective of establishing an economic base for the involved Indian community."

That is what the Premier said. Since that moratorium was secured, the province has done precious little to encourage the wild rice industry on behalf of our Indian people. I am pleased the Ministry of Natural Resources estimates are on right now, because that will give us an opportunity to get into a good debate on the subject with the Minister of Natural Resources.

4:50 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): The member has about 20 seconds left.

Mr. Laughren: No kidding? Time really flies.

I encourage members to support this resolution. We need to take a look at the wild rice question, the hunting and fishing issues, taxation and, of course, jurisdictional disputes, which are forever coming up on matters dealing with Indians in Ontario and elsewhere.

I encourage members, particularly on the government side, to put their money where their mouth is, to support this resolution and get a committee under way so that we can really examine all the problems which the ministers say they have on a number of these issues.

The Acting Speaker: The next order?

Mr. Nixon: On a point of order: Mr. Speaker indicated before he left that he would grant me a few moments to sum up the resolution. He said that. Does anybody recall that?

Mr. Wildman: Two minutes, I thought he said.

Mr. Nixon: Then I would like to use them if I might.

The Acting Speaker: Is there unanimous agreement that this be allowed?

Agreed to.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I just want to bring to your attention that I hold in my hand the report on the civil rights and liberties of Indians in Ontario prepared by the select committee on Indian affairs, which was chaired by the Honourable W. A. Goodfellow, and presented on March 29, 1954. So there is precedent for the resolution.

I want to thank the members for supporting the resolution. I want to indicate that I am honoured, not to be an Indian chief but to have been granted an Indian name; they have their own chiefs, and they look after the situation extremely well.

I also want to report that there is confidence in the Indian community among the members who talked to me, particularly the group headed by Mr. Justice Hartt; I know they appreciate having had a chance to speak with the Premier.

Regarding the letter read by the minister indicating, according to his interpretation, that the Indians do not want us to do any review of this until the constitutional matter is settled, I simply say that is not the way I interpret the words. The quote that got to me was their appreciation that the Premier was not going to take a constitutional position before discussing it with the Indian community.

In that regard I believe that we, as members of the Legislature, have a responsibility similar to the Premier's to speak with the Indians, which we certainly shall do as individuals as well as collectively as a committee, before we move towards a constitutional position.

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Breaugh moved second reading of Bill 106, An Act to amend the Legislative Assembly Act.

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, in trying to put together a ballot item for this afternoon I specifically chose to put before the House a bill.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): The member will excuse the chair for not indicating previously that he has 20 minutes to make his presentation. If he wishes to apportion any amount later for a windup, he may do so.

Mr. Breaugh: I would like to retain about five minutes at the end for wrapup.

In putting forward this bill I recognize that private bills in this afternoon period have had a difficult time, perhaps for a variety of reasons. In putting forward this bill I sought to find a matter that totally avoids a partisan political process and attempts to put together a combination of things in a matter that ought to be dealt with by the assembly.

The bill I have put forward is one in which there is some urgency and in which there should be an easy consensus. In other words, I tried to find a topic that is appropriate for the Legislature to discuss and to legislate, one that is not meant to be wildly controversial.

My bill deals rather straightforwardly with a couple of basic principles and is itself, of course, a rather straightforward bill. It deals with the obvious fact of members themselves, or other persons, carrying firearms in this assembly.

In this assembly we have not gone very far in recognizing the problems of providing a secure environment for the members and for the public at large. To my knowledge, we have not before dealt in a public way with the basic problem of a parliament dealing with security.

This House is not a warehouse. It is not an office building. It is a parliament. In other jurisdictions, there have been papers written, discussions held and meetings put forward where the members get an opportunity to participate in the design of security matters. We have not done so here, and I want to provide an opportunity for the members to do that.

At first blush, I suppose some members might say: "This is a rather unusual bill before the House this afternoon. We have not had any problems in that regard." I want to point out that the time to discuss these matters is before one has great difficulties.

A short while ago, we had a tragic shooting own the street at the Osgoode Hall law courts. We have had similar situations in smaller communities. In Windsor, a labour leader was shot and killed by someone he had worked very hard for. Whether or not we choose to deal with the matter, the matter of security is before us.

I thought this afternoon I would try out the security in the building. I found it was not difficult to go through the gallery on the east side, the public gallery, carrying a small concealed weapon. Almost any member of the public could do it, because there are no metal detectors installed around the doors.

I went down through the press gallery offices. There was no difficulty. I was not even met by anybody. I walked through the press gallery and stood behind the Speaker's chair for about 10 minutes, which is about as far as I have seen any member of the public improperly enter the chamber. I was able to walk without any problem down the front bench before the Premier (Mr. Davis) and had a little chat with the Premier on the way over. I took my seat.

This rather small, insignificant handgun does not seem to be the kind that would do much damage, but it is precisely the size and shape of weapon that is used in most crimes and that has been used for assassination attempts in the United States. It has been on my desk all afternoon and no one has bothered to mention it, look at it or attempt to detect it, save a few colleagues around me. It is quite possible to do that.

I want to touch briefly on some of the matters I think are the underlying principle. I want the bill to receive some attention; I want it to go to committee, and I want the members to have an opportunity to discuss security, specifically security in the Legislative Building.

Security in a parliament, it seems to me, is much different from security elsewhere in that the public does have a right to access to this building. The whole parliamentary process is built upon that right. The members here receive the public regularly. The public has a right to see the parliament in session, to attend committees, to appear there as witnesses and to do so on a fairly large scale. That is fundamental to the parliamentary process.

Different parliaments have handled this in a different way, but I want to put some matters before the members. I will be interested to note the members who vote against this bill. I deliberately worded the bill in a simple form. It is not meant to confuse or draw in a whole range of issues. It is a simple piece of legislation and has only one operative clause. This is a bill where one is either for or against it. When it goes to committee, there may be an opportunity to put forward different ideas.

One of the underlying principles is to get at the idea of parliamentary security, which I think is important. The jurisdiction here ought not to be in the hands of police officers. Because it is first and foremost a parliament, it ought to be under the jurisdiction of the Speaker. That means each time there is a security problem, the first response will be parliamentary.

One may well turn around to somebody who offers advice and say, "For security reasons, one should do this, this and this." But I maintain that the person in control ought not to be someone whose first concern is a policing action; it ought to be a parliamentary concern. It seems logical then that the Sergeant at Arms would be the person designated to be the person I could turn to.

On several occasions when there have been disturbances here and security forces have been used, I have been unable to find out exactly who was in charge. They are certainly not agents of this chamber. They are not people I am familiar with. Unfortunately, they are not people who know the members either.

Several members have spoken to me about security matters, saying they went to a person who appeared to be in charge of the security operation. That person did not know who they were, and the members were unable to find out exactly who was in charge. That is the worst kind of security, one that does not appear to have a leader. If there is something wrong, there is no way to rectify it.

5 p.m.

I think it follows logically that the people who work on security matters around the Legislature here are people who ought to be welltrained in the facts of a parliament, the right of the citizens to have access. That ought to be an integrated part of it. I would not hold security officers here at fault for the state of the current art, because it is not their responsibility to train themselves. It is the responsibility of the House, the Speaker and a great many other people around here to do just that. I think there ought to be some clear distinctions made to security staff about the nature of the security operation.

That may well be a simple reflection. If we do put metal detectors around the doors to the public galleries, which seems to me now to be technologically possible and a very reasonable way to proceed, it should be done in a way that does not impede the public's right to come into the gallery. It is not a search and seize operation. We should take advantage of modern technology to provide some security measure that does not block the public's right of access to their parliament.

If we do identify building personnel, we must recognize this is not a police station. It is not necessary to wear a mugshot on one's chest, and for everybody to have that kind of security. There are other ways security forces use to identify who regularly works in a building or should have access to it. It can be done in a very quiet way that is obvious to the people who are trained to recognize that identification process, but does not impede anyone's progress or embarrass anyone.

If we are going to have a public entrance and a private entrance we should work out the mechanics of that in such a way that members themselves are reasonably well satisfied that their constituents can come and see them without being hassled by anyone. If there are problems anywhere in the building there should be a security alarm system so that security staff can readily identify where the problem is and where assistance is needed.

I want to come back to a point I mentioned briefly earlier. I believe very strongly that this is not an appropriate place for police action. It is inappropriate to use police officers, who are not trained in what a parliament is all about, inside parliament itself. That should only happen at the request of the Sergeant at Arms -- that is, strictly speaking, when the Speaker asks for some assistance.

If there are Metropolitan Toronto Police officers or Ontario Provincial Police officers, as I understand there are every day surrounding the Premier, and some security is provided -- and logically they would be OPP officers -- they should come into the chamber only at the request of the Speaker to conduct a specific piece of business. If they function anywhere around parliament, they should do so with the knowledge of the Speaker.

I think that is an important matter. This is not like a football stadium where a riot is quelled by the riot squad. That is totally inappropriate for this kind of operation. This is, after all, parliament, first and foremost. The members here have some rights and so do their constituents.

I believe the bill before members now is relatively simple in its current form. If they choose to, they may want to send it out to committee where members can have some say on other aspects that might come from it. I do think this is not the state Legislature of Kentucky where a bill just the opposite to this one was recently passed. It said everybody should have a right to carry handguns in the chamber, and I am told nobody has been shot in there since 1936.

I want to get to two basic points, and save a little bit of time to conclude my remarks. This is supposed to be an hour, a portion of our legislative week, when private members can put forward legislation. Since the inception of that we have had two bills pass, the last being in 1980. It seems to me that is an untenable process to continue.

Further, it seems to me that members have before them this afternoon a bill that is not complicated at all. It is simple in its form. It has a couple of clear intentions, which I have tried to state this afternoon. This is one that members are either going to be for or against. I suggest that party lines will become irrelevant. I hope no one has the whips on this afternoon. Frankly, I hope that members have not felt the need to caucus about the matter.

I put it in the simplest form possible. I am anxious to hear debate on the matter this afternoon. I am particularly anxious to hear members address themselves to two principles:

First, according to our standing orders, it is the right of members to put forward private bills, and the right of other members to comment on those and to vote freely upon them. Second, I want to hear members address themselves to the problems of two conflicting principles in a parliament where we are in theory open to the public and anxious to remain so, as opposed to a growing need almost all over the world, unfortunately, for increased security in any kind of public building.

Mr. Robinson: I am very pleased to participate in the debate this afternoon. I must admit I have been waiting for a number of days to hear exactly what the member for Oshawa would have to say about Bill 106. Personally I am a little disappointed, though not without some recognition of his method of introducing second reading and making his point this afternoon. I think I know him well enough to realize his weapon is not a real one, or if it were real, at least it would not be operational. I know the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds) looked nervously at it before taking his seat as the member was spinning it around on his finger.

Mr. Foulds: For a guy who sat beside Morty Shulman, who waved a machine gun around, that gun is not going to make me tense up.

Mr. Robinson: I guess the deputy leader of the New Democratic Party is expressing a feeling of greater security than he has had for some time. None the less, it does bring three or four things into rather clear focus.

I would like to speak briefly to the actual bill, which the member for Oshawa did not do at great length. It is indeed simple, though not necessarily simplistic. It does not have a conflict of ideas in it and he may well ask who might stand in his place to oppose it.

However, I would draw to the attention of the assembly that it does add a clause to subsection 45(1) of the Legislative Assembly Act which sets out the rules for the security and legal operation of this House. It also sets out that the House is a court of record for summarily inquiring into and punishing breaches of either protocol or security.

As it stands, the bill indicates that bringing in or possessing a firearm within the chamber, including the public gallery, is prohibited without the authorization of the Speaker. One has to go back to the act to realize it says that one would be prohibited from carrying a firearm without the Speaker's permission.

If someone had a nefarious intent and was set on bringing a firearm into this assembly, either to cause a statement to be made about the democratic process or to carry out some personal vendetta against an individual member, would it be likely he would be cognizant of clause 45(1)(12) and would indeed seek the Speaker's permission?

That aside -- and I am afraid that is rather a large aside to accept -- there are three basic types of individuals who would bring firearms or cause some other act of violence in this assembly.

Mr. Foulds: Yep, the Tories, Liberals and New Democrats.

Mr. Robinson: Those three obvious groups aside, I would suggest three groups and ask members to consider them. They would be the disgruntled, the deranged or the determined.

Mr. Foulds: Alliteration.

Mr. Robinson: Not intended to be so.

We might be able to secure ourselves against the first two groups, the disgruntled and the deranged. They are the people who do not have professional intent to commit an act of violence.

A number of weeks ago there was a meeting of senior representatives of each of the three caucuses, the senior security people in charge of this building and the Ontario Provincial Police. I am sure if the member for Oshawa checks he will find his caucus was not particularly supportive of major changes in the security system as it relates to the public areas of this building. Hand in hand with that, he comes before us today for second reading of a bill which encourages changes in security. I would only suggest that he start by checking at home.

There were major changes to be made, subtle changes that reflect the economic era in which we live and the state of the art in the field of electronic surveillance equipment, such as metal detectors, so we do not have search and seizure as the member referred to it. His caucus was not particularly supportive even of moving in an investigative way to take a look at some of those options.

But dealing with the bill itself --

5:10 p.m.

Mr. Philip: How about that? It is private members' hour.

Mr. Robinson: I am not suggesting to the member for Etobicoke that it is not private members' hour. I am just asking him to consider what else is being said by members of his own caucus.

It is also interesting to note in the context of firearms themselves that any legislative attempt or any legislative change we make here is still superseded by the provisions of the Canadian Criminal Code. If they are not going to check with the Speaker before they come in to shoot somebody, it is highly unlikely they are going to check with the Criminal Code either.

We have a strong attitude reflected in the Criminal Code in this country towards firearms and, if we are talking about firearms as we are in Bill 106, I will provide for the House the definition of a firearm in the code. A firearm means, "any barrelled weapon from which any shot, bullet or other missile can be discharged that is capable of causing serious bodily injury or death to a person and includes any frame or receiver of any such barrelled weapon and anything that can be adapted for use as a firearm."

That is what a firearm is and I hope I read that to the members' satisfaction. It is good to know the framework so we know what we are speaking about and I am sure all members want to know exactly what we are speaking about.

There are five consecutive sections in the Criminal Code dealing with various specific offences for carrying firearms. The one that perhaps is most appropriate, or comes into the greatest play in this debate, is section 86. I will also beg the indulgence of the members opposite to read that section into the record. It is very brief. Section 86 of the Criminal Code states, "Everyone who, without lawful excuse, has a weapon in his possession while he is attending or is on his way to attend a public meeting is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction." That is the first law and anything we do to amend the Legislative Assembly Act of Ontario is only secondary to that.

Going further, one recognizes -- at least I think it is recognized -- that the greatest way to encourage a lack of security is to go around boasting about how one has a lack of security. I certainly give credit to the member for Oshawa because he is most anxious for firearm security within this chamber. It is also interesting to note that historically, and to the best of my research, at least in the last two weeks, a member of an opposition in a Legislative Assembly has never been the target of an attack. So I am grateful the member for Oshawa is so concerned for the safety of us on this side of the House.

When one is dealing with a subject of this magnitude one has to recognize as well that the basic principle in a Parliament is free speech. Weapons of any sort, demonstrations of any sort, only serve to intimidate free speech. Somewhere though in the 1980s a distinction has to be drawn between the right to free speech and the attitude of society as a whole. If society is prepared to accept that violent attack is a method of speech, then I think it is only prudent we be prepared as an assembly to take steps to counteract that -- at least, as I indicated earlier, in the case of people who are disgruntled or deranged.

If we are not prepared to do that, and if we are prepared to accept without any thought or regard that the system must continue as it is now, we are indeed inviting folly. I think it is an equal invitation to folly to do as the member for Oshawa did in coming in here and brandishing his pistol in the best style of the old west. I do not know if he has his cowboy boots on today because I cannot see over that far. Perhaps he could lean back a bit further. His quick draw and his fancy revolver tricks only serve to highlight that we are vulnerable in this assembly and that we should take subtle steps to bring that situation more under control.

Perhaps one of the areas we should look to first, as we are doing on a regular basis, is the standing committee on members' services which I chair at this time, in conjunction with the Sergeant at Arms who has the first line responsibility for security in this facility.

As the member for Oshawa rightly pointed out, not to support this bill would be foolish. For that reason I lend my support to second reading of Bill 106.

Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak on Bill 106, An Act to amend the Legislative Assembly Act, and to follow some of the comments of the member for Oshawa who introduced the bill. He says it is not controversial but the intent may be controversial.

Two or three years ago I had the opportunity of visiting the United States -- Washington in particular -- along with the member for Oshawa and other members of the standing committee on procedural affairs. I noticed when I walked into any of the government buildings there was a guard, well armed with a gun, handcuffs and billy. We had to open our briefcases before we went into any building. In the tunnels and corridors connecting with other buildings within the White House complex the reception we met was always, "Where are you going; how are you going to get there; will you open your briefcase."

It puzzled me to see that, knowing what takes place in the Ontario Legislature. The public can walk through this building freely. To be challenged by an armed guard might cause one to say: "I am a taxpayer. I have some rights and privileges." Our society has not been built along the same lines as that of the United States where, regrettably, they have had a number of violent acts against elected officials.

If one arms oneself, surely the person walking into the building will feel resentment and think, "Should I not carry something to protect myself?" Policing in Ontario is a matter of security, and I understand that in England the constable, the bobby, does not carry a gun. He just carries a billy to get one's attention. Only the special police carry guns.

We are most fortunate to live in Canada. I take pride in the fact that we are a well-disciplined society of people who have respect for government and government members. I would not want to see that situation deteriorate. I have no fear because I do not think it will. We have ways of educating our society to appreciate that there are other ways and means of obtaining access to an elected official if one has a grievance.

I remember meeting a woman from England who was a guest at a Women's Institute meeting in the township of Wainfleet. She was amazed to see that elected people came to functions such as that, as I am sure we all do. She was at a loss for words when she saw there was even a federal member there to speak to the gathering and to express gratitude for the work they do.

The point is that in Ontario and throughout Canada the public has more access to elected members than they do to some of the aldermen or members of their local school board. Committees are open to the public here so that they may express their opinions and views. I do not think I would want to have someone stand there with a gun. That would be like saying, "We do not want you here."

One does not find what we have here in many other countries. People who want to are free to protest on the front steps of this Parliament and to convey their messages to members of the Ontario Legislature. We can all participate. That is what one can call a free society, a society where one can express an opinion and viewpoint without facing the threat of someone carrying a gun. I think it is important that we maintain a style of life in Canada in which we do not have to be worried about that type of threat.

5:20 p.m.

I know other members have received personal threats, as I have. At different times I have had calls in the wee hours of the morning making a personal threat that, "if you do not do this or that, we are going to get you." I have talked to other members and they have had that type of personal threat.

I was a little bit astonished here just a week or so ago, after May 13 when the budget speech was delivered in the House. I think it was the next day when I walked out and, for the first time in a long time, I saw an Ontario Provincial Police officer in this building. There the officer stood with a gun, and I said, "What are you doing here with that gun?" She said, "We may be in here more often."

I hope not. There are other ways of applying security here in this building. It is the same as when you walk into an airport to enter an aircraft. They have scanning devices. There is no reason why there cannot be a detector someplace in here without asking somebody to open his briefcase or leave his camera outside.

I have some strong reservations about whether I should be supporting this bill. There is no doubt about it, we do not live in a risk-free society, but I think there are measures that can be improved on and better ways of providing additional security in the building.

My office is open. As my good friend Ellis Morningstar used to say, "My door is always open," and I think that is a good policy for any politician to have. As long as one has that view I think it cuts down any possibility there may be some resentment towards elected officials.

I have difficulty with the fact the resolution says, "The purpose of the bill is to prevent persons from bringing firearms into the chamber." I hope no one comes into this building with a firearm without the Speaker's authorization, so I do not know quite what he means by that. Whom are we going to let into this building with arms of some type?

Mr. Robinson: We already have permission to have it.

Mr. Haggerty: I understand there is an OPP officer down in the basement who, if he is called upon, is the only one who carries a loaded weapon. There are other people in the other government buildings. I think there are persons who carry arms over in the Ferguson block because of the cash that is handled through the registration of licence fees and so on, but there are also persons around this building. We have quick access to the local police and the OPP here. I do not think there is any need to set out the rule that we should have somebody come into this chamber carrying a weapon. I feel this is only confrontation; it will only encourage people to come in here armed.

There was an incident that took place in one of the courthouses on University Avenue. Of course, if the security guard had been paying attention I do not think that person would have gotten into the courtroom. There is always the possibility it could happen here, but there could be as many persons as one wants in here with arms, and still, if somebody wanted to get at somebody, he is going to get through anyway.

I find it rather difficult to support the member's bill. It may not be controversial to him but I think it would be to the greater number of members.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to participate in the debate on this private member's bill in this private members' hour. It has been some time since I have been able to participate in this capacity, and it is indeed a very great pleasure. I am talking this way because I have to make a note of something I am writing here so I do not forget it during the course of my remarks. Thank you.

First of all, the bill makes sense to me. It is a simple, direct bill. Anyone with the idea that any member who votes against this bill therefore votes for the principle of allowing firearms in this chamber has got to be out of his mind.

I am glad my good friend, both publicly and privately, the member for Oshawa, narrowed the scope of this bill. It would be a travesty and a betrayal of parliamentary tradition if he brought in a clause that banned weapons in the Legislative Assembly. We have every day in this assembly two weapons on prominent display. For those who have little knowledge of medieval warfare, we have not only the verbal barbs we fling across at each other, but the mace that sits on the table. That is a weapon, as well as the sword of the Sergeant at Arms. There is a rumour that the sword of the Sergeant at Arms is not a real sword, that it is only a handle and the scabbard hides nothing. That sounds like a Shakespearean line to me, but is not.

Anyway, I think the principle is very simple. There should not be guns in the Legislature.

Mr. Robinson: That is not what it says. It says there should not be guns without the Speaker's permission.

Mr. Foulds: Then we get to the underlying motives of the member for Oshawa, and those are always difficult to ascertain, as those of us who are his close colleagues will testify. But there are two important principles the member wants to highlight and I would like to highlight.

First, this is private members' hour and this private members' hour has been bastardized by the government party in the last number of years by vetoing or blocking every single opposition bill that has come before this House. The government has seen fit to put a whip on its members when it comes to legislation emanating from this side of the House. The government caucuses on private members' bills and makes a caucus decision on those bills.

I submit that, for a party that pays tribute, at least verbally, to free enterprise, the collective imposition of the government House leader's will on back-benchers is an act they should not accept. Their acceptance thereof will not pave the road to cabinet, because the cabinet members and the back-benchers who have any spine, any guts, any viscera or bone beyond those of a jellyfish, will support the bill of my friend and colleague from Oshawa.

Having made this reasonable appeal, having made this beseeching, prostrate appeal to their reason and sense, I would like now to get to the second principle.

Mr. Robinson: Are you going to speak about the bill?

Mr. Foulds: I will now talk in an inflammatory way about the security of this building. The security of this building is a very delicate matter. Obviously there should not be guns in the chamber, but obviously the people of Ontario should have total access to both this chamber and all its precincts.

I admit that one point made by the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere, although he phrased it badly, has a good deal of sense. That is in regard to the people who occasionally approach legislators with a grievance for whatever reason, real or imagined, and who may be deranged or pretty close to it. Of course, there needs to be some reasonable security both for the employees in this building and for the members.

If I may just digress for a moment, the people who work for us and actually face serious problems are those who have no access to our protection at all. They are the people who work in the constituency offices of the members, who work alone.

5:30 p.m.

I am fortunate in my community in that we have made an arrangement with the local police force. That is a problem we all, as legislators, face quite seriously and I am glad the member for Oshawa brought in a bill that gave us the opportunity to voice those concerns.

I am going to conclude in the minute or two I have left by pointing out clearly the need for this bill. It is not only legal but it has been done, that a gun has been brought into these legislative chambers within my memory. I know to the new boys over there, those one-trippers, I seem to be a guy who is a little long in the tooth, but I happened to be sitting beside my colleague --

Mr. T. P. Reid: That great Socialist.

Mr. Foulds: -- the great Socialist and fighter for freedom, the former member for High Park, Dr. Shulman, when Morty brought into this House what was known in those days as a Saturday night special -- it amounted to a stripped-down machine gun -- waved it around the chamber and, frankly, scared the hell out of everybody, including me. I was sitting beside him at the time.

Mr. T. P. Reid: The Tories on the back benches were sleeping then too.

Mr. Foulds: They woke up. But Dr. Shulman showed in a very dramatic way that it was possible to get such a weapon.

Mr. Ruston: Oh yes, but he used his membership as a way of getting it in.

Mr. Foulds: He used his membership, but it pinpointed the problem and pinpoints the problem my colleague is demonstrating in this bill.

I say that my colleague from Oshawa demonstrates more responsibility and sense, and actually tries to tackle the problem in a way that those who are entrusted with the security of this chamber would have some legal authority to prevent members, visitors and others from bringing guns into this place. I would not support my colleague's bill if he had barred the Sergeant at Arms' sword or had barred the mace lying on the table, because those weapons are of such delicacy and tradition that they are now symbolic.

I want to conclude by saying the main principie of security for this chamber should be to give the public of Ontario complete access to their members and to the legislative processes. Second, there does need to be some minor security against those, as the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere mentioned, who because of a mental quirk or illness could genuinely threaten the safety of an employee or a member.

Third, the private members' hour should surely be a private members' hour. If any bill should be passed on second reading by the private members in this chamber it should be this bill. I urge all members to do so.

Mr. Pollock: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have this opportunity to make a few comments about Bill 106. It is a bill which has a potential to provide certain additional measures to allow us as members to carry out our work in this chamber. A number of points can be made about this bill. I hope all members give these careful thought before they vote on this item.

On the one hand, if we accept this bill and steps are taken to ensure that firearms can be detected when they are brought into the building, there may come a time when we will be thankful such measures were taken. In the spirit of the events we read about which are taking place around the world, I think that the possibility of an incident involving the use of firearms inside this chamber is quite remote. It can be argued, however, that the possibility, be it one in a million or one in 10 million, does exist and that safeguards are warranted.

I also think that the possibility of danger is less for the members on the other side of the House than those on this side, and those member of the opposition probably agree, for different reasons.

Mr. Nixon: Yes, we are smaller targets.

Mr. Pollock: On the other hand, the Legislative Assembly Act provides the Speaker with control over the legislative chamber as well as other sections of the building. The act also says that, "The Speaker shall establish guidelines for the security of the legislative chamber and the other parts of the Legislative Building that are under his control."

In effect then, the Legislative Assembly Act already grants the Speaker the necessary power to provide protection for the members. As far as providing protection goes, any further amendments to the act will not accomplish too much, other than to provide a small amount of reassurance to those members who do see some sort of threat.

There would be one major change if this bill were adopted. If we support this bill, a new clause will be added to subsection 45(1) of the Legislative Assembly Act. This assembly has the powers and jurisdiction under section 46 of the act to investigate and pronounce punishment with regard to matters outlined in subsection 45(1) of the act.

Finally, section 47 deals with the detention of a person by the Sergeant at Arms under the direction of the assembly and the methods by which the person is to be conducted by the Sergeant at Arms to a correctional institution. In addition, a person in this situation would probably also face charges under the Criminal Code.

I do understand, however, that all Ontario laws are being reviewed to make sure that they do not conflict with the new Charter of Rights, and that the Ontario legislation may have to be changed in some cases. I am not sure how these powers of legislation conform to the provisions of the Charter of Rights, but we will soon find out.

As the situation currently stands, this assembly has very extensive powers and the bill before us will add one more situation in which we can use those powers. I certainly do not think those powers have ever been abused, and the adoption of this bill will not change that.

Our work, or anyone's for that matter, can be much better accomplished when we are secure in our working environment. For that reason, I basically support this bill, but I would like to make a few suggestions that this House may be interested in acting upon if we do take this matter further.

I agree that this chamber should be the major item of concern, but if we are talking of potential threats to our physical safety, perhaps some consideration could also be extended to committee rooms where we all spend a considerable period of time.

This very matter was brought up in the Parliament at Westminster, following a disturbance by strangers at a select committee meeting. The question there was whether the Sergeant at Arms could take into custody someone disturbing a standing or select committee just as if it were someone disturbing the House from a public gallery.

The Speaker's ruling, according to the March 26, 1982, edition of the Parliamentary Newsletter was as follows: "I am confident that the House would not wish its other committees to be denied their protection. I, therefore, rule that the power conferred upon the Sergeant at Arms may, if the chairman so directs, be exercised in respect of strangers present at the sittings of select and standing committees within the precincts."

5:40 p.m.

In subsection 45(1) of the Legislative Assembly Act, all points that deal with witnesses, bribes, evidence, warrants and records apply equally to committees and to the assembly. If we are going to take steps to provide additional security for members in this chamber, it may be that we should also apply these provisions to those rooms being used by standing and select committees of the House. Also, if we are going to address seriously this safety issue, it might be preferable to include weapons other than firearms. Firearms may be the most obvious types of weapons we should deal with, but they are certainly not the only ones.

Another point I want to make is that while we can pass laws intended to provide us with more security, the passing of the law itself is insufficient until steps are taken to see that it is enforced. Security measures must also be taken. However, over the years, as I understand it, this House has often endorsed the opinion that we must not take on the appearance of an armed camp. Metal detectors at the entrances, identification cards, more restricted access to the public and other steps have all been discarded for this reason. It looks as if some sort of compromise will have to be found if we hope to prevent any firearm incidents from occurring.

After the events of December 3, 1981, the procedures for gaining access to the Speaker's gallery have been tightened up. With respect to the public galleries, it would seem that any installation of metal detection equipment would be very conspicuous and would probably present an unfavourable image to any visitors, particularly students, who come here every year. They still have to take their chances with the behaviour occasionally exhibited in the House, but that is altogether a different matter.

I suppose it would be best to find a type of metal detector that is itself easily concealed, so that the visitors do not even notice that security precautions have been taken. I have been informed that in recent years a number of measures have been taken to improve security. In doing so, we have been successful in avoiding the image of an armed camp. I hope that any future steps will be taken with that same principle in mind.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I am a little surprised at the wording of the bill, but I think I know the honourable member, with his usual upside-down backwards sense of humour, is conveying some meaning. As usual with the member, one has to dig pretty deeply for it but perhaps it is there.

I know time is particularly limited for me.

Frankly, I think the security in this building and in this chamber is about right. Our security officers do an excellent job. I sometimes feel a little sympathy for them when they listen to our long speeches -- some of them even longer than 10 or 15 minutes, I am told. It is no insult to them that I was quite glad to see the custom of having a fully uniformed Ontario Provincial Police officer in the main rotunda has been resumed. The fact that he is armed, I suppose, is significant but I feel an OPP officer on call in this building is worth while.

Hon. G. W. Taylor: It is a she.

Mr. Nixon: Well, it was a man when I saw him. Maybe the government has transmogrified him; but, anyway, it was a man when I saw him. I am very glad we have a spectrum, a panel, from which to choose. So an OPP officer, male or female, armed or unarmed, suits me. Frankly, I think they look good in their uniforms.

Mr. T. P. Reid: One is and one is not.

Mr. Nixon: Oh, pardon me.

I am also very much in favour of our depending on the Sergeant at Arms, as the person in this chamber responsible under the Speaker's direction, for that purpose.

I simply ask members to recall that when they go to visit their friends in Ottawa they are stopped at the main door. They cannot just wander around the halls looking for a member; a guard receives permission from the member's office and then takes them there.

Those of us who have been to the Parliament at Westminster know that you have to go through a metal detector, which is very closely controlled. On the other hand, just a few weeks ago one of the ministers of the cabinet was driving out of the underground parking lot and an Irish terrorist shot him dead in his car. So even the very best metal detectors and hoards of police cannot protect elected people if some ninny or some radical activist wants to do some terrible damage.

If you go to visit la Chambre des Députés in Paris, you find that there are rolls of barbed wire around the place, and all the guards are in battle dress with submachine guns slung across their backs. The ultimate is to go to the Knesset in Jerusalem. The whole chamber is in a bubble of bullet-proof glass, and the people in the galleries look at the members and the government as if they are goldfish in a bowl or something like that, fully protected.

My point, Mr. Speaker, is that I am very well satisfied with the procedures taken to protect us, and I do not want to be loaded down with more armed guards, metal detectors and things like that.

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, I have had an opportunity to listen now to members on all sides debate the bill in front of them. I am a little confused, frankly. It seems to me that I heard one or two speak strongly in favour of some of the ideas that are put forward in the bill and then announce rather grandly that they are going to vote against it. Perhaps that is simply a reflection of the fact that not all members were able to be present in the House for the entire debate, during which they might have picked up on some of those nuances.

Another thing that pleases me is that it appears this bill has at least a chance of becoming the third private member's bill in the history of private members' hour to survive past six o'clock. I would put to all the members present that this in itself is a useful exercise.

I heard several members say that they wanted an opportunity to go to committee and discuss, in what I felt was a fairly rational manner, the security around the building. I also want to say that I heard no member speak against the current security staff. I think we all understand that they are doing the job the best they can, and if there are problems they are not related to those people at all.

What I did hear was what I wanted to hear: that members of this Legislature, like members of all parliaments, I hope, want to retain a parliament that is open, free and allows people to visit the individual members, participate in committee work and see the parliament in action. It would be a tragedy if anything happened to impede or prevent people from doing that.

I am rather pleased that during the course of the debate, however muddled it might have appeared at times, members generally supported the general drift of the bill -- the basic, general principle -- and that they now want to take it to committee and do some more work on it. That, for me, is sufficient.

I hope all members will take a look at the framework of the bill, which I did attempt to put in the simple form that is printed in Bill 106. I want it in that form so that members who have ideas on security may put them forward freely. It would not be cumbersome and would not add great, onerous expenditures of public funds or further impede the progress of individuals who want to see their parliament in action.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all honourable members to look at Bill 106 and to make it the third, since we have begun private members' bills, to survive past six o'clock.

5:50 p.m.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to add my support to the member for Oshawa. The main reason I do so is that I am concerned that some day something will happen in this House.

I speak from personal experience. In the last few weeks a tragedy occurred in my riding when an Ontario Provincial Police officer was shot to death. It is something that does not happen in a small community; yet it did happen. We think such a thing will not happen here, yet in a court not too far from this very spot a lawyer was shot to death. It is something that could happen at any time. It is just a matter of time, and the longer we leave it, the greater chance we are taking that someone will be hurt.

I listened to the member for Port Arthur say we have two weapons in the House now, one being the Sergeant at Arms' sword and the other being the mace. I remember in 1976, I think it was, when the former Liberal leader was sitting over here and one of his supporters came in from outside, picked up the mace and it appeared as though he were going to strike him on the head. I am sure the Sergeant at Arms has been tempted on numerous occasions to draw his weapon.

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

NATIVE PEOPLES' RIGHTS

The following members having objected by rising, a vote was not taken on resolution 27:

Ashe, Barlow, Birch, Brandt, Cousens, Eaton, Fish, Gordon, Gregory, Harris, Henderson, Hodgson, Johnson, J. M., Jones, Kennedy, Leluk, McCaffrey, McCague, McLean, McNeil, Miller, F. S., Mitchell, Norton, Piché, Pollock, Pope, Ramsay, Robinson, Runciman, Sheppard, Snow, Taylor, G. W., Timbrell, Treleaven, Villeneuve, Watson, Williams -- 37.

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Breaugh has moved second reading of Bill 106.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Breaugh: I would like to have this bill referred to the procedural affairs committee.

Mr. Speaker: The committee of the whole House?

Mr. Breaugh: I believe it is customary for the person responsible for the private member's bill to have the ability to refer it to a committee and I would prefer that it go to the procedural affairs committee.

Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to standing order 64(m), "Notwithstanding standing order 56(c), private members' public bills given second reading shall stand referred to the committee of the whole House, unless referred to a standing or select committee by a majority of the House."

Shall the bill go to committee of the whole House?

Mr. Breaugh moves Bill 106 be referred to the procedural affairs committee.

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

Motion negatived.

Ordered for committee of the whole House.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Mr. Speaker, prior to the recess for dinner, may I indicate to the House the business for the remainder of this week and for next week?

Tonight we will resume debate on second reading of Bill 111. If there is time, we will proceed to Bill 116. This is a change from what was announced earlier.

An hon. member: Cuckoo.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: The cuckoo just spoke.

On Friday will be second reading of Bills 1, 2, 3, 4 and 135 with committee of the whole on those bills and on Bill 125; then, if there is time, second reading and committee of the whole on Bill 105.

On Monday, June 14, in the afternoon will be second reading and committee of the whole on Bills 38 and 124. In the evening will be second reading and committee of the whole on Bills 84, 26 and 27, then we will resume any of the work that might not have been completed on Friday. If there is time and if required, we will continue with Bill 124.

On Tuesday, June 15, in the afternoon and evening will be the motion for interim supply, followed by second reading of Bills 127 and 46.

On Wednesday, June 16, the usual three committees may meet in the morning: justice, general government and resources development.

On Thursday, June 17, in the afternoon will be private members' ballot items standing in the names of Mr. Cousens and Mr. Epp, and in the evening we will continue business left incomplete from Tuesday.

On Friday, June 18, I expect we may be doing legislation rather than estimates, but I will specify which some time next week.

The House recessed at 5:58 p.m.

June 10, 1982