Hansard Transcripts 1984-May-14 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, this morning, at the opening of further hearings being conducted by Mr. Stuart Thom in his review of the rent review process, the commissioner commented on the delays that have occurred in the completion of his report. In his comments today he pointed out that I await the full report with "controlled impatience."

Mr. McClellan: Oh, yes. Right.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: It is at the printer's.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Is that a squeak I heard over there, like the other one when I had to have the question repeated?

Mr. McClellan: It was a laugh, if the minister wants to know what it was. It was sort of in the nature of "Ha ha."

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I know the honourable member has his concerns about certain members of his party, but he should not squeal so much. He should relax. The squealing will die down after a while.

Mr. Thom has advised that although his report is in draft form, it is felt it would be better not to finalize it until it is known whether there should be additions or amendments arising out of the hearings that commenced today.

In view of the inaccuracy of previous predictions as to when the report would be finished, I hesitate to suggest another completion date. If the hearings proceed as scheduled at present, they will be completed in two weeks. It would then appear that the commission would require additional time to make revisions to the draft report before it can be printed.

This leads me to comment on an earlier reply I made in this House about the stage of the report at that time. On April 27, in reply to a question from the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan), I indicated the report was in the hands of the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) for printing. I wish to assure the House that this was the information I had received at the time.

It appears, however, that in the course of information moving from the commissioner's office to the staff of the Attorney General to my staff, a misunderstanding arose over the exact stage of the printing process. Although I do not know for certain what occurred, it would appear that the existence of a draft report and the fact that bids were being called from printers by the staff of the Attorney General led to a conclusion that in fact the report was ready for the printers. It is clear that this was not the case, and I wish to apologize for any confusion my remarks may have caused.

I also wish to indicate my very real disappointment that the report will not be available at a much earlier date than now appears will be the case. However, as I have said before, this matter is in the hands of the commission. Mr. Thom himself stated this morning that the additional delay arising from the further hearings is regretted and that the last thing he desires is that completion of the report should be held up for a moment longer than necessary.

ORAL QUESTIONS

GO TRANSIT

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transportation and Communications.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I am not surprised.

Mr. Peterson: We have to make him feel important.

The minister will be aware that some 11 years ago in a fine film made at a cost of $152,000 -- untendered, I should add to the Premier (Mr. Davis) -- the then Minister of Transportation and Communications announced a great transit plan for northern Metro. The minister will recall that on the strength of that film his colleague won the Transportation Man of the Year medal at the time.

He will also recall an elaborate announcement made two years ago about a transportation plan for northern Metro. Now we read in the morning press that he has been mugged in the corridors of power by the Treasurer (Mr. Grossman) and that there will not be a transportation plan for northern Metro. What is the minister's plan for transportation in northern Metro?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, my plan is exactly the same as it was on October 7, 1982. It has not changed. That plan was introduced, based on a cabinet minute approving it. The announcement was made, and there have been no substantive changes to that plan in the interim. By the way, I was not mugged in the corridor.

Mr. Peterson: Is the minister telling us the Treasurer was mugged? It is important that we clear up this press report, which I gather the minister would call misleading since he is standing in this House and completely denying it. He knows about the traffic jams in this city. He knows one almost needs a reservation to take the subway during rush hours. He knows the major transportation arteries have become parking lots. Is he now standing in this House and saying clearly that the government policy is to proceed as announced two years ago and that he has beaten the Treasurer in their internal fight?

Hon. Mr. Snow: No. I did not say that. With regard to the Toronto Star article, those portions of the article attributed to me are factually and, as far as I can see, perfectly correct. There are sections of that article that refer to a mysterious Queen's Park source, as so often seems to be the case with a lot of information around this building. However, I cannot agree with this mysterious source's information. That part of the Toronto Star article is factually wrong.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the minister will forgive us if we are not entirely clear about where matters now stand. Is the minister saying the plans he announced some two years ago are going ahead, or is he saying they have been changed or delayed? Exactly what is he saying?

He is as baffled as other members of his cabinet always are by leaks from mysterious sources. Naturally, we would all dearly love to know who they are, which person it is in the Premier's office or wherever else they may happen to be. I do not know. Apart from commenting on those sources, could the minister clarify this basic and simple point? Is the plan he announced two years ago going ahead, or has there been some change in it? If he cannot tell us now, when will he be able to tell us?

2:10 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, the plan is basically going ahead as announced. If I may give the honourable member a slight update, when I announced the plan on October 7, 1982, we announced we were going to build two extensions to the GO Transit line, one from Pickering to Oshawa and one from Oakville to Hamilton. We were going to start right away with the planning of those two lines. We also said we were going to start a planning process that would last 18 months to two years to define a route across the north of Metro to connect Pickering to Oakville. All those things have been going ahead exactly as was announced.

As to the Pickering-Oshawa section, the planning went ahead slightly faster than was anticipated. There was a great deal of co-operation from the municipalities and all those involved. That has been finalized. Tenders were received last Wednesday for the first contract. Either today or tomorrow, probably tomorrow morning, I expect I will be signing the award of that contract. Another contract is to be tendered later this month, and six or seven more are to be awarded during this fiscal year on the Pickering-Oshawa section. Everything is happening just as it was planned.

As to the other section, between Oakville and Hamilton, the section of the plan from Oakville to Highway 6 is in the same position now as the Pickering-Oshawa section. It would be in a position to go forward except that the section from Highway 6 into Hamilton has not yet been clarified as to which route is going to be used. Consultations are still going on. This matter is still before the council of the region of Hamilton-Wentworth and the council of the city of Hamilton. Further reports are going to that council in the next few days.

It is obvious we will not be able to start construction on the Oakville-Hamilton section this year. Consequently, we are not planning any expenditures for construction on that section. I hope the matters relating to Hamilton will be resolved in the next few weeks and we will be able to start planning for and working towards a start on that section a year from now.

In the meantime, planning is proceeding for the Pickering-Oakville link around the north of Metro during the two-year period, as we said it would two years ago.

Mr. Cunningham: Mr. Speaker, I notice the Toronto Star source seems to be absent from his seat in the House, and I hope he is still well after this cabinet battle, particularly in view of the budget tomorrow.

If the plans for the northern GO route are still proceeding, why have the public meetings for that route been cancelled?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of any public meetings that were cancelled.

PENSION REFORM

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. No doubt the minister has been reading about the deficiency in the pension fund at CCM as well as certain allegations about his ministry not being on top of that situation. There is also the broad policy issue, which happens to be the need for pension reform in the private sector in this province in a whole variety of areas such as vesting, locking in and all those matters.

In view of the fact that we have had two major reports, the select committee report and the Haley report, we are continually dragging our feet on this question, which in large measure is the minister's responsibility. Why has he not brought in reforms that would in large measure have prevented this situation?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, without in any sense trying to avoid the question, I hope the Leader of the Opposition is aware that pension policy is in the hands of the Treasurer (Mr. Grossman) as distinct from pension administration and regulation.

Having said that, I think the Treasurer has made his proposals clear. It is also clear from the record that he will be having meetings with his counterparts throughout the country very shortly to review the issues to see whether there can be some compatibility in the process.

Mr. Peterson: The administration of the current act is the minister's responsibility and some of his predecessors have been active in encouraging reforms in this province. Why was the ministry not on top of the contributions to the fund? That is now going to cost the guarantee fund millions of dollars to make up for a deficiency on the inspection side.

What has the minister done to inform himself of the regulatory capacity of his ministry? Why was he not on top of the situation? How much is it going to cost us to fund because of the inability of his ministry to enforce the rules?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: With the greatest of respect, and I do not mean that in the usual way said between fellow lawyers standing in a court because the Leader of the Opposition would know what that really means, I do not look on this as a regulatory failure.

The facts of the matter are that under the statute, under the regulations and under the practice of the commission, within six months of the previous calendar year, the commission receives a statement from the employer with respect to contributions he or she has made to a plan for his or her employees. An actuarial report is required every three years, and at that time it is ascertained whether the contributions made during the three-year interval meet the requirements of the particular pension fund and the benefits that have been scheduled.

That particular actuarial report had not been delivered, but the filings made by the company had been made. Whether or not they were adequate would have been a matter that would have been determined if the events that overtook the company had not occurred and the actuarial report had pointed out any deficiencies there were.

It is fair to say this province is fortunate with respect to the fact that it does have in place a guarantee fund to meet crises such as this, and it is because of it that the benefits which workers would have been entitled to up to three years prior to the termination or winding up of the plan will now be met as a result of the contributions from the pension guarantee fund.

Mr. Peterson: Would the minister not agree with me, when he looks at the specifics of this situation, that even though it is better than nothing, it is clearly inadequate and it speaks to legislative deficiencies and the inability of this House and the government to wrestle with the problems of pension reform? It is now too late in this situation, and many of those employees will have been denied what would have been their benefits in normal circumstances.

My question to the minister, again in broad terms, is: when is he, together with his colleagues, going to bring pension reform into this House so these kinds of situations do not have to happen? Are we going to drag our feet for ever? Surely it is a priority.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I have already indicated the Treasurer's timetable very clearly and he has indicated that publicly as well.

However, I might say that if one were to have some sort of trivia quiz, as some reporters are known to do in some of their columns, and one were to ask, "Which province in this country is the only one that has a guarantee fund in place?" would anybody know the answer? Manitobans might not know it, because they do not have one. The former Saskatchewan government, which has a well-known reputation, did not have one. The province of Quebec does not have one. The federal government does not have one.

There is one province in this country that has a guarantee fund to protect workers, and it is right here. Let the Leader of the Opposition take it from that who is concerned about protecting workers' interests, and the only conclusion he can draw is that this government is concerned.

But let me be fair with respect to part of his question. There is a need --

Hon. Mr. Davis: What is John Turner's view of this issue?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: The Premier does not know what the view would be today. Come back tomorrow and we will know the real view.

Mr. Ruston: What is Mulroney's view? He has nothing.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Back to the question.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I think there is a need to address the issue --

Hon. Mr. Davis: Boy, they are touchy over there.

Mr. Bradley: What is John Clement's view?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Their leader doesn't want to carry the can for them.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I think there is a need --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you very much.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I only wish the minister had been at the meeting I was at on Saturday and had given the same kind of answer in talking about how well workers are protected. There were a lot of workers there who were not protected, who have not been protected, and who are losing out as a result of a failure on the part of the Tory government in Ontario.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

2:20 p.m.

Mr. Rae: That is a fact.

Can the minister confirm that the actuarial report which was filed in 1978 with respect to CCM recommended that an unfunded liability of more than $1.8 million should be covered by annual past service payments of $214,000 and that these were not fully made?

Can the minister confirm that payments on the basis of current service, approximately 15 cents an hour worked, recommended in the 1978 valuation report, were not fully made? Can he confirm that amendments introduced under the 1980 collective agreement increased the total liabilities of the plan by more than $1.8 million and provided for an increase in the current service contribution to 26 cents an hour worked, and that these contributions were not fully made?

Can he confirm those three basic facts? Can he also tell us exactly what the commission was doing between 1978 and 1982 to ensure that contributions were made in order to protect the savings of the workers at that firm?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, when the actuarial report was received with respect to the prior three years in 1979, the deficiency there was noted, the requirement was made that an amount be paid into the fund and it was done. As I have indicated fully, from that point on, the role of the commission was to make certain there were filings and the contributions were made, and the adequacy of those filings and the amounts deposited would be matters that would be determined when the regular triannual actuarial report was received.

Let me be very clear. It is my determination that it is not satisfactory. We do need to go further than this. We do need to have a process whereby individual employees and/or their unions are advised on a more regular basis about the facts with respect to the contributions and whether or not they meet the requirements of the plan.

Having said that, I do not think any one of us relishes the fact that workers at CCM have suffered a hardship as a result of this; we all understand that. The only point I am trying to make is that it is fortunate we do have in place a guarantee fund that provided the benefit protection the fund was intended to provide.

I tell the member quite frankly, as we now look back in retrospect, even if the amounts that should have been forthcoming had been made they still would not have met the requirements that were necessary and there still would have had to be a substantial payment from the guarantee fund. The net result is that the guarantee fund moved in to provide a level of protection that certainly cannot be satisfactory to everyone but that indicated there was a process in place that certainly helps workers to some degree.

Mr. Rae: If the minister is saying that even if CCM had made the contributions the plan would still have been underfunded, and that is what I have just heard him say, can he tell us how many other companies whose plans are now on file with the Pension Commission of Ontario are in a similar position?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Let us first understand that a significant number of new benefits were added in the 1978-79 bargaining period, and the member will know from his experience in the world of accounting and finance that a 15-year period is required for funding. Until that 15-year period is reached, certainly there will be underfunding; until that 15-year period has elapsed -- which, by the way, is exactly half the funding requirement time in the United States, for example -- then a particular benefit that is negotiated will be underfunded. That is a fact in all pension plans.

Mr. Peterson: Given that the minister is right and that under current pension benefits legislation there is that 15-year period to make up deficiencies or underfunding, as he says, and this is the way it has worked in the past, one of the realities is that if there is no enforcement of the contributions in, if one does not take the view that those are deferred wages and the employees have the right to obtain them, then one can run into the kind of situation we had with CCM.

Would the minister not agree we need tougher enforcement to make sure those funds are actually paid in? This comes directly under his ministry. Is the minister prepared to take the leadership in discussions with the Treasurer (Mr. Grossman), who is responsible for pension reform in general, and say we need to beef up the enforcement to make sure each company that contracts with a group of employees lives up to its side of the bargain?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: The member raised this in an earlier question and I was about to comment on it when the Speaker cut me off. I think he does have a valid point, and we are looking at issues that might provide workers and their unions with greater information about the timeliness of funding to contributions to the plan. We have been looking at that for some weeks. I would not think there is a need to wait for that as part of the broader reform package.

Mr. Rae: There are still a lot of unanswered questions that we simply have to get at about what happened between the pension commission and CCM between 1978 and 1982 in terms of correspondence and enforcement.

How does the minister justify the three-year holiday, the three-year gap in the pension guarantee fund? I would remind the minister of what this shortfall means to the workers at CCM. One man who retired in early 1982 will have his annual pension of about $4,500 cut by $900. A 69-year-old's annual pension will be reduced by nearly $1,600, from $6,200 to $4,600. Another worker, who was 43 years of age when he left the company in 1972, was supposed to have an annual pension of nearly $1,100 when he reached 65 years of age; now he will get about $425 a year.

There are literally dozens of other workers, and the minister will be aware of this, whom I met on Saturday who are not going to be getting any pension at all because of the vesting requirements in the law, specifically with respect to the pension guarantee fund. What justification can there be for this three-year gap? There is no three-year gap for protection for depositors in trust companies, banks or credit unions and there is no three-year gap with respect to the travel fund.

Why is there a three-year gap when it comes to the deferred wages of workers and the savings of workers, when the difference for individual workers between what they would have had in 1982 and what they end up getting now because of this three-year holiday is hundreds and thousands of dollars a year in many cases? What justification can there be for that gap?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I hope you will be patient for a moment, Mr. Speaker, because there are two fundamental questions that have to be addressed here.

First, had there been no pension guarantee fund, virtually the only workers who would have received pensions, even assuming the contributions had been up to date, would have been those who were already on retirement. As a result of the intervention and the payment of a large sum of money from the guarantee fund, those workers received a protection -- admittedly a reduced protection. Their bridging benefits received some protection and workers who are going to suffer hardship as a result of being laid off will receive a degree of protection.

True, those who have had under 10 years' service will not receive protection, but those who have had 10 years' service and are under 45 years of age, and therefore not vested, will also receive some degree of protection. I know that is not enough to answer the needs they have. I understand that. I am only pointing out the fact that without the guarantee fund things would have been worse.

Second -- and this was debated extensively in the House -- the main point of the member's question had to do with what one might call a cliff or a cutoff point. The member and I know, and trade unionists I have spoken to acknowledge, that there might well be a tendency on the part of parties negotiating to sacrifice wages for pension benefits in the event the company did not survive.

We had lengthy discussions with our counterparts in the United States where there is a similar cutoff period. It was agreed, following debate in this House, that it was a most appropriate measure, so it was passed after full discussion and debate.

What that three-year cliff really means is that if a specific pension benefit is negotiated prior to that three-year period then it is protected to the level that it is funded by that time, but as the escalation occurs afterwards it is not protected. There has to be some sort of a process such as that, and it was determined that was the most appropriate one.

Mr. Rae: If the minister is suggesting that workers anticipating a bankruptcy are going to try to make some kind of an arrangement for their pensions because they know they are guaranteed, that is the most outrageous example of blaming the victim I have ever heard from this government. It is the most unlikely scenario one can imagine.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Rae: Can the minister confirm there are 200 annual returns, out of 8,745 plans registered that were supposed to have been made to the pension commission as of December 1983, that have not been made? Can he confirm that figure?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I do not have those figures with me.

2:30 p.m.

Mr. Rae: If the pension commission is going to be releasing, under the minister's name, a report that says the pension commission kept close watch over Ontario's registered pension plans last year, surely the workers in those 200 companies which have failed to file a return are entitled to know what is happening and what their protection is. What is the pension commission planning to do about those delinquent returns?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I have already responded to the leader of the third party and to the Leader of the Opposition in great detail outlining the present process with respect to annual filings. Deficiencies are determined when the actuary reviews them on a triennial basis.

I have determined that is not satisfactory. We have to move towards some more frequent process of evaluating the sufficiency of the contribution and towards a process which advises employees and/or their unions on a more regular, and shorter, basis than that. We have been working on it for some time and hope to proceed with it in the near future.

Mr. Rae: I hope the minister will undertake to table a list of those companies as soon as possible.

How would the minister feel if he were a CCM worker and he read in his Financial Times on Friday that when Jack Gallagher resigned as the chief executive officer of Dome Petroleum the company paid $3 million into a trust company to establish an employee benefit plan; Bell Canada set aside nearly $300,000 as a future retirement allowance for its chairman and president; the former chairman and chief executive officer of Falconbridge Nickel Mines received $125,000 as a retirement allowance in 1983 and H.C. Hatch, Sr., of Hiram Walker Resources received pension benefits of $190,000 in 1983?

How would the minister feel if he were reading that and saw there are really two Ontarios and two Canadas -- an Ontario and a Canada where the average worker gets stuck every time with the cost of change, yet somebody such as Jack Gallagher manages to get $3 million set aside for himself for the genius of his financial creativity over the past 10 years?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I would not be prepared to get into a discussion of the justification of its merits. There is no one in this House who is satisfied with what happened to the CCM workers. I am saying we have endeavoured through the guarantee fund to provide a greater level of protection than has any other province.

That may not be enough and there may be, as I have said, a need for more frequent information being given to workers and/or their unions about the sufficiency of the funding levels, but I do not think in Ontario we should apologize because we have a guarantee fund in place. I do not want to comment on the merits or demerits of pensions others receive.

HAMILTON GO-ALRT

Mr. Cunningham: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transportation and Communications relating to the choice of the York Boulevard alignment for the new government of Ontario advanced light rail transit program. The minister will know by now this proposal will require the expropriation and demolition of 50 houses in the community, the disruption of a neighbourhood cemetery, as well as a great deal of dislocation on York Boulevard. He will also know there are at least 4,500 to 5,000 people in the area who have signed petitions opposing this.

Given all of this, and given that the Toronto, Hamilton and Buffalo railway right of way would take people right downtown and perhaps would be cheaper, is the minister prepared to indicate he will re-evaluate his decision to locate this along the York Boulevard route and consider a more practical and cheaper alternative along the T, H and B right of way?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I am not about to make any changes in course at this time because we are still in the planning process. The technical advisory committee that evaluated all the possible routes into Hamilton recommended the York Boulevard route. This committee is made up of about 10 engineers and planners, eight of whom are representatives of the region of Hamilton-Wentworth and the city of Hamilton and only two of whom are representatives of my ministry.

The recommendation for the use of the York Boulevard route is a recommendation of the majority of the committee, of whom eight out of 10 are from the city of Hamilton. That recommendation is before the municipal council and the regional council and I will await their decision on the recommendation.

Mr. Cunningham: Would the minister not agree the choice of the T, H and B alignment would allow for a more readily expandable opportunity in the eastern direction towards Stoney Creek? Moreover, will he confirm that more recently threats have been made to people living in the local community that they take the York Boulevard alternative or they get nothing?

Is the minister in a position today to tell us those threats are not consistent with fact and have not been made? Is the minister aware of this?

Hon. Mr. Snow: All I can say is they certainly have not been made by me or by anyone representing me. I cannot suggest what threats the member might have made to the people of Hamilton.

Mr. Allen: Mr. Speaker, the minister is aware that there has been quite an extensive sounding of local community concern on this question and that the people most immediately affected have expressed their anxiety about the route which now seems to be surfacing once more.

Will the minister ensure that when these ventures are undertaken in future people will be consulted beforehand and not after the decision? Will he also undertake to trust the local community to look closely at what obviously have not been well-examined alternative routes, especially the T, H and B route? In every explanation of that option, I have not seen any substantial evidence that the local committees have really pressed the issue of serious investigation of that alternative.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the serious investigation the honourable member is referring to that the local community should do. To start with, I would like to take issue with the first part of his statement, before he got into a question, with regard to the public participation process and his suggestion that public participation take place before the decision.

I would like to ask the member what the devil he thinks is going on now. No decision has been made. Certain studies have taken place and certain recommendations have come forward. However, no decision has taken place and many public meetings with a great deal of public participation have gone on, are going on and will continue to go on regardless of what the member says and regardless of how he tries to mislead the people of Hamilton.

Interjections.

An hon. member: He did not say, "in the House." He said, "mislead the people of Hamilton."

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think the minister --

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, you will do the honours.

Mr. Peterson: You can mislead an entire population, but not a the member of this House.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I know what he said and I heard it quite clearly. I think the minister would like to reword the answer or withdraw the offensive word.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, what I am interested in is that the people of Hamilton have the full information and the truth.

Mr. Speaker: Right; we all are.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I did not accuse the member of misleading anyone in this House, but I believe he has misled the people of Hamilton. If that is wrong and I cannot say it, I withdraw it.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you very much.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE REVIEW BOARD

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services. Last October, I raised questions in the House about delays of rulings of the Social Assistance Review Board and about the fact 70 per cent of its cases were being heard later than was provided for in the regulations. The regulations state, "Forty days following the sending of a notice of appeal there shall be a ruling."

Can the minister state why the case of Waruna Hoelke has not yet been heard? This is a learning disability case I took before the board in February, which is now 91 days and counting from the notice of hearing. It has caused his parents to take him out of Pine Ridge school in the United States because they cannot afford to keep him there any longer until they hear the ruling.

Why does it take so long to get rulings from that board when one can get a ruling on an appeal from the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission in days? Even the Ontario Labour Relations Board never takes more than a few weeks for the most complicated of cases? Why does the Social Assistance Review Board take so damned long to bring forward rulings for the poorest in our society, those who need the most help and have the most urgent need?

2:40 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, on the whole I think the Social Assistance Review Board does an excellent job, particularly in the area of handling appeals from the learning disabled. That is not really in my ministry but concerns appeals for the Ministry of Education. I will report back to the House tomorrow if the member will send over the name of the case.

I would remind the House that the Social Assistance Review Board is an independent board and does not consult with the minister, but I will find out what the difficulty is. The second thing I would like are the details of the withdrawal from the particular school in the United States.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: In the autumn of 1981, for the first time I know of, the SARB study group brought this problem of the length of time to the minister's attention. It was 60 days after we had the appeal that Mrs. Hoelke received a letter saying the group had reached a decision and was sending it off to the board's legal counsel and we would hear by May 7. It is now May 14 and we have not heard.

Why are so many of these cases going to legal counsel? How much money is being paid to Mr. Fulton and his friends to hold up the decisions? The last two weeks of his fee, which I understand may as high as $1,000 a day, would have paid for this kid going to school for an entire year. Why are lawyers making a bonanza out of SARB delays while the poor wait?

Hon. Mr. Drea: I do not know the economic circumstances of the family nor do I want to. On that type of appeal, it does not necessarily have to be a poor family. It is based upon the --

Mr. R. F. Johnston: The wealthy keep sending their kids, but the poor cannot.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Behave yourself, will you?

Mr. Speaker: Back to the question, please.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Does the member have the little thing with the red light on the end of it aiming out to get the right tone of voice?

Mr. Speaker: Back to the question, please.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I have to defend such a renowned solicitor as Mr. Harold Fulton in this House.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: How much is the minister paying him?

Hon. Mr. Drea: I do take exception to the allegation that Mr. Fulton is paid to block decisions. The Social Assistance Review Board is an independent board. It operates by statute at arm's length from the minister.

I have already told the member I will find out the details of this case. On many of the appeals for children and adolescents who have learning disabilities, the very nature of the appeal is that the local board of education, either the public board or the separate school board, has maintained it can provide --

Mr. R. F. Johnston: We will come back to that.

Hon. Mr. Drea: I think I would if my campaign chairman were the head of the board of education.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Drea: The simple fact of the matter is that when a board of education says it can provide special education, there is no vehicle by which public money can be spent to send the child to another jurisdiction. Quite often the legal decisions are based upon the fact that the board says it can provide special education, but expert evidence or witnesses have been brought forward by the plaintiff or by the appellant saying it cannot be provided.

The legal opinion is to ensure that the decision, if it is in favour of the appellant, will not be overturned and, by the same token, if it is against the appellant, because these are very substantial matters involving young people, that it is correct legally. Tomorrow I will give the member the reasons for the delay. Quite often the delay is caused by the fact that the evidence simply is not in. It is a very delicate type of proceeding and no one wants to make a decision until it is in.

Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that by September 1985, when Bill 82 takes over this situation, the minister's vocational rehabilitation branch will no longer deal with such children. I stand to be corrected if that is not the case. Are any guidelines being given to the board suggesting it does not take on any new cases because of the impending change approximately a year from now, or is it still totally free to make whatever decision it feels is appropriate at this time?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, to the best of my knowledge any appeals would still be heard. I think what has to be taken into account is that a particular type of education may have been provided over a period of time, but they do have to come back every year. I think it would be most unfair to say it was a three-year type of thing that ended after two years because of the full implementation of Bill 82. I would think they would not want to entertain a placement that would start after Bill 82, but I cannot see any reason why they would want to do anything now and I have not heard anything about it.

I would also point out to the honourable member that my own ministry and the Ministry of Education have been working closely on these matters. It is not just a question of the vocational rehabilitation branch. It goes far beyond that.

ELECTRICAL WORKERS' DISPUTE

Mr. Hennessy: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the Minister of Labour. Last Saturday I had three gentlemen from the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 1788, in my office in Thunder Bay regarding the Hydro strike at Atikokan. There was a lengthy discussion in which they showed concern.

I would like to suggest that something be done immediately to get the union and management back together at the bargaining table. I feel a strike of any length of time will prove a financial problem for the workers, their families and the local economy. I ask the minister to use his good offices to get both parties back together at the bargaining table.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, the member for Fort William (Mr. Hennessy) has written to me in respect to this matter. Atikokan is affected, as are Bruce, Darlington, Pickering and Lakeview, with the electrical workers going on strike last week. There are 24 workers involved at Atikokan out of a total of 1,072. Most of the workers involved are at Bruce where there are 534; there are 200 at Darlington, 120 at Pickering and eight at Lakeview.

Each work stoppage is unique in itself. Our mediators feel with some work stoppages it is prudent to get the parties back to the table immediately. With other work stoppages they feel it is wise to let the parties cool off a bit before they bring them back. Our senior people are involved in the mediation exercises with Hydro and the electrical workers, and I am confident that they will be able to get them back to the table in the near future.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, will the minister convey to the various parties that the cost of not resolving this situation could be very severe, up into the $3.5-million-a-day range, if the power plants have to be taken out. That would obviously have an impact on everyone concerned. Will the minister use his good offices to convey that the price in this matter will be spread widely over the province and potentially have a huge impact on the consumer? Will he use that point of view and argument to persuade people, hopefully, to come to an early resolution.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, my officials and I are well aware of the circumstances and the possible repercussions of this work stoppage. I want to assure the Leader of the official opposition that everything is being done that can be done at the present time in the form of mediation and conciliation services.

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, as the minister knows from when we raised this last week, at least part of the reason is the restraint legislation that now has workers doing the same job at two different rates, one being $1 an hour less, on the site. Does the minister not know that $1.8 million would resolve this totally? That may be an awful lot cheaper than what we may face if the situation is not resolved shortly.

2:50 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, it is not my responsibility to negotiate the settlement or to suggest to the parties what they should offer or what they should accept; that is part of the collective bargaining system, as the honourable member knows full well. He has been involved probably more than any other member in this Legislature over the years in collective bargaining.

VETERINARY DIAGNOSTIC SERVICES

Mr. McGuigan: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Agriculture and Food. In response to my question of May 8, to which he gave me the answer last Thursday, the minister said there has been no policy change in respect to the release of pure cultures of pathogenic bacteria.

Dr. Manson of Charing Cross says this information is not factual. In the case I referred to, in which the farmer lost $12,000 because the laboratory failed to release the cultures, the veterinary first asked that the cultures be released on February 20 and asked for them several times subsequent to that, but they were not released until seven weeks later, April 9, when he called Dr. Henry in Guelph.

Is the minister aware that Dr. Henry of the ministry's veterinary services lab, as reported in the Globe and Mail on April 20, 1984, stated there were three reasons for the policy change? One was to transfer services to the private sector, the second was to relieve personnel in the light of restraint policies and the third was to protect the ministry from legal liability.

Will the minister admit there has been a policy change, as outlined in Extension Notes For Veterinarians of February 1984, number 291? They state: "The following services will no longer be offered: rat pregnancy tests, bubonic pregnancy tests, bacterin production" -- and that is the one we are talking about -- "and wart vaccine production." That extension note has a footnote on it that says, "Not to be published."

Will the minister admit there has been a change, according to that note?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I will take another look at it. With respect to the release of cultures, my information from staff was that this is a long-standing policy. The fact that one veterinarian at Charing Cross says the ministry is wrong does not necessarily mean the ministry is wrong. But I will take into consideration the information the honourable member has provided today and take another look at it.

Mr. McGuigan: Will the minister look at the fact that Dr. Manson says that even at the present moment, if the farmer puts pressure on the veterinary services lab it will pass on the bacterin to the private lab, but it will not do it for the veterinarian? This would be equivalent to a provincial medical lab responding to the patient but not to the medical doctor.

Will the minister examine his own statement of Thursday, in which he points out that the private lab was unable to culture the positive organism? I think this is a situation in which the defence has made the case for the prosecutor. The minister himself pointed out the heart of the problem. The private lab cannot do the job, and the ministry lab's refusal to pass on the work prevents the veterinaries from carrying out the corrective methods in a timely manner.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Certainly, I will be glad to consider all of that. I pointed out last Thursday that the main purpose, of course, for the provincial veterinary laboratories is diagnostic work. The information I presented to the member last Thursday was that which had been provided to me by senior staff of the ministry after the member had asked his initial question. I will certainly go back to those people and take another look at it.

MALVERN SOIL CONTAMINATION

Mr. Charlton: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy. The minister is no doubt aware of the problem of the radioactively contaminated soil in the Malvern survey on McClure Crescent. He should also be aware that a proposal was made last fall by the Atomic Energy Control Board and the government House leader, who is the member for the riding, to move the soil to a provincially owned site in Scarborough, and that today a residents' association is commencing a court case to oppose that removal to the government-owned site.

Can the minister tell us here in the House why his ministry and Ontario Hydro have so adamantly opposed moving that radioactive soil to one of the nuclear sites in this province where radioactive wastes are being stored already?

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware that the ministry has opposed the movement of this material to any particular site. Discussions have taken place among the municipality, this government and Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd., which has control and jurisdiction over the disposal of nuclear wastes.

Mr. Charlton: If his ministry has not opposed the removal of the soil to one of the Ontario Hydro nuclear sites, perhaps the minister could tell us whether or not he is prepared to make an offer to the Atomic Energy Control Board and the government House leader to allow the soil to be moved to one of the Hydro sites. The court case, which commences today, may very well again delay the removal of that soil from McClure Crescent and may again put the residents of McClure Crescent in a situation where they have to go through another year and a half or two years of struggle to try to get that soil removed.

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: I assume the government will attempt to expedite the removal of that soil in the best possible way to the safest possible location. I am not aware of any approaches made to Ontario Hydro by either the Atomic Energy Control Board or Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. about the storage of that soil on any Hydro site.

LEARNING DISABILITIES

Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Minister of Education dealing with a particular learning disability often referred to as an attentional deficit. Is the minister aware of the activities of a group of parents in Guelph, which has now extended to Kitchener, known as Circle H? Their activities are directed specifically to their concern about the lack of particular attention given to that learning disability. Is the minister also aware that a number of American jurisdictions have now recognized it as a specific learning disability and are dealing with it in a unique way?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, the actions of the Circle H group were drawn to my attention earlier today by the member for Kitchener-Wilmot (Mr. Sweeney) from articles from newspapers in his area. I have been aware of this disability for much longer than this member since I was a practising family physician for more than 30 years, and hyperactivity was certainly one of the major problems we had with small children. It is a matter we have been dealing with in a number of ways, both medically and pedagogically, with limited success in some cases but with very good success in other cases.

There are a number of ways of dealing with this matter, some of which are being addressed by certain programs I am aware of in the United States, which are somewhat different or very specifically and narrowly directed and which, for some children, seem to be particularly beneficial.

One of our philosophies related to the matter of dealing with learning disabilities is not to exclude any means that could provide an appropriate solution to the problems of the children involved. I do not intend to narrow the focus of the pedagogical pursuits of teachers of special education in this province by suggesting that only one route would be the appropriate one. We will certainly look at that route and incorporate it where it would seem to be beneficial, and where portions of it would seem to be beneficial if not all of it is.

3 p.m.

Mr. Sweeney: The minister will also be aware from the information I sent her that more than 200 parents in my community have expressed concern that the way in which their children's disability is being dealt with at present is not satisfactory. She will be aware that within her own guidelines such designations as communications, behavioural, etc., are specifically identified, but when they are applied to this group of children the response and the teaching techniques are simply not appropriate.

Will the minister give these parents some assurance that she will look at this type of learning disability a little more carefully? Only the minister with her staff could confirm this, but they have told me that as many as 80 per cent of the children who have a learning disability could have this one. If it is partially a medical problem, because as I understand it the neurotransmitters in the brain are affected, just dealing with it as a communications or behavioural problem simply is not sufficient.

This is the basis of my question: these parents really are looking for the minister to reconsider that in this case a particular designation and approach to dealing with the problem might have to be enforced in Ontario, as it has been in other jurisdictions.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Since attentional deficit dysfunction is a component of many of the problems faced by children with specific or nonspecific learning disabilities, one questions whether one would need to add a special diagnosis particularly for this.

From my reading of the articles that were sent to me by the honourable member, I perceived that many of those parents were saying the problem was not only within the educational program but also at home for very many of them. The problem at home can be very severe for parents who have little guidance in the means of dealing with the difficulties of a very hyperactive child.

It is not a matter that should be dealt with only by the school system, as the member has suggested. Indeed, it is a medical diagnosis in most circumstances and needs to be dealt with in that way first with the co-operation of the special education teachers within the school system who can provide the appropriate kind of direction for many of these children.

Most certainly this is being looked at, there is no doubt about that; but I am not about to commit myself to adding ADD as a very specific kind of label for children. We have done everything possible within the amendment to the Education Act, which is better known as Bill 82, to remove the tendency to label children within the school system. That label is a bad enough one, and most of them get it before they ever get to school.

INSPECTION OF NURSING HOMES

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health regarding Rest Haven Nursing Home in St. Thomas.

I first wrote to the Ministry of Health on this matter back in February 1983. I wrote a follow-up letter in March 1983 and phoned the inspection branch out of London for a third time. Each time the Ministry of Health went in there and inspected Rest Haven Nursing Home, it indicated the problems were not significant until the last inspection after my phone call where they indicated there were some problems with cleanliness but nothing terribly significant.

My question deals with the annual inspection which was carried out on January 4 and 5, 1984, when the nursing home inspection branch found 113 violations of the Nursing Homes Act. How does the minister expect any of us to have any kind of confidence in his nursing home inspection branch when for two years it has gone in there on complaints that have been specifically about uncleanliness and food and those are now the subject of the 113 major violations under the nursing home inspection branch?

Why does it take two years to identify what one of the relatives of one of the residents in that home has been telling us and his ministry have been occurring now for two years? Why are there no charges against this nursing home when obviously it is flouting the law?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, as I look at the clock once again, unfortunately I do not think I am going to have time to give a full and complete response to this question.

Mr. Foulds: Give it a shot.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I am not sure why the honourable member always waits until the very last minute of question period before raising questions that sound as serious as the one he has raised.

Mr. Foulds: Try for a short answer.

Mr. McClellan: Try answering instead of all of this smart-aleck stuff.

Mr. Speaker: Back to the question, please.

Hon. Mr. Norton: The member is well aware that I have taken significant steps to increase the enforcement capacity of the inspection branch of the ministry, including the secondment of a full-time crown prosecutor from the Ministry of the Attorney General to head up the prosecution of any offences.

I am sure the member at least will be willing to acknowledge that a careful review of the list of the infractions he is referring to will show they are of varying magnitude. In fact, some of them are of the nature that could well have arisen since previous inspection.

I have no reason to believe the staff in the inspection branch was in any way negligent in the earlier annual inspections, but I assure the member I will review in detail the inspection report and the nature of the infractions and report to him more fully on that question.

PETITIONS

EQUAL PAY FOR WORK OF EQUAL VALUE

Mr. Kolyn: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the members representing the constituencies of Brampton, Eglinton, York East and Kenora, I table the following petition:

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

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

"Whereas women in Ontario still earn only 60 per cent of the wages of men; whereas women are still concentrated in a very small number of occupations; and whereas unanimous approval of the concept of equal pay for work of equal value was expressed in the Ontario Legislature in October 1983,

"We petition the Ontario Legislature to amend Bill 141 to include equal pay for work of equal value and to introduce mandatory affirmative action."

Mr. Worton: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition as follows:

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

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

"We petition the Ontario Legislature to amend Bill 141 to include equal pay for work of equal value and to introduce mandatory affirmative action."

This petition is signed by a constituent in Wellington South.

INDEPENDENT SCHOOLS

Mr. McNeil: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table the following petition:

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

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

"We, the undersigned electors and residents of Elgin county and supporters of the St. Thomas Ebenezer Christian School society, respectfully petition for your support to redress a serious injustice in current educational policy and practice. The facts are simple.

"In the past five years alone, parents who send their children to independent schools have contributed $1 billion for education in Ontario without receiving a cent for the education of their own children. In fact, they have had to bear a double burden through fees and contributions to their own independent schools.

"Furthermore, in a democratic and multicultural society, parents should have the right to send their children to schools of choice without a financial penalty. This is recognized partially in the case of Catholic families and with minor exceptions fully in the case of Franco-Ontarians. It should apply equally to all. Five provinces have now recognized the principle at least partially. When is Ontario going to do the same?"

This petition is signed by 131 people.

GAS BILLING

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by a number of residents in the Woodstock and Brantford areas. It reads as follows:

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

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

"That the Ontario Energy Board have Union Gas Ltd. stop its $6.25 monthly fixed charge, which we consider an unfair way of collecting revenue. We would like it replaced with a minimum monthly charge such as the London Public Utilities Commission has for water, which is also piped to a meter. We would also like our monthly bills itemized."

Perhaps I will leave this with Mr. Speaker. He may want to talk to his former colleague who is now with Union Gas.

3:10 p.m.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

LAND REGISTRATION REFORM ACT

Hon. Mr. Elgie moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Gregory, first reading of Bill 66, An Act respecting Conveyancing Documents and Procedures and the Recording of Title to Real Property.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to reintroduce for first reading today the Land Registration Reform Act, 1984, a piece of legislation first introduced in December 1983, before the Legislature prorogued.

As you are aware, my ministry has been concerned with updating one of Ontario's oldest institutions, its land registration system. This legislation will authorize many of the proposals contained in the Ontario Law Reform Commission report which called for automation of the land registration system.

The Land Registration Reform Act provides for the computerization of record-keeping and property mapping and for the use of shorter, standardized documents for land transactions. A prototype automated office has already been established in Oxford county in the city of Woodstock. When the system has been proven, through monitoring and modification if necessary, it will be gradually introduced in all registration offices across the province.

Passage of this legislation will simplify the operation of the land registration system and reduce work load and delays for both staff and clients.

MILK AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Timbrell moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Pope, first reading of Bill 67, An Act to amend the Milk Act.

Motion agreed to.

GRAIN CORN MARKETING ACT

Hon. Mr. Timbrell moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Pope, first reading of Bill 68, An Act respecting the Marketing of Grain Corn.

Motion agreed to.

LIVE STOCK AND LIVE STOCK PRODUCTS AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Timbrell moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Pope, first reading of Bill 69, An Act to amend the Live Stock and Live Stock Products Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I would like to offer a few brief comments on the three pieces of legislation I have introduced.

The proposed Grain Corn Marketing Act provides for a compulsory refundable checkoff for producers of grain corn. The resulting funds will be used to help finance the activities of the Ontario Corn Producers' Association to advance the production and the marketing of grain corn.

The second bill I want to mention is of a housekeeping nature. The Milk Amendment Act would expand the power of the Milk Commission of Ontario to make regulations with the approval of cabinet and would enable all regulations made to milk products to be made under the Milk Act.

The third bill relates to the administration of the beef cattle financial protection plan. The main purpose of the Live Stock and Live Stock Products Amendment Act is to permit the director of the livestock inspection branch to impose terms and conditions on the licence of a dealer in livestock and livestock products to better protect producers who sell to these dealers.

I am introducing this legislation in the hope of accomplishing these aims as expeditiously as possible.

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Martel moved, seconded by Mr. Foulds, first reading of Bill 70, An Act to amend the Education Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to authorize the apportionment of school rates between public and separate schools in the case of a mixed marriage where the husband and wife own or lease rateable property jointly.

I was hoping the minister would introduce this.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

House in committee of supply:

ESTIMATES, OFFICE OF THE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, I have a very lengthy opening statement. I assume that, as is our custom, we will deal with the estimates of the Office of the Lieutenant Governor, the controversial item, and then move on to the Office of the Premier.

Although it has only been five months since these estimates were approved with enthusiasm by the members of the House, I would like once again to take this opportunity to express, on behalf of the government, my sincere best wishes to the Lieutenant Governor and my thanks to him and Mrs. Aird for the excellent way in which they have conducted their responsibilities.

Because there was some modest notice in the press related to increases in the estimates of the Office of the Lieutenant Governor, I should point out there was an increase this year primarily related to bicentennial activities. The Lieutenant Governor takes justifiable pride in the efficiency with which his office is administered.

It is of note that in 1983 the number of guests received in the Lieutenant Governor's suite was some 18,000. That was up 80 per cent from the number in 1981. I know many members of the opposition have been with His Honour when he visited their communities. I am sure there is a very genuine feeling throughout this province as to how the Lieutenant Governor conducts his responsibilities with dignity and with a real appreciation of the importance of the office of the Lieutenant Governor.

Without adding many other descriptive terms I might use, I very simply extend to him and Mrs. Aird my appreciation and that of the government for the excellent way in which he conducts himself as Lieutenant Governor of this province.

3:20 p.m.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Chairman, I will join in the flattering remarks of the Premier (Mr. Davis) towards the Lieutenant Governor. My colleagues and I hold him in equally high regard.

With respect to any increases in his budget pertaining to bicentennial duties, I do not blame the Lieutenant Governor for them at all; it was the Premier who created the bicentennial this year and I do not want to hold the Lieutenant Governor out as an unwitting victim of the Premier's plans in that regard.

Interjections.

Mr. Peterson: Would you keep a little order in the House, Mr. Chairman?

I have had the pleasant experience of attending with the Lieutenant Governor on many occasions. I have never seen him anything but completely charming, completely kind and completely himself, which is, of course, as someone who is filled with grace, charm and intelligence. I can think of no person who could represent Her Majesty better in this province. He is certainly unstinting in his devotion to his duties and I think all members in this great province are well served not only by His Honour but by Mrs. Aird as well.

Therefore, I am very happy to join in the magnanimous praise that I am sure will be forthcoming from all corners of this House. I think he needs the budget he has; it is money extremely well spent by the taxpayers of this province. I want to congratulate the federal government again on this magnificent appointment it has made as Her Majesty's representative in Ontario.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Chairman, I am happy to join in this lovefest. I did not know the Lieutenant Governor before my election as leader of the New Democratic Party in this province, but I am delighted to say that I have come to know him rather well since that time.

Mr. Elston: The one bright spot in the member's career.

Mr. Rae: That is right. I would say it is one of the nicer things that has happened to me.

The Lieutenant Governor has performed a difficult job with a tremendous amount of dignity. I would like to recount an occasion on which I attended with the Lieutenant Governor. There were not a lot of people there, not a lot of press there. It was a special event that he himself sponsored at Variety Village, an athletic day, the Annual Lieutenant Governor's Games for Handicapped Children.

The Lieutenant Governor was in a great deal of pain with his back, as he is from time to time. He spent the entire day with the kids, with the families, with the parents. It was not something for which he would get a great deal of public credit, but it was something he obviously felt very deeply about himself, and as somebody who has been involved in that particular charity I want to pay tribute to the Lieutenant Governor for handling himself with that kind of feeling.

We were all moved, I know, when the Lieutenant Governor completed his speech from the throne. If I may say so, one of the few things in the speech from the throne -- I think the only thing -- that came close to moving me was at the very end, when he used sign language to convey the end of the speech.

As members know, he has spent a great deal of time working with the deaf. He has taken it on as a special interest and it is really marvellous that the Lieutenant Governor has taken the time, spending a certain number of hours every week trying to learn this language and now obviously coming close to mastering it after a couple of years.

He has made it a special project and is taking the time to do it without a great deal of public fanfare and without anybody paying an enormous amount of press attention but because he felt it was something he could do as a Lieutenant Governor to focus attention on a group of people he felt were being ignored by society.

This is an indication of the kind of person we have in that office. We are very lucky we have him. Whenever I meet with the Lieutenant Governor, first of all he knows who I am, which is always refreshing; he is one of the select 25 per cent. He is somebody of great political wisdom, and in private conversation he is of tremendous frankness with respect to the political situation among all three parties. He is somebody on whose advice I rely in many respects.

Mr. T. P. Reid: The member cannot blame him for that.

Mr. Rae: I will take everybody in.

He deserves a great deal of credit for the distinction and the manner in which he has conducted himself. I am certain we want to suggest the amount of money allocated for him is satisfactory to us. If he wants more, we would even be prepared to consider that. I am sure the Premier would as well.

I also want to congratulate Mrs. Aird, who has always handled her responsibilities with great dignity and with tremendous attention to the people she meets. She has to meet hundreds, indeed thousands, of people every week and she always takes the time to listen to and learn from those people.

We can be really proud we have had a Lieutenant Governor who has gone all over the province. He accompanied my colleague the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Stokes) up to the very far reaches of northern Ontario. He has been to places where no Lieutenant Governor has been before and has always handled himself with great dignity. It is important we have in this assembly a representative of the Queen of whom all of us can be very proud and of whom Her Majesty can be proud as well.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Chairman, I have my annual hobby-horse; it is not just television, as Mr. Hoy might say.

A number of years ago when we had the select committee on the fourth and fifth reports of the Ontario Commission on the Legislature, I was one of those who came to the conclusion that the Lieutenant Governor should have a residence, as is the case in most provinces in Canada. Not that we eye his quarters with envy and hope we might get a chunk of them --

Mr. T. P. Reid: That is part of your motivation.

Mr. Martel: That was not part of the motivation at all. I do think it is time. I have been to a number of the Canadian Parliamentary Association meetings. It seems to me when we go to other provinces and the Lieutenant Governor hosts something for all the parliamentarians across this country, or for the many other functions he does host, he should have appropriate facilities to do so.

I know why we lost the official residence of the former Lieutenant Governor. I think it was Turnip George who thought it did not belong in this province.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: It was Mitch Hepburn.

Mr. Martel: It was Hepburn. He sold it.

Mr. Nixon: He used it as a hospital for veterans.

Mr. Martel: Yes, he cut out everything, including cars. I do not know how leaders take cars after his big cutting edge went on and cut out everything.

I say to the Premier I think it is time that matter be taken up seriously. Here is the largest province in numbers and in wealth --

Mr. Peterson: Is the member trying to sell him a house?

Mr. Martel: No, I do not want to sell him a house, or even get a commission on it.

I suggest it would be rather more appropriate. If one looks at the number of functions he hosts, it would be rather nice in the summer to do some of those in a garden, giving him some flexibility, rather than the facilities here. I hope an office would remain so he could file papers and so on, and do the functions he has to do. I sincerely mean it when I say it is time we had an official residence, as they do in most provinces and as they do in Ottawa, for the Lieutenant Governor. Do we have to be 11th in everything? It seems to be the case in Ontario.

Mr. Peterson: Is the member saying we are 10th and last?

Mr. Martel: In most things, but 11th in this one. Probably the Northwest Territories are further advanced than we are.

I am very serious in saying we need a residence. I realize money is short, but I am told the Premier can come up with -- how much money was it? -- for the speed skating oval when Gaetan Boucher was here. Apparently, no one else but the Premier knew he was about to announce that funding was available.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Three million.

Mr. Martel: Yes, $3 million. I am told people in the ministry over there did not even know it was coming. It was a splendid shock for them the day the Premier announced it. He may have done it because Mr. Boucher was here and had done so well. If we can come up with that kind of money for that sort of activity, surely we should have an official residence for one of the highest posts in this province.

3:30 p.m.

Mr. Peterson: Would the member settle for a jet to fly him around?

Mr. Martel: No, not a jet.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) has raised this issue before. I am always intrigued that he would raise it. Some days I feel encouraged that he has. I guess he feels there may be a first minister at some time in the future of this country who may decide, as a first minister did with Mr. Schreyer, that a person of the member's political philosophy would some day be an ideal --

Mr. Martel: You are making me the president of Inco, so it does not matter.

Hon. Mr. Davis: That is true. Anyway, I am intrigued. I agree with the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Peterson), there are very few, if any, who would be a better Lieutenant Governor than the present Lieutenant Governor.

I do look to the gentleman who is on his geographic right and philosophical left on some issues and would say there are many who would feel he would be almost as good at some point in time.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The member expressed his view on the residence. That is what concerned me.

I would just say to the member for Sudbury East that I have raised this with His Honour, not in any definitive sense at all, as is not my custom; I always raise issues in a very definitive way with people. I sense that if he had a preference, on a personal basis, he would prefer the existing arrangement. That does not mean it is cast in stone or anything of that nature.

I should also point out that when Mr. Boucher was here there was some discussion of a skating oval to be located in Brampton. Brampton was the initial suggestion and somebody said perhaps in Sudbury. I approached it in the context that a redesign of a possible domed stadium might contain the skating oval.

I want to assure the member for Sudbury East that I am not aware of any, shall we say, announcement for a speedskating oval, except to make the observation that the suggestion obviously has merit. I was intrigued at the number of Canadians who, when we did get a couple of medals in that area, so rapidly identified themselves with his accomplishments. I guess it is not unusual for people to do that sort of thing and then discover there was not a skating oval of this nature in the entire province.

I would be very surprised if those people involved in that aspect of amateur support did not approach the government at some point to suggest the development of such a facility here.

I would assure the honourable member that irrespective of potential geographic location, I would be very surprised if the minister responsible was not quite sympathetic to that.

Mr. Rae: If there was an Olympic medal for skating sideways, you could win it yourself.

Hon. Mr. Davis: It is better than going backwards.

Vote 101 agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: This completes consideration of the estimates of the Office of the Lieutenant Governor.

ESTIMATES, OFFICE OF THE PREMIER AND CABINET OFFICE

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, as is my custom, I have a very lengthy opening statement which my staff has spent weeks in preparing. I have decided in my usual fashion to give members opposite the opportunity to raise those issues that will be directly related to the Cabinet Office and the Office of the Premier. As has been my tradition, I will make notes of the various observations, try not to interject too often and perhaps sum up when the estimates are reaching their conclusion.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Chairman, I would like to persuade the Premier that his tradition of saying nothing until the end, talking out the clock and leaving us with nothing is not very constructive in the estimates procedure. I know how he has handled it in the past. He says nothing, he tries to constrain himself and then he takes the last 15 or 20 minutes, or an hour if that should be necessary, and tells us nothing. We end up after five hours or so no further ahead than when we started.

There are a variety of ways, depending on the personality and temperament of various ministers and/or critics, to have a meaningful discussion of public policy or just have it as one more waste of time. Because I have the floor, I could choose to speak for an hour or two and harangue the government and then sit down, pass it to my friend the leader of the New Democratic Party, go around and nothing happens.

I would invite the Premier to perhaps take a new approach and use this occasion to engage in a discussion about public policy and some of the approaches of his government. I invite him to answer when I ask him various questions because there are a number of things that concern me at the moment, long-term things as well as short-term things that would benefit from the rare occasion when the three leaders in this House can engage in a discussion about certain selected topics. Obviously the leader of the New Democratic Party has his own agenda and I would look forward to participating in that as well.

Let us take a little different approach rather than just keeping it all to the end and having nothing happen, because I do not want to have to read Hansard for the last few years to show there is no meaningful discussion, just a series of speeches and/or yelling at one another, and/or accusatory remarks that take us nowhere.

Question period does not suffice as a discussion ground for some of the important issues of the day. One thing I have in mind and would like to lead with is a discussion of the Grange commission. I invite discussion on the subject and would try to persuade honourable members of my point of view. My friend the leader of the New Democratic Party may also have some points on this issue, and others may feel as I do.

We called for the creation of that commission; I am not denying any responsibility because we had a unique situation that frankly none of us was able to cope with very well.

We knew the police had gone in and done perhaps the best they could, perhaps not the best they could; that is something yet to be determined. Here we were as legislators feeling our public responsibility was to get at the truth, perhaps no one thinking out well enough the rights and responsibilities of some of the individuals.

I am sure it inspired no particular happiness in anyone's heart watching the proceedings of phase 1 of that inquiry: the uncertainty on the part of the counsel, the various players involved, the references to the courts and, indeed, even the confusion of the commissioner in that regard. I am not criticizing the commissioner because I do believe he is an absolutely first-rate judge dealing as best he can with the uncertainties or the vicissitudes of his own mandate.

That basically has been resolved by the courts at this point and phase 1 is over, so I would like to leave that behind us at the moment and discuss, if I may, phase 2 of the inquiry.

Hon. Mr. Davis: No, no. I do not think that is so.

Mr.. Peterson: The Premier is very welcome to speak.

Hon. Mr. Davis: No. I do not think that is the case.

Mr. Peterson: In terms of the hearings if not in terms of the final report, obviously; it may go on and have various appeals and all that kind of thing.

I invite the Premier's comments on this because he is a lawyer and is sensitive to these matters. The Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) has not been here in the last three weeks to deal with these kinds of issues. As the chief executive officer of Ontario, it ultimately comes down to the Premier and his judgement on this matter and I am going to invite him to engage in a discussion of this whole matter.

I want to tell him of my concerns, then perhaps he can share his with me. One of the problems in drafting the terms of reference in any royal commission is to try to predict all the vicissitudes and uncertainties that go down the pipe. Let us be charitable at the moment and say the originally drafted mandate did not take into account all the things that have arisen in that case and have caused a great deal of harm and grief to a lot of people.

A constituent of mine with a little boy who was going in for heart surgery recounted to me in graphic detail the nightmares of her child, the screams in the night, from listening to the television on the ward. He would say to his mother, "Mommy, there is a baby-killer loose in this hospital." That is a very difficult issue to handle. I do not have a simple answer.

She wrote to the commissioner and the commissioner responded in an extremely sensitive and thoughtful way, recognizing, of course, ultimately our responsibility is to ascertain the truth, because we cannot let 30 or 40 deaths that have not been accounted for go without using every instrument in society to try to determine the truth in the matter and at the same time try as best we can to protect individual rights in the circumstances.

3:40 p.m.

By and large, that is behind us. I want to deal with phase 2 and draw the Premier out on this question. It seems to me that phase 2 is different in a number of ways. It is a determination of the role of the crown and its various agents -- the Solicitor General, the Attorney General or the prosecutors, as well as the police. These are public officials engaged in a public duty.

The Premier will be aware that many reputations have been irreparably damaged in this discussion. One hopes the various parties will get over this in the not too distant future and the harm that has been done to some people will not be permanent. In this House we cannot be the judge of that circumstance at the present time.

When the original terms were drawn, and of course we did not have access to participating in the drawing of those terms of reference, we asked that there be a commitment to make sure there was an open, accountable, public inquiry into the public officials who conducted that whole investigation. It may turn out that one of the problems, if there was a crime, a unique crime, is it may have been a crime that is undetectable by modern forensic medicine, with the present state of the police force. Perhaps there are certain things in this world that are going to go unknown.

I do not know the answer to that. I desperately hope we can find out why the conventional system failed in these circumstances and that we are doing what we can to build an artificial construct or a new, unique way of dealing with these circumstances through the royal commission that may or may not come up with the truth. I desperately hope it does, given the uncertainty at the present time. I am sure the Premier reads the papers. I am sure if he does not read the papers, the news is reported back to him. If he does not see television, he knows what is reported back to him because he has staff monitoring these things for him. He knows there is uncertainty at the present time.

Very frankly, one of the things that disturbs me is the deportment of some of the crown counsel, some of the questions they asked in phase 1. Perhaps we can let bygones be bygones, but they are the government's representatives in court. They are the representatives of the Attorney General, now suggesting that to go on and name names and look at the conduct of the public officials in the pursuit of the public duties is not right in the circumstances.

I would like to persuade the Premier to use his good offices in the absence of the Attorney General to make sure we have a full and open inquiry into the conduct of the public officials in this matter.

We have a choice of letting the commissioner go on with some insecurity, not knowing exactly what his responsibilities are. The Premier has heard it said many times that all we need is direction. If it does not come through the Attorney General's counsel, it comes directly from the Attorney General, from the cabinet or through an order in council and it should offer direction saying, "Here is what we want from you."

One must respect at all times that a royal commission is an artificial construction. It is completely and thoroughly a child of the order in council that creates it and also gives it its parameters and is subject only to various acts that pertain to that. They give it life and scope and can cut off that life when they so want to.

Given the uncertainty, my advice to the Premier now is that we can let the thing drag on, go to the courts and on and on with various different kinds of appeals and uncertainty, or clear up the terms of reference immediately. I would ask the Premier in the House why would he not avail himself of that responsibility now in discussion with the various law officers of the crown and his cabinet colleagues, knowing what he originally had in mind, or presumably he does, to take the opportunity to clear the air in that matter so they can proceed with phase 2 of the inquiry.

I would invite the Premier's comments on that.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, if the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Peterson) would review Hansard on the estimates over the past number of years, he would find that while I make the offer at the outset to listen to as many questions and observations as possible, there are a number of other members besides himself and the member for York South (Mr. Rae) who wish to ask questions. I recall getting questions from the member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Kerrio), the member for Erie (Mr. Haggerty) and a number of others and I like to make time available. That is why I suggested I would reserve my comments.

If the Leader of the Opposition wishes me to comment on the several items he raises in the course of his observations, it has never taken much to persuade me to say a few words and I will do my best to accommodate him. I assume he has a list of several, of which this is the first, and I will give him the benefit of my views.

I expressed my views as head of government on Thursday afternoon last week or whatever date it was. I should point out to the Leader of the Opposition that the Attorney General is in Ottawa today. I expect he will be here tomorrow, and he may wish to direct questions to him.

I would like the Leader of the Opposition to understand there is something of a process and that the Attorney General is very directly involved in the establishment of a royal commission of this nature and very involved in terms of the advice he gives to me and to members of cabinet. Once again, I am reluctant to prolong this discussion. I do not know how the Leader of the Opposition feels, but I have a reluctance to express personal opinions with the royal commission under way at present.

I pointed out last week and feel very strongly that while the Leader of the Opposition may feel there should be some alteration to or redefinition of the specific terms of reference of this royal commission, I also sense that if it were a different kind of royal commission and the Leader of the Opposition felt we should not in any way interfere, he would not be reluctant to say so.

I understand that, but I also think it is fair to say and appropriate to point out, and I am sure the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) would agree if he were here, being one who has taken a long interest in the judicial process, that there is a judicial process. A royal commission is not like, say, a committee of the Legislature. There are very definite statutory provisions contained within the act. There is the due process that cannot be ignored in all these issues.

As I said to the Leader of the Opposition last week, I do not think any terms of reference on any public inquiry will necessarily preclude the debate that goes on between legal counsel at that commission of inquiry related to their responsibilities to their clients or that would preclude, on occasion, certain references being made to the courts as to what was being discussed or how it was being discussed at a commission of inquiry. That is not unique, nor can I sense any terms of reference that could be drafted on any subject that should or ever would preclude it. It would be a very sad day if that were the case. That is not part of the judicial process.

I am not prepared to start exercising certain judgements. I am not suggesting that the Leader of the Opposition is, although he is getting fairly close to exercising certain personal points of view, and maybe as Leader of the Opposition he has that luxury. I do not think it would be appropriate for the head of government or the Attorney General to offer personal observations on some aspects of this commission of inquiry.

The Leader of the Opposition asked me whether I am concerned. Of course I am concerned. I am concerned about a number of aspects. We all are. I do not think it is totally logical to discuss redefining terms of reference if the existing terms of reference permit the commissioner who has this responsibility from conducting this in the way --

Mr. Peterson: They don't know --

Hon. Mr. Davis: With great respect, the Leader of the Opposition should read the terms of reference. I assure him that no matter how they might be redefined, if we are asked to do so, and to my knowledge we have not been asked to do so --

Mr. Peterson: I am asking you to do it. You created it.

3:50 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Davis: That is fine, sure. Yes, we established the royal commission. I have just heard from the Leader of the Opposition, as a lawyer with his QC and his, I read, Team Peterson. He spent a lot of time learning about the judicial process. That was in the Team Peterson sketch. I have not practised law now for 26 years, but I do know something about it. It is not as simplistic as he says for us to establish or redefine the terms of reference. Before they reach phase 2 it may be the commissioner will come and say, "I want further definition."

I know the Leader of the Opposition has read the terms of reference. He has studied them carefully. He has had considered legal opinion about them as to what they mean. He might even quietly tell me who gave him those legal opinions. My guess is the legal opinion said there really are very few restrictions that the terms of reference per se would bring about. I think he would find that is the case.

The concern of the leader of the New Democratic Party was that phase 2 would be sort of conducted in the same way as phase 1. I think that was the general impression as to the police forces, the investigating officers, etc., that there would be the same scrutiny. I think that was the terminology used. I forget exactly what was said. I do not believe the leader of the New Democratic Party was looking for a redefinition of the terms of reference.

I am just at a bit at a loss as to how I can help the Leader of the Opposition. As he fully acknowledged, there was a lot of rhetoric at the time. We listened carefully to some of his speeches about the need to establish this commission. The commission has been established. I do not think anybody who knew some of the concerns expected that this royal commission would move ahead smoothly or without certain personalities being involved. He knew that when he called for it. He had to have known that some of this was going to happen.

Mr. Conway: That representatives of the Attorney General would say in public that some witnesses should take a truth serum?

Hon. Mr. Davis: If the member wants to provoke me into -- no one anticipated --

Mr. Conway: I did not know the Attorney General's representatives were going to talk about a truth serum.

Mr. Chairman: Order.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Nor did anyone else.

I think the member knew, because I assume he was part of the advice given to his leader, that one could not have a commission of inquiry of this kind without personalities being involved and witnesses being cross-examined. He knew that when he advised his leader.

Mr. Conway: Of course I did.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Certainly. Then I am just as --

Mr. Conway: But I did not assume the Attorney General's lawyers would be talking about truth serum.

Mr. Peterson: Which is his emanation.

Hon. Mr. Davis: If the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway) wants to make a speech on this subject, I would be delighted to sit down and listen.

Mr. Conway: Just on a supplementary, if I might --

Hon. Mr. Davis: There is no supplementary.

Mr. Conway: Just on that point. Because the first minister has raised the question, Mr. Chairman, I want to say --

Mr. Chairman: Order.

Mr. Peterson: He invited him to speak.

Mr. Conway: The Premier has invited a comment. He is going to get a short one from me to this effect: while I expected that there would be a variety of developments at the commission, I did not -- and I want to be absolutely clear about this -- expect that lawyers for my government would in the full glare of the television lights invite the question that some witnesses might submit to truth serum.

I think that is an extraordinary development under any circumstances and that is the kind of exceptionality to which I make a personal reference. If it upsets the first minister, then I am very sorry, but I did not expect that representatives of the Attorney General's department would be so bold and exceptional as to suggest that. I note that the learned legal beagle from Cambridge, the Progressive Conservative member for Cambridge (Mr. Barlow), gives a bipartisan quality to my concern.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think there are a number of issues. Before the member for Renfrew North interjected in a quiet unassuming fashion, as is his custom, what I said, relating it to the specific activities of a particular individual who is involved in part of the process, was that was not the point I was making to his leader.

His leader said, perhaps while the member was still outside, that the reputations of certain individuals obviously had been impacted by this inquiry. All I am saying is that irrespective of what an individual, whether counsel for the commission, counsel for the individuals or whoever he may be, may have done, I do not think anybody who thought this through right from the beginning assumed this commission would succeed in accomplishing its objectives -- and hopefully it will -- without the reputations of certain individuals being part of this process. Surely when the member advised his leader to call so enthusiastically for this inquiry, he must have known that some of this would take place. He must have known; I am sure he did.

Mr. Conway: I had more faith in the Attorney General's department than I should have had.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think the member is confusing the two issues, I really do. I say that with great respect.

Mr. Peterson: You thought through all this confusion. Is that what you are saying?

Hon. Mr. Davis: No, I am not saying that at all.

Mr. Peterson: You cannot have it both ways.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am not trying to have it any way; I am not trying to have it one way or the other. I am trying to explain to the Leader of the Opposition that a process has been established by order in council at the strenuous urgings of the members opposite, I remind him, in which we have a justice of the court who is in charge with certain statutory responsibilities.

As I say, I do follow this --

Mr. Conway: You talk about our staff. Read that note carefully.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am just glancing at a note here that is partially related and partially unrelated. I said earlier -- the member was not here for this discussion -- when his leader said it was going into phase 2, that actually my recollection is that phase 1 is not finished, that arguments have not yet been heard on phase 1 and that they are not proceeding immediately into phase 2. My recollection is that there is to be probably a two- or three-week adjournment between the conclusion of phase 1 and the beginning of phase 2. I may be wrong on that recollection and I am quite prepared to be corrected.

Mr. Peterson: The Premier is discussing the rules for phase 2. There is a great deal of uncertainty. He is getting certain positions put forward by the Attorney General's representatives, his own crown people, and other interests are being expressed, obviously, by counsel for the different witnesses and the different interest groups there. But they are in the process of attempting to establish how they are going to handle phase 2, what they can do and what they cannot do. I am just bringing the Premier up to date.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am always delighted to have the Leader of the Opposition bring me up to date. Unlike him, I need all the help I can get.

However, my impression is that phase 1 is not completed. I just reiterate to him once again that I am delighted to hear any other views he has, but this government is not going to interfere in the conduct of this commission unless the commissioner wants us to do so with respect to a redefinition of the terms of reference. There has been some discussion of this and, as I say once again, as of two o'clock today -- I cannot tell the member as of four o'clock -- I do not believe we have had it.

I would be delighted to hear any constructive suggestions the Leader of the Opposition may make with respect to this commission, which was established -- once again I remind him -- after very strenuous urging on his part.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Chairman, since the Leader of the Liberal Party was kind enough to say he wanted me to be involved in this discussion and since the Premier has, as he has done on a fairly regular basis, attributed views to me, I would like to put on the record and explain, since I am here, just what our views are as a party and what our concern has been from the time the tragic events at the hospital became public knowledge.

My concern throughout the piece -- and I am concerned about the terms of reference because I do not think they speak directly enough to this problem -- has been that the purpose, in my view, of a public inquiry of the Grange type, whose establishment we called for, was specifically to be able to answer the question of how that number of deaths could have occurred at the hospital over such an extended period of time without the public being informed of it and without the public authorities being advised of it. That to me is the central question.

4 p.m.

I have never taken the view and do not believe for an instant that the royal commission is going to be able or should be able or was established to find out who did it. The royal commission, in blunt terms, is not a whodunnit. One of the great mistakes that has taken place in the public focus on this commission and in much of what has gone on at the commission has been the sense that somehow this was the job of the commission. It has never been the job of the commission.

For anybody -- counsel for any of the parties to the commission -- to even suggest for a moment that is in any sense the purpose of the commission or something to come out of the commission is wrong. It is an affront to our sense of justice and our sense of what it is that the commission should be all about.

What the commission should be all about is trying to determine the conduct of people in public authority and how it is that a number of deaths were allowed to occur over such a period of time without being reported.

My concern has been the focus and public attention that very naturally attached to the questioning of a number of the nurses who were involved in the cardiac ward. My concern, and I think it is a concern that has been shared by a great many people, is that far too much attention has been focused on determining the conduct of those individuals when an inquiry cannot be used to make any assertions of fact with respect to them or to their degree of responsibility.

I expressed concerns at the very beginning when the royal commission was established, the day the Attorney General announced the terms of reference. I asked a specific question -- I am going by memory; I do not have the Hansard in front of me -- of the Attorney General:

"Why is there nothing in the terms of reference which refers specifically to the conduct of the responsible authorities in the hospital and the responsible authorities within the police and elsewhere with respect to the question of how long people in authority either were aware or should have been aware of an extraordinary number of deaths occurring at the hospital without a public investigation of some kind having been carried out and initiated?"

That has been our concern from the very outset.

Since this is a discussion amongst three leaders, I will say to the leader of the Liberal Party that I think I know where he is coming from and I appreciate what he is saying, but I am a little baffled if he honestly thinks that a clarification from the government of Ontario is somehow going to prevent any one of a number of counsel at any point in the inquiry from objecting to any set of questions or demanding a clarification from the Divisional Court.

I say quite seriously that I do not think any of us can invent terms of reference that are not going to be subject at any stage, as they have been up until now, to legal challenge. We cannot invent any kind of process that is going to take away legal rights from the parties that naturally pertain to those parties at all times. We cannot invent those things. I do not think that is what he is arguing we should be doing, but it seems to me that is implicit in some of his demands for clarification.

I will be very blunt about the other concern I have. There are a number of individuals at the lower level of the hospital hierarchy who, frankly, have been through the mill. As the commissioner himself said, what was a public inquiry has become a very public inquiry and is now a very very public inquiry.

I think I am speaking for a lot of people and our real sense of concern for what has happened when we hear, "Oh well, now we have to change the terms of reference; we have to stop this questioning," just at the point where we are beginning to ask questions of those in public authority who have never been asked real questions before.

I remind members that the Dubbin inquiry looked specifically into the question of the administrative routine of the hospital. When the questions were asked of the people in the hospital with respect to what happened on the cardiac ward, those questions were asked off the record, in people's offices. They were not subject to the same rules of public inquiry as is happening with the Grange royal commission.

I do not think I am stepping over the boundaries the Premier has drawn, but I think there is a very real perception by the public that one set of rules has applied to those in authority and that up to this point another set of rules has applied to those who have no power in the system.

It would be very wrong if that perception were allowed to strengthen by changing the terms of reference because we know we are going to be getting objections from police counsel, since Mr. Percival has said, "I am going to object if there are any questions because there is a civil suit going on." It would be a very real mistake if the terms of reference were changed in that way.

I want to say to the Premier that I do not think it would necessarily be a mistake if the terms of reference were amended to incorporate the question which, if I may say so, we put to the Attorney General the day the commission was announced. Specifically, we asked the commission to focus on the question of how that number of deaths could have been allowed to occur over such a long period of time. The time frame concerns me immensely, the length of time this tragedy was allowed to carry on without apparently the full force of public authority being brought down to bring an end to those events.

I do not think it is any exaggeration. I do not think I am any different from any other member. I have watched and listened to the proceedings with an enormous amount of concern. I have debated internally on what is appropriate for me to say as a leader of a party about an inquiry that is ongoing.

I have some concerns, and I have voiced them today as far as I am going to. I can see some merit in changing the terms of reference if that allows us to focus specifically on the matter I have suggested. But I would be concerned if anyone thought that by changing the terms of reference, we were thereby shortening the process. That is not necessarily the case.

It would be very naïve if any of us thought that was going to be the case with respect to the number of very highly paid and very distinguished legal counsel who are there on a daily basis looking out for the interests of their clients. I do not think for a moment that any terms of reference devised by this Legislature or by the Attorney General are going to stop those counsel from taking steps to protect their clients.

I would like to make one last point on Mr. Percival's point throughout the piece recently. I am a little amazed that he waited until now to tell the commissioner he was going to object to questions because there was a civil suit ongoing between Susan Nelles and the police. She also wanted to involve the office of the Attorney General but was not allowed to for technical reasons.

I am a little amazed that he waited until now to tell us this when we had a previous reference, when it would not have been difficult to combine the two references to the court and to do it all in one go. I am a little amazed he took his time about it, if I may be quite blunt about it.

If he persists in this approach of saying the civil suit precludes any questions from being asked, I would say to him that is a question that should be resolved by a court if that is what he insists, because I think he is wrong. I am not a QC, and I do not know, but my assumption is that a public inquiry has pretty broad terms and that a private suit between an individual and somebody else should not preclude the inquiry from doing its job.

I would like to see that question resolved. I do not think this Legislature can resolve it if Mr. Percival is determined at any time to take the entire process to court. I do not think anything this Legislature does is going to resolve it, short of a full-scale retreat.

I am not prepared to agree or to argue or to counsel that we should agree to that kind of retreat in the face of objections from the police. The police should be subject to the same kind of scrutiny, the same kind of inquiry, the same deliberations and, if I may say so, the same degree of publicity that has already occurred.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, I did not presume to try to remember all the member for York South said on Thursday last week. I think I was fairly close in terms of his desire that "the conduct of the police authorities, etc., should be under the same degree of scrutiny." I think that was the phrase he used and repeated here today.

I have nothing further to add. After listening to the member for York South, I would observe that, on the basis of his speech, he is probably as entitled to his QC as some others who have it and who have also commented on the subject.

I do not know why the honourable member should be so amazed. I never cease to be amazed at what some legal counsel may do at some point in the course of a trial or a royal commission. I have stopped being amazed at what anyone might do, particularly lawyers.

4:10 p.m.

Without getting into the substance again, I apologize to the leader of the third party, but I am not comfortable in terms of my responsibilities in commenting in any detail on what is going on at a royal commission. He may feel comfortable, but I do not. I am concerned about the process and about what might be construed from what I may say as to how that might impact upon the royal commission itself. I may be wrong in that, but it is a view I hold strongly.

I point out for no other purpose than being a nonlawyer, that I listened to what the member for York South said, not as it related to -- I do not say this covers it -- the length of time it took etc., but in terms of the investigation. Clause 4 is simply "to inquire into, determine and report on the circumstances surrounding the investigation, institution and prosecution of charges arising out of the deaths of the above-mentioned four infants."

Mr. Rae: No, that relates to the --

Hon. Mr. Davis: That relates to one aspect of the concern the member expressed. I am just glancing at the other terms of reference as to some reasons for the length of time it took to have these come to public attention. I think it is obvious that has been dealt with to a certain extent. I do not know what the conclusions will be; I would not prejudge that.

I do apologize to the Leader of the Opposition, but I cannot help him any more as to this royal commission. The Attorney General may have some further views he would like to express as the chief law officer of the crown, but I learned early in my public career not to get involved in offering legal opinions.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Chairman, obviously we are not going to move the Premier any further, but I am sure there is no question that every one of us watching this situation would cover it in a variety of different ways. What I am trying to do is to offer constructive suggestions as to how to remove some of the problems from the second part of it.

Bygones are bygones at this stage. We could have second-guessed that situation. There is no doubt the Premier is quite right that we fell for the situation as did a lot of other people. The notable legal counsel Edward Greenspan said, "The police have shot their bolt," and now it was time for a new look by a royal commission.

The first phase is basically over with and any harm done by the publicity has been done. We know the judge does not have the power to name names; that court decision is being used by certain counsel to argue with the commissioner that he cannot name names in the second phase. That is my point. That could be cleared up now and the Premier should say that because they are public officials in the pursuit of public duties, they can name names in the second phase.

Mr. Rae: But that does not deal with the lawsuit problem.

Mr. Peterson: I think it does. I do not think there is a major problem in that regard. Because it is an artificial construction, the creature of an order in council plus the Public Inquiries Act, I do not believe that in the circumstances there is any legal impediment. The whole issue at stake is the conduct of public officials, and I cannot see that any lawsuit is going to interfere with that. It is counsel representing various parts of the government who are advancing these arguments. What concerns me is that the Premier could instruct those counsels --

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think in fairness one has to be fairly careful when he says "representing various parts of the government." The government is not the Metropolitan Toronto Police.

Mr. Peterson: The various groups take instructions from the Premier and others, and there is close association.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Let us try to stick to the facts on this issue. The Metropolitan Toronto Police is not part of the government.

Mr. Peterson: Is the Premier prepared to take responsibility for some of his representatives there or is he not? On the one hand he says he is not, and on the other hand he says he is somehow responsible.

Let me try to clear this thing up as I see it. I do not see any legal impediment to clarifying the rule and what he expects that thing to do. He has created it. He can sit back at a distance and say: "I created it, but I created a mess and I have no idea what is going to go on. That is okay. We did not clearly anticipate it." If the Premier looks at what the counsel are saying, they are saying to the Attorney General, "Direct us." The commissioner is virtually saying: "Tell us what you want us to do. We have been created and we do not know exactly what we want to do."

I am saying that the Premier, in the interest of determining the facts as outlined by the leader of the New Democratic Party, who as I understand his position -- and do not let me misrepresent it -- wants a clear determination of the public role, coroners, why it was not reported, the police investigation, why premature charges were made and all of these things.

In the efficiency of the existing legal and police structure to solve or investigate problems like this there is a big issue at stake. I am saying to the Premier that in the interests of the truth, we must redirect this royal commission to make sure it has full power to go ahead.

Rather than watch the thing go on with legal hassle after legal hassle, I am saying the confusion that developed in the first phase does not have to develop in the second phase if the Premier directs it properly. I am not asking him to sit back in the weeds and make comments about it; I am not asking him to call people con men as a trial is going on; I am not asking him to do a running play by play of his personal opinion of the conduct of various people.

I am asking the Premier to take responsibility for his various emanations, like some of the crown counsel; I am asking him to define the rules, to tell them clearly and specifically what he wants and what we all want and then proceed with dispatch. It is quite a simple request.

We Liberals sometimes learn from our mistakes of the past, but the Premier tends to go on perpetuating his mistakes of the past. If it was a mistake -- and let us not argue that now -- at least clear it up for the second phase. I am asking the Premier that only.

Perhaps I have not put my case very well; perhaps I have not explained it. I do not see any legal constraints. I am not asking the Premier to descend into the forum. I am asking him, frankly, to show leadership and to get to the truth of the matter in a clear way with dispatch.

The Premier stands here and says, "Peterson, you called for the thing for months." I am prepared to take my responsibility for that; I did and I am not embarrassed about it. If he wants me to take responsibility for it, as he appears to do, then he should give me the power to change it and make it appropriate in the circumstances. Others have called for it; this is not just a naive call from the plains by us. Other thoughtful observers of this scene from a variety of different quarters have said, "Direct us, lead us and we will go on and ascertain the truth as best we can.

I do not think this is contrary to any of the existing common law; I do not think it is contrary to the Public Inquiries Act. If the Premier is worried that redefining the role of the royal commission would be an admission of a mistake in the first place -- perhaps that is what he is worried about -- then I say to him, "Do not worry about it." I do not think anyone in this House will criticize him for that. We think it would be a courageous and intelligent use of the power he has to go on and to help get to the truth in this circumstance.

That is what we are asking. We are trying to be constructive now, as we have been in the past, in solving this matter. This is what I am asking.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, I really cannot offer a great deal more except that I do confess to some measure of confusion. I will not prolong the discussion, except to make the observation that I think the Leader of the Opposition is approaching this in a somewhat simplistic fashion. It is not as simple --

Mr. Peterson: You always do.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I did not interrupt you.

I am just telling the Leader of the Opposition that certain processes are involved in the judicial process for this royal commission. Any alteration in the terms of reference, no matter how it was redrafted, would not preclude counsel at the inquiry taking a position related to the terms of reference or some other process that is going on and taking a stated case to the Divisional Court. That is not going to stop it.

Sometimes in these situations it can be painful and it can be prolonged to get at what we would like to see them get at. I think the member is perhaps misleading himself in assuming that some alteration in wording is going to make it easier or is necessarily going to make it more expeditious. All of us would like to see it move more rapidly; no one is comfortable. But I think just to say that cabinet can change some of the words and this will all fall into place is wishful thinking.

Mr. Peterson: Listen to the lawyers.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Listen, there is no consensus among the legal fraternity. Even on television one does not sense any great consensus down there before the commission.

4:20 p.m.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, I do not know how you want to proceed with this. I think it is very healthy, actually, and more convenient for the members of the House if we deal with the Premier's estimate topic by topic.

I do not want to step into what the other leaders have in mind, but I really would like to draw the Premier's attention to the words from the commissioner himself that have been broadcast on the nightly news, when he almost seems to be in some agony as he is responding to the point put to him by counsel, Mr. Percival and others. He is the one who is talking about amended terms of reference or an approach to the Divisional Court on a stated case. That is the alternative in his mind.

In the Premier's answer a few days ago, he said he had not been approached by the commissioner asking for a revision in the terms. I do not think that solves it, because we do have people down there who are directly in the employ of the chief law officer of the crown. We cannot put the responsibility for the problems on another jurisdiction. After all, the whole process is one that is established on the authority of the Lieutenant Governor in Council and I do not have to tell the Premier that.

The thing that troubles me is that, having gone through much of phase 1, and we can argue about whether it is completed or not, and having heard the public testimony, much of it very painful indeed, but at least that is all on the record, now we approach the other aspect as to the responsibility of how the case was conducted by the police and how charges were brought, which is not the responsibility of only the police. The Premier knows that. He and his colleagues certainly share that responsibility and may have to carry all that responsibility.

If there is any problem with getting the facts out about that, we are talking about a different type of situation entirely. We are not talking about a world-class heinous crime. We are talking about public affairs. I do not blame the lawyer for the police for objecting when evidence may lead to some criticism being directed at individuals who did not do their job the way some person, maybe even the commissioner, found it to be so. The commissioner even talked about it in those terms.

As I understand royal commissions, particularly now with the Divisional Court judgement imposed upon it, names shall not be named, what we want are the facts. As I recall, royal commissions are never quick jobs; occasionally they are pretty quick. When the report finally comes down, in many instances the classic question from the opposition to the government is, "Will disciplinary action be taken or will charges be laid?" That is on the basis of the facts as they are brought forward. It is not for the commissioner to say who is guilty, but it is his job to elicit the facts.

No doubt when he makes his report, particularly having to do with how the case was handled, it is just possible that certain criticisms may be directed at certain aspects of crown offices and maybe at certain people who have positions in those crown offices. It will be up to the chief law officer of the crown to eventually take action for the public's benefit.

I would regret very much indeed if legal entailment were now going to stop phase 2. I say again, it is in a different level of importance but one in which the government should be even more reluctant to appear to be allowing certain barriers to be set up to a full and free revelation of the facts in this matter.

It is not only the Leader of the Opposition who is suggesting that an amendment to the terms would improve the situation. In spite of the fact the commissioner has not contacted the head of the government or anybody else, his words -- as directly reported coming from himself on television -- indicated he considers that to be at least one of the viable alternatives. I regret very much that the Premier appears not to have looked into that alternative, any more than to the point where he says, "The commissioner has not contacted me."

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, I can offer very little by way of additional comment. I understand the commissioner has had some observations. I think the observations were related to the possibility of altered terms of reference or a stated case.

It is obvious, or should be obvious, that if there is a consensus among counsel, which there may not be, as to the most, shall we say, expeditious or most acceptable route, then obviously the Attorney General and the government will listen. I can assure the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) the Attorney General's senior people are -- "monitoring" is not the correct word -- very aware of the discussion that has emerged in the past two or three weeks about what might or might not happen in phase 2.

I cannot commit the Attorney General to expressing any more than I have as of this hour today. When he is here tomorrow, he may have some more legal insights that I am not prepared to give. I will not do so. I can only assure the member who has carried on this discussion that the Attorney General's ministry is very much aware of the complexity of the problem, and we are quite prepared to be approached by the commissioner.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Chairman, I do not know whether the Premier wants to answer this, but I think there has been a lot of confusion about what the so-called Court of Appeal, Divisional Court judgment really means. My assessment of the two decisions is that while the commissioner is not to name names with respect to criminal or civil responsibility that would create a presumption of a legal kind, certainly nothing in the decision says that overall responsibility or overall actions cannot be commented on by the commissioner and that he cannot comment on the actions of certain individuals without getting into the question of criminal responsibility. That point has to be made.

I take it from what the Premier has said that neither he nor the government has any objection to the conduct of hospital officials, officers of the police force and members of the office of the Attorney General being examined and their names being named in the commissioner's report or in terms of the evidence that is to be put before the commission. I do not hear any objection of that kind coming from the Premier.

Is it the government's intention, through its counsel, to raise any objections on that score or any issue on that score in phase 2? Is the Premier aware of that?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, I am not aware of it, but I go back to what I have reiterated a dozen times today. I am not offering legal opinions. I will raise that in a specific way with the Attorney General whose responsibility it is, on occasion, to offer legal points of view to this House.

Mr. Rae: Will he have a statement tomorrow?

Hon. Mr. Davis: No, I am not suggesting that.

Mr. Conway: Mr. Chairman, I want to add a summary comment to put in context my own remarks of an earlier moment. I was not here on Thursday when this debate was taking place. I am not a Queen's Counsel nor am I a lawyer, the second following obviously from the first.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Not always.

Mr. Conway: Not always. Good point.

I accept a lot of what has been said here by the first minister; not all of it, but I understand much of his point. Sitting on the sidelines and watching this develop and knowing lawyers at such a commission are certainly going to pursue their own lines of inquiry and there is no constraint of a personal kind any of us here could effectively place on most, if not all, of these people, surely, given the extraordinary sensitivity of phase 1 and of the whole matter, given the delicacy of the position in which so many of those witnesses in phase 1 found themselves, it is truly remarkable that lawyers for the Attorney General's department would suggest one of the witnesses might improve her testimony by considering the ingestion of a truth serum.

4:30 p.m.

If I said that in this place, I would not expect the first minister or anyone else to rest very comfortably in its receipt. I will accept my responsibility for having said some pretty unparliamentary things in my time.

Hon. Mr. Davis: One might even say "outrageous."

Mr. Conway: One might even say "outrageous."

I find it remarkable, given the extraordinary sensitivity of this whole matter, that a lawyer representing the Attorney General's department would make such a suggestion, having regard to how it must surely affect the credibility of that witness outside the hearing room, if not within. That is the kind of development that as a citizen I find absolutely unbelievable.

For the record, I want to reiterate I find it indelicate and inappropriate for a representative of a ministry of this government to make such a comment in such a highly charged and sensitive environment as the Grange royal commission. That is the kind of objection I have to what has transpired at the commission in phase 1. I certainly associate myself with the comments of my colleagues the member for London Centre (Mr. Peterson) and the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk in how we are going to proceed with phase 2.

Quite obviously and without wanting to pass too much comment on the proceedings, I well remember the aggressive cross-examination by Mr. Percival of some of those witnesses. If memory serves me correctly he was one of the lawyers, and I may stand corrected, who reduced one of the witnesses to tears with his very vigorous cross-examination.

For the Toronto police, represented by its counsel, to now be able to hide behind some kind of technicality that does not allow the public to more completely understand the role of the police and of other public bodies in the laying of charges and the investigation that led to those charges is quite obviously unacceptable in so far as the public good is concerned. I would hope we would be able to resolve that very worrisome difficulty because if we do not, we will have visited upon the public of Ontario, and more particularly upon the witnesses in phase 1, an injustice of significant proportions.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Chairman, I think the Premier has a little better feeling of the views of some of the members opposite on this matter. I want to say I even like the atmosphere in which this discussion is going on today. It is not just shouts and shouting back or accusations and counteraccusations.

These are difficult matters, I certainly understand that. There is no simple, neat, little, clean answer to a question such as this. I am glad to have a chance to put our views on the record.

I have a new topic I would like to introduce but I also want to be sensitive to the wishes of the leader of the New Democratic Party on how we can divide the time. Perhaps there are certain topics he would like to bring into the debate, or maybe he just wants to make a speech. I have no idea how he wants to handle it.

Perhaps I could bring up one more topic now, then turn the floor over to the members of the New Democratic Party for things that interest them, even though there are many more on my list. I want the members to know that. It is not often one gets a chance to get at the Premier. All his aides have disappeared and he has received only two or three notes in the last while. He is obviously looking a little uncomfortable, but the member for York North (Mr. Hodgson) is there to protect him.

I could make a long speech about the lack of accountability and the secretiveness of this government but I will save the speech. That has been done before by many others, far more eloquently than I could do it. My question for the Premier is why he has dragged his feet for years on freedom of information legislation. Why is it constantly so difficult to get information from his ministers? We have to send letters and put people on notice. They do not answer the questions on the Orders and Notices.

Obviously very little pertinent factual information is exchanged in this House except when the Premier so chooses during question period. Would the Premier not agree with me that his philosophy of governing is wrong, that he feels he has some sort of proprietary right to all the information produced at taxpayers' expense for him to use or abuse to suit his purposes at the time?

Before I yield the floor to the Premier for a defence of his government, which has been called the most secretive in Canada, if not in the whole western world --

Mr. T. P. Reid: By objective observers.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Totally objective observers?

Mr. Peterson: It has been called that. The Premier will recall it is the lifelong mission of my colleague the member for Rainy River (Mr. T. P. Reid) to get some sense of accountability and sharing of information, which is not the Premier's, it is the taxpayers' information.

Why has the Premier taken no initiatives to bring in freedom of information legislation? He has studied it to death. Nobody has asked him to change the terms of the royal commissioner on that matter. He is aware of the issue. It is completely in his hands. It depends only on political will, and the Premier is the political will of that government -- Political Bill, anyway.

My question is, why is he not bringing in freedom of information legislation? What is the status of it?

Mr. Breaugh: Tell him it is a secret, Bill.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, I will not say the answer is confidential.

Mr. Kerrio: A slip of the lip and down goes the Tory ship.

Hon. Mr. Davis: We are cautious. We are Conservative on this side of the House. In brief terms, we --

Mr. Peterson: Take all the time you want.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The Leader of the Opposition said he had a long list. I have a list too. I always find this process intriguing. It is very proper that I am asked all these questions, and I am prepared in the summation of my remarks to assess how well public money is spent in terms of contributions to the leader's office, research and so on. It is public expenditure. I have a list. I may never use it, but I have a list.

Mr. Peterson: Go ahead. I like listening to people. We are prepared to listen any time the Premier wants.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am delighted to hear that.

Mr. Conway: I want to know whether you have an Osborne Dempster.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Who is Osborne Dempster?

Mr. Conway: Read David Lewis's memoirs.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Oh, I see. Will the honourable member do me a favour? His leader has just confessed he has never heard of Osborne Dempster. Will he please fill him in before asking me?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Fill him in? You do not mean to fill him in.

Hon. Mr. Davis: No. I do not mean to fill him in in the literal sense, or do him in either.

To get serious, Mr. Chairman, I take issue with the Leader of the Opposition's suggestion that this government is secretive in any sense of the word.

Mr. Ruston: You just do not tell us much.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I say to the member for Essex North (Mr. Ruston) that sometimes the quality of our answers to questions in the House is predicated by the quality of the question -- not always but on occasion. That will come as a great shock to him.

I have been in this House for a short period of time. I have seen the complexity of government grow over the years. I have been in a sort of reflective frame of mind in the past week or 10 days because a number of journalists have been asking me to think about the past 25 years. I say it is just like yesterday; I am more enthusiastic today than I was 25 years ago; I feel better; I intend to be here for another 25 years. They jot it all down. They do not believe a word I am saying. However, I have had occasion to think on how things have changed in the province, even in government.

Sure, there are some things that are confidential within government. I do not see the Leader of the Opposition publishing all the discussions at caucus, nor do I ever expect to. We are not going to publish what we discuss at cabinet, etc.

Mr. Peterson: This is a serious question.

4:40 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Davis: It is indeed a serious question. There are some things that are confidential.

Over the years I have also discovered that there are very few secrets. I sometimes read of discussions that may or may not have taken place in cabinet, caucus, in the press. I really do not think there are that many secrets. I do not think it is, and I am being serious about this, a secretive government compared to any other government of which I am aware. It really is not.

With respect to the freedom of information act, there is no question about it; it is being very thoughtfully pursued. It has taken us a period of time --

Mr. T. P. Reid: Thoughtfully for seven years.

Hon. Mr. Davis: No. In fairness, I think it was in the throne speech three years ago, or whenever it was.

We have had a commission and it is difficult to come to final conclusions, but we are very close.

Mr. Peterson: What is the dilemma?

Hon. Mr. Davis: It would have been a series of dilemmas, not just one. I do not expect the member will ever be faced with the problems that are created by this. I say this in a friendly nature, in the way we have conducted this discussion this afternoon. It is much easier from his perspective than it is from mine, because it is also related to questions of privacy involving individuals -- not government, but individuals who are impacted by government.

I want to say to the Leader of the Opposition that the freedom of information act is making progress. Shall we say that the areas of discussion have now been minimized. We are down to one or two that I think we will have finalized in the relatively near future. I am quite serious.

Mr. Nixon: When Roy gets back, it is back to square one.

Hon. Mr. Davis: No, I think we are very close.

Mr. Peterson: I was hoping the Premier would take us into his confidence about some of the difficulties and we would solve them for him. By implication in his remarks, perhaps he is saying it is more difficult for his government than it is for us. He is right. It is not difficult for us; we have nothing to hide.

It clearly gives one the impression that the government has a lot of things to hide and about which it would be embarrassed. One would see the same kind of files burning in Ontario as they had in Saskatchewan when there was a change of government there. Members will recall how the legislative building there was obliterated by smoke as the NDP government moved out and the Tories moved in there. I suspect the same thing would happen here.

I did not come here to give a partisan speech. There are many reasons a change of government is needed, but clearly one of them is that we have nothing to hide. We are willing to take the public into our confidence, open up the doors and let some fresh air into the situation.

Perhaps the government has too many embarrassing documents lying around. When we ask for normal information with respect to contracts, the tendering process and the administration of this government, one has no idea how the ranks close, how many ministries have been embarrassed over their untendered contracts, how the whole mentality has changed over there. They will not tell us anything. The whole closed mind has permeated down through the entire bureaucracy at the present time.

We have some idea of what has gone on over there because of some of the embarrassment the government has had over these untendered contracts. We have none of that, and I believe we have a responsibility to root out the government's ability to govern this province and the accountability for every last penny of taxpayers' funds. Rather than being forthcoming about the whole question, the government has now closed the doors and will not tell us exactly what is happening for fear presumably of being embarrassed.

It is something we feel very strongly about. It goes fundamentally to the way we as Liberals see our responsibilities as stewards of the public's money and as trustees of its information. We would implement freedom of information very soon after being elected. We have a draft bill prepared that has been vetted. I believe it would go a long way to solving a lot of the Premier's problems in trying to do this.

I suspect they will come up with something before the next election which will be a whitewash and give the appearance of freedom of information without really doing anything. We feel very strongly about it. I would hope the Premier would proceed with some dispatch.

Going with the rules we have just created for ourselves, if other members have questions or thoughts on that, that is fine. Then I will turn the chair over to the leader of the New Democratic Party.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I have a reply for the Leader of the Opposition on that one last point. I will point out to him that it is not a question of secrets. There is a growing concern and a growing issue with respect to confidentiality.

Mr. Peterson: The Premier has not done anything on Krever either.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I know, but we intend --

Mr. Peterson: He does not do anything on anything.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I did not stand up and interrupt the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Chairman: Order. The Premier is replying. He has the floor.

Hon. Mr. Davis: We are dealing with the Krever report. There is a concern, and there is no secret about it, with respect to law enforcement and what degrees of confidentiality relate to that. It will really come as a great shock to the member that the length of time of the internal debates has not been related to the things he finds so exciting, such as contracts.

Mr. T. P. Reid: If I might just have a word --

Mr. Chairman: The member for Rainy River on the same subject.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Yes.

Mr. Peterson: Let the Premier tell us what the problems are. Let him share them with us.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Rainy River has the floor, with all due respect to the Leader of the Opposition.

Hon. Mr. Davis: We will bring in a bill.

Mr. Peterson: Let him bring it in now. He is being secretive about his problems. We will solve them for him. Let us have a public debate.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I could make my annual plea to the Premier concerning my life-long -- I believe that is the word -- quest to have the Premier and the government table in this Legislature the public opinion polls he takes at taxpayers' expense of some $400,000 or $500,000 a year.

We have had this debate so often that I am sure the Premier, if he ever dreams of these things, can do it in his sleep. As a gesture of his goodwill, why not table those public opinion polls as they become available? Perhaps the government could hold on to them for two weeks or a month to digest them and use them. We all know he does and the ways in which he does. He could show his good faith in freedom of information by making a commitment to make them available to the Legislature and the public.

I am sure the Premier is not aware of it, but in the last year I had a question in Orders and Notices asking for the public opinion polls. I received three from the Ministry of Energy and no more. I am talking about the year 1983, not 1984. I have a similar request on the order paper for this year. In the last year, which I must say is the only year since we started this business and the Premier under threat of a Speaker's warrant originally decided to cough them up, they have not been forthcoming.

I suggest that the Premier, as he is wont to do verbally on occasion, in this case can actively make a commitment today showing his good faith in freedom of information by allowing that he will ensure the polls are made available.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Chairman, I want to make a simple and direct plea to the Premier. Surely to goodness, if he does not want to go down in history as the man who closed government in Ontario, who hid the decision-making process of Ontario from its citizens, it is his responsibility to bring in a freedom of information act that opens up the process of government, not merely the polls my friend the member for Rainy River has talked about, but the whole decision-making process.

What goes into the decisions of all those appointments of the many boards, agencies and commissions the government operates? What are the decisions they make behind closed doors that should be open and notified to the public, as well as the appointees and the whole range of services?

Surely we have come to the stage where we can all agree that more and more of our citizens are becoming cynical about governments. They become cynical even about their participation in the electoral process and their desire to vote. I suggest to the Premier that if he genuinely wants to involve the citizenry of the province in the electoral and political process, one way is by not only symbolically opening the doors, but by really opening the doors. A good place to start is a freedom of information act.

4:50 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, I can only say to the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds) that he too has been a member for a fairly lengthy period of time. With the greatest of respect, government here today -- I am not always comfortable from my perspective -- is far more open. Whether we are talking about information or about process or about legislation, there is far more consultation than existed 10 or 12 years ago.

Without any question one sees so many government policy matters. One sees public participation, say, in one of the member for Welland-Thorold's (Mr. Swart) favourite subjects, the Niagara Escarpment. That has been in the works for over 10 years, and a lot of it is public consultation. There is no question. We went through it with respect to the parkway and we have done it with respect to transmission lines. These things were not done 15 or 20 years ago.

I can recall in my early days in the House everything Ontario Hydro did was looked upon with great enthusiasm; it could not get the lines in fast enough. I can recall when Mr. Frost talked about the electrification of rural Ontario. Even the members from the agricultural communities, if they go back in the history of their local papers, will find that the electrification of rural Ontario was hailed, it was enthused over. Any time a new plant was opened, there was not any of that sort of debate.

Mr. Foulds: Mere debate is not enough.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think the member for Port Arthur expects too much of any freedom of information act. If the member looks at the history of freedom of information acts in jurisdiction after jurisdiction -- I am not advocating that he go down at caucus expense -- if he checked carefully with one of the great developments that has occurred in the United States with respect to their freedom of information act, there is no question that it has not been a boon to the electorate in that sense of the word. I would really challenge the member to go to just about any small polling subdivision in any state of the union and ask the average voter what the freedom of information act means.

But I will tell him where he will get some response. If he goes and visits the legal profession, the corporate world, those involved in trademarks and patents, he will find the freedom of information act has opened up a rather interesting new productive area for those who wish to seek information about their competitors in the corporate world with respect to what they have to file with the government of the United States.

It may be important. I am not quarrelling with that except to say I do not see the public as being the beneficiary that the member sees under this sort of approach.

Mr. Foulds: I asked the Premier to go beyond freedom of information.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am just saying we have to approach freedom of information acts as we understand them with great care, because we are also talking about privacy whenever these issues are discussed.

I would give the same assurance to the member for Port Arthur that the bill is making progress within the government.

Mr. Rae: Just as a piece of information for the Premier, he should know I have a problem in that I have seen both wings of the Tory party, as I have seen both wings of the Liberal Party.

I remember the late Walter Baker speaking with such distinction and such determination. I served in the House of Commons with Jed Baldwin when he was in his last session as a member of Parliament condemning the Liberal Party and the Liberal government for its failure to introduce freedom of information. I think of Mr. Diefenbaker himself, who was such a critic of big government, such a critic of closed government. I hear comments by Hugh Segal about the fact that a government that is not advertising at least five per cent of its revenues or something is not doing its job.

Then I listen to the justifications from the Premier as to why these things should remain behind closed doors and I often wonder whether it is the same group of people. Of course, it is and it is not. Such is the way of the world.

I would simply point out to the Premier that just this last week, as a result of freedom of information, we have heard some very valuable public information with respect to Environment Canada's attempts to reduce the radiation limits that are being imposed on Ontario Hydro. We would not have that information; we certainly would not get it from Ontario Hydro and I suspect we would not get it from the Minister of Energy (Mr. Andrewes). We would not get it were it not for the right of the citizen to go under the federal freedom of information legislation to get that kind of information and be able to make it public.

We are entitled to that kind of information. I would also say the Premier is not living up to what I take to be the policies of the federal party, of which he is now such a strong advocate and such a strong friend.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Always have been.

Mr. Rae: The Premier says he always has been. In time people will wonder, and this is what the member for Port Arthur was getting at, about all the fuss. It is something that eventually people should be able to take for granted. They should be able to get more information about their government, certainly more information about how money is spent on public opinion polls and other things, which should be taken for granted.

I cannot listen to a Hugh Segal or a Premier of this province without thinking at the same time of those people in Ottawa who have been pummelling the Liberals day after day for having failed to publish the results of public opinion polls, for having bilked the public, for having taken the taxpayers' money and not provided information. I must say I cannot listen to the Liberal Party here without realizing what the government in Ottawa does when it has the chance to do it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Rae) is in the unenviable position of only having to worry about one other government in the whole of the country.

Mr. Rae: This week.

Mr. Kerrio: His problem is that when you only have one wing, you fly in circles.

Mr. Chairman: Order.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Chairman, I cannot let this opportunity go by without trying to seek an explanation from the Premier on a matter I raised with regard to the tendering or the lack of tendering of the Shoot to Score lottery tickets and the difficulty of getting any information from the minister about the bids which were made -- in fact, whether the bid that was accepted was the highest of the three submitted.

I would ask the Premier why there is secrecy about this. In this tendering process, as he probably knows from a question in the House, there were only three bidders. It was awarded to Scientific Games in the United States.

One of the bidders was the British American Bank Note Co. I talked to the president there and asked him, "Would you have any objection to releasing the information on your bid?" He said: "No, not at all. That is public business. It should be released." It seems to me that is a logical statement.

Those of us here who have a municipal background will know -- at least in my municipality this was standard practice -- that when tenders came in, one opened the tenders publicly and the bidders were all invited to be there when the tenders were opened. That is the way in which public business should be conducted.

Here we have a situation with regard to a tender worth more than $4 million. There were three bidders. One was Canadian, one was wholly American and the third perhaps was a consortium of some Canadian and some American companies. In a prepared statement he gave to the House on Friday, May 11, the minister did not state whether it was the lowest tender of the three, the middle tender or the high tender. He gave no figures at all, although I asked that in my original question.

Why? What is the government trying to hide? Even if there is nothing to hide, does the Premier not feel the public thinks something is being hidden when we do not see the figures on these tenders?

5 p.m.

The matter of tendering is not the only thing about which the public has had a lot of questions in recent times. I do not see why this whole process is not opened up as municipal governments do to make these tenders public. They even send the other bidders the information on the tender that was accepted. Why can the provincial government not do the same thing as municipal governments do and which they are required by the Municipal Act to do?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Actually, Mr. Chairman, there are a number of government tenders -- in the Ministry of Transportation and Communications, for instance, which has some of the largest contracts of any within the government -- that are open and public.

I will get the details on Shoot to Score. I can only recall the discussions in the House. I think the initial question by the member was as to why a Canadian firm was not used. I think that was the origin of his question; I may be wrong in that, but that is my recollection. The minister made it quite clear it was because the technology existed with the organization in the United States -- I forget the exact name of the firm -- but the tickets in future would be printed here.

I will be delighted to raise it with the minister if the member has a concern that the banknote company he suggested may have a lower figure. I do not even know whether that company is technically qualified to produce the tickets, but I will be delighted to try to find out for the member.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Chairman, I have a very simple question to start out this discussion with the Premier. We have been here now for nearly two months, and I know he will say I am new and so on and comment on a number of things, but I do not recall at any time in my political experience -- and I have checked with my colleagues and discussed it with the former member for York South and asked him if he can remember such a time -- when the government was in session for two months and so little legislation was introduced of any real substance, of any real cutting edge in terms of the matters facing the people of this province.

It is a bizarre experience to be living through a time when people are unemployed, when the province is undergoing tremendous economic change, when there are extraordinary numbers of challenges waiting to be faced, and we are being asked to spend hours on end debating the Wine Content Act and a number of other pieces of legislation. I am not saying they are unimportant. I am simply saying they are matters that are not divisive. They are housekeeping measures, and matters of real substance involving the future of this province go unpresented by the government.

Why did the Premier call us back in March if he had no real intention of bringing in any kind of package? How does he explain the incredible paucity of material that has been discussed at the House leaders' meetings over the last two months? Can he possibly give us an explanation? I am finding it very hard to justify to my constituents spending as much time as we do here when there is so little actually going on.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, I am very intrigued by this question. I find it intriguing that once again the member discussed this matter with his predecessor. I am just trying to go back, because he raised this on another occasion and one or two journalists have written about it. I think if the member looks at the number of bills at present before the House, he will find us quite consistent. What he is really saying to me is that he has not been successful in finding an issue he can exploit with respect to the politics of his party, with respect to his -- and I am saying this very kindly -- political profile.

I can recall we spent hours in this House debating a bill related to the school system in Metropolitan Toronto. The member would love me to bring in a comparable bill so he could fill the galleries, get his party organizers out, stimulate a whole lot of discussion -- in which he turned out to be wrong, incidentally -- and provoke a political debate.

I have been in this business for a while. It is not my job to give opposition parties issues. That is the job the member was elected to do. There is no one upstairs listening to me, but I would say to those journalists who sometimes tell me things are a little dull around Queen's Park that I was not elected to entertain. This is not my responsibility.

If some members opposite want to act like clowns, that is up to them. However, I do not think that is my job. I can recall a great deal of the time in public discussion in this House was led by the Leader of the Opposition. It had nothing to do with legislation per se; it was the whole trust companies issue. It was an obsession with him; there was question after question. We had unemployment at its highest levels. We were in trouble in economic terms. However, day after day, question period after question period, headline after headline related to the trust companies issue.

I am not being critical of this. I only point out that we do not dictate what the opposition parties raise as issues. As government, it is not our job to create that degree of political interest.

Mr. Foulds: That is a revealing comment. Does the Premier realize what he just said?

Hon. Mr. Davis: What does the member mean? I am not out here to make issues for the opposition parties; that is their responsibility. What took a lot of interest and public interest at the time of a certain budget was not the contents of the budget at all. Some of the people across the House spent more time worrying about whether the then Treasurer, the member for Muskoka (Mr. F. S. Miller) should resign, than on what was in the budget that came out a few days later. That happens to be the truth.

I do not make those determinations. I cannot create news, nor am I going to introduce legislation which the opposition will find necessarily exciting and which will give them, shall we say, a political issue. I like to handle the affairs of the people of this province without confrontation. I do not want confrontation; the opposition members may like it, but it is not my style. I would suggest that in terms of the economic policies of the government, they should be patient until four o'clock tomorrow afternoon.

The members may have a list of some bills they would like to see introduced. I do not know what they are, but I tell them we are following our planned program. They may not find it exciting or time-consuming. However, if what we went through in terms of time consumption by the New Democratic Party -- by their having member after member getting up on the bill of the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson), where they repeated themselves hour after hour, day after day, week after week -- was not an abuse of the system, then I would like to know what is.

Mr. Rae: The Premier cannot conceivably be following any program. He has not done one thing he said he was going to do in the throne speech.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I did not mean to provoke the member for York South, but I can assure him that we are introducing legislation, although he may not think it is meaningful. I apologize to him if he does not think it is. I happen to have people communicating to me who happen to think the legislation being passed is important. I will put these people in touch with the member for York South, because he may wish to say to them that he really did not mean it when he said here this afternoon that it was not important.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Chairman, if I wanted to be entertained, I do not think the Premier, the Tory party or the Tory government would be among the top 10. If I wanted my two-and-a-half-year-old daughter to be entertained, I would not even submit her to the kind of performance we have seen over the last two months. The Premier should not twist what I have said. I did not ask him for entertainment. I did not ask him for any issues.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Of course the member is.

Mr. Rae: No, we are not. We are talking about legislation that carries out what the Premier said he was going to do in his speech from the throne. He brought us here in the middle of March and in the speech he announced a whole number of things he was going to do. He has not addressed one of them.

He has not pointed the way. Look at the day care initiatives he discussed. He said he was going to be introducing them. The Minister for Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Elgie) got up to give a speech to a group of Tory organizers. He said, "This is what we are going to do with respect to a particular issue involving the classification and censorship of videotapes." Where is the bill? We have not seen one bill. We have been waiting for two months for one piece of legislation that deals with a matter the Premier thinks is substantive.

In question period, we will raise the issues we think are of real importance. I think the issues we have been raising have been seen by the public to be of real importance. What I am asking is how the Premier justifies the sustained lethargy, the sustained inactivity of the last two months in terms of the pressing problems facing the people of this province. That is what I am asking. I am not asking for entertainment, for anything amusing or for drollery. That is not why we are here, and I accept that. It is certainly not why the Premier is here.

5:10 p.m.

Is the Premier saying this is part of a plan on his part? Is he actually alleging that he planned this program of the last two months in advance, that this was a product of forethought on his part? I cannot believe that. I honestly cannot believe he sat down with his advisers and said, "Let us plan our legislative timetable for the spring of 1984," and this is what he produced. It is unreal with respect to the substantive issues. His colleagues know it; everybody knows it.

The back-benchers are all talking about it. They are all asking us: "Why are we here? We do not know why we are here. We have more important issues. We cannot understand what has happened. We do not know why there is no leadership on the basic issues. We cannot figure it out." They are all talking to the press and to everybody else.

Mr. Kolyn: Name them.

Mr. Rae: I am not about to talk about personal conversations I have had; that is not my style.

Mr. Rotenberg: The member does not have any proof.

Mr. Rae: Oh no, that is not my style. I am not going to get into that game, not for a minute.

I am astonished that the Premier has called us back here and that we have had two months in which to spend time dealing with the legislation and in which, I would say, not a single measure to carry out the basic promises and commitments that were made in the throne speech has really been given a great deal of attention by the government, not a single measure has been brought forward in the Orders and Notices and has been presented in the House leaders' meetings as a bill that must be dealt with or as a measure that must be taken.

The vast majority of time has been spent on minor housekeeping matters. Sure, some housekeeping matters are important. Some bills that have been discussed for a long time are matters of general consensus and they now emerge; those are matters that are normally the work government has to do. But government also has to take some initiative to plan and say, "This is what we are going to be doing to carry out the program that was announced in the throne speech."

The Premier announced a program in the throne speech. What is happening now with respect to all the commitments and promises he made in the throne speech? Nothing, apparently, and I think this is the issue that the people of the province want to hear about. Why has he called us back for two months and not dealt head on with the issues he said he was going to deal with head on in the throne speech?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, with great respect, I remember the contents of the throne speech very clearly, and if the leader of the third party will review it carefully, he will find that there is not a commitment to a whole lot of legislation.

The throne speech does not refer to legislation on every single item whatsoever. They are matters of policy. A lot of it will be reflected in the budget. The member, being the expert in the economy that he purports to be, knows full well that these issues are not legislated.

I am interested. I should tell the leader of the third party something about our caucus and about the public generally. He should get to know them here in this province. The public generally is not looking for a whole lot of new legislation. Our caucus is not enthusiastic. Does the member opposite know something about the people in this province? They think we have too much legislation now. There are some people who think we are overregulated.

Mr. Foulds: All right. Bring in the deregulation bill then. Why is the government not doing something about it?

Hon. Mr. Davis: But the member and his colleagues would oppose it, as they oppose everything else we do.

I do not know what the experience of the member for York South was in the House of Commons, but I can give him a very accurate record of how productive this House was last year. I can also give him a prediction as to how productive it will be by, say, mid-December with respect to commitments in the throne speech and the amount of legislation. I know we are in the minor leagues in his point of view, but we will match his accomplishments in the federal House any day of the week.

On the economic issues that were raised in the throne speech, the member is going to have to be patient until four o'clock tomorrow. He may decide not to stay the rest of the day; he may decide not to get here until four o'clock in the afternoon. I will not be offended if he feels he does not have enough to do here for the next week or so. I will miss the member for York South. but I will not be offended. The rest of us will find ourselves very busy.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Chairman, the leader of the New Democratic Party articulates a real concern. I understand that the Premier wants to play with this and banter with this, but it is not so much a question of the amount of legislation being introduced or that we judge our efficacy as a Legislature by the number of bills we have passed; that is not the issue.

There is a very strong sense that we are not dealing with the fundamental and gut issues, such as educational financing; such as changes in our demographics that are going to impact dramatically on our health care delivery system; such as pension reform as that impacts on our health care financing system and delivery system; such as some of the problems articulated in the document called Economic Transformation and published by his colleague the Treasurer (Mr. Grossman). How does public policy from the various ministries fit into that?

I recall very well an interview the Premier had some years ago in the time of minority government. The question put to him by the reporter was, "Mr. Premier, what is your vision for Ontario?" He said his vision was, first, to find oil in James Bay and, second, to get a majority government. He got a majority government, but I do not think there is any real understanding. Perhaps one of the problems of a government that has been presiding over the province for 40 years is that it cannot adequately face up to some real changes.

The Premier and I may disagree fundamentally on this. He may not think there is much going on. He may not think there are changes going on. In my view, we in this province are being swept up in the midst of profound structural changes that happen to coincide with the last recession, and we may not be out of that. These changes are dramatically affecting the way we will live, work and produce well and the kind of services we are going to have in the future.

I am not sure that is indicated in yesterday's poll. I am not sure there is any vision of that in the last three polls. I believe very strongly, however, that the kind of future my kids are going to have is very different from what we have gone through. The kind of opportunities that will be open to them are going to be limited and very different from those that I, the Premier and our generation have had.

I think it is our responsibility as legislators to take a much longer view. I am not sure that can be done in this House in question period or in certain debates on legislation. I understand the constraints of the rules. That is one of the reasons I am very much enjoying the discussion we are having today. I do think there should be innovative approaches to parliamentary procedure, where we engage some of the best minds in this House on various committees of interest.

For example, there is the matter of educational financing. We have not had, except for Bill 127, and Bill 42 to a lesser extent, a thoughtful discussion about education in this province, where we are going in the future and the kind of system we could have. I believe that is a topic that would lend itself very well to a select committee, as we all wrestle with those issues.

As we know, there are good and bad select committees. The good ones have worked extremely well. We developed a consensus. We developed an expertise, for example, in the select committee on Ontario Hydro affairs, which the government has abolished, which it does not like any more, perhaps because it finds that committee an embarrassment.

We could apply the same kind of rules and the same kind of mandate to a group of this House. There are many members who have strong personal concerns, who would like to get together with members of other parties and who could develop a system that would be of real assistance to the government in the formation of a policy, establishing an ongoing dialogue with the public and, in addition to that, coming up with consensual policies in a number of areas.

I recognize that there are many areas of partisan difference in this House, but there are many areas that are not partisan. I think it behooves us as members of the Legislative Assembly to make that distinction. It is foolish to turn every single issue in this House into a partisan issue. I think we can see coming many tough, gut issues; issues that are going to impact more in the future or incrementally. I have talked about some of them. I have talked about pension reform, and we had a good select committee on pension reform. I was proud to be on that, at least for a while.

5:20 p.m.

There are educational reform and medical care delivery services in the future. Those are big issues. They are what we are here and responsible for. I commend to the Premier taking a new look at the whole question of parliamentary reform. He should take his colleagues into his confidence, use them, work them and work with them. They can be staffed. I believe it would be a good and healthy process, not just for the members of this parliament, but for the government as well. I believe he would get much better public policy as a result.

We have established from previous discussions in this House that his view is that he will make it all up, work with his bureaucrats, work behind the scenes and come forward in this House with a bill some time, maybe, if he wants to, and we will discuss it then and it will be a now-or-nothing proposition. He has the votes to beat us on any issue. We recognize that. We know the limitations of opposition.

I could point to my own colleagues here, and I could point equally to my colleagues in the New Democratic Party or his own back-benchers, who would be anxious to get fully involved in the public process and help him. I think we could get far better government. That is how to wrestle with the tough problems. That is how we forge a consensus and that is how we use this Legislature effectively.

We can stand up and talk about the frustrations of being here for a couple of months. The leader of the New Democratic Party is absolutely right when we look at the various lists of bills we have passed and all that kind of thing. But I think what he is speaking about, and I do not mean to put words in his mouth, is the broader issue, that there is a strong sense we are not dealing in a meaningful way with some of the great issues.

I remember coming here in 1975 when I had never been in the building before. I had read a lot about the important people on that side of the House. I came to this parliament for the very strong personal reason that I felt I too could make a contribution. I remember the issue that was dominating the day. With no disrespect to my friend the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel), the issue of the day was hockey violence.

The new Attorney General was making a great big fuss. Nothing has changed, as proved by the member for Sudbury East. I thought to myself at that point, "How superficial; how meaningless." Does this institution have the capacity to grasp and deal with the real issues? I think there is hope for this institution. I have a profound respect for it, but I do not think it is working as well as it could.

I want to take this opportunity to add to the remarks of the leader of the New Democratic Party by saying there are more effective ways we can function together. I suspect if I were to talk to all my colleagues among the back-benchers across the floor that by and large they would agree with me on questions of municipal finance, questions of tax reform and a number of other very thorny and difficult problems to which there is no one clear answer. There is not necessarily a partisan response. There is a response of well-informed, knowledgeable people who care passionately for their country and their province and who came here to have a hand in framing their direction.

I leave that with the Premier to think about, because I am sure if he adopted that kind of approach he would get co-operation and approval from all members on all sides of the House.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am intrigued by the observations of the Leader of the Opposition. My understanding of the parliamentary system of government may be somewhat different from his. I did not sense in the leader of the New Democratic Party a desire to move to a consensus approach to legislation.

Mr. Rae: I want you guys to do something, that is all; just do something.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I know exactly what he is saying. All I am pointing out is that this is not what I believe the member for London Centre (Mr. Peterson) was saying.

I am intrigued because I know one can have this philosophical sort of appeal. I am also a realist. I know that when it comes to government developing a program, if there is some measure of consensus, that is fine. I also know that, if there is no agreement, the members opposite -- this happened during the minority situation -- do not stand up and take some of the responsibility. I am a realist.

They seize every opportunity. I read their speeches around this province that vary from one community to another. They are highly critical, sometimes in a very personal way, of this government and its ministers; sometimes it is very personal.

They are always after me about polls. They go into northern Ontario and tell everybody in northern Ontario they are going to elect a whole lot of members because the polls say so. Who is obsessed by polls? I saw the headline the other day. Was it up in the member's area?

I am just pointing out to the Leader of the Opposition that he can introduce the question of demographic changes. It will come as a great shock to him, but as a government we have been assessing demographic changes for the past many years. One will see the assessment as it relates to our programs for senior citizens.

He talks about educational finance. There is not going to be a consensus because it will be his task as he sees it to suggest we are not paying enough by way of educational finance, whether to the elementary, secondary or post-secondary situation. I have read his speeches on how we are not spending enough on post-secondary education. I know his point of view. I have also read the speeches in which he has said our budgetary deficit is too high, we are spending too much money and we should tax less.

Mr. Peterson: Has the Premier read the speeches on Suncor?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I have read those too, but the member cannot have it six different ways. I would be delighted to get the Leader of the Opposition to agree more with what the government is doing. Maybe he is talking more about the congressional system of government in the United States where there is a very distinct division between the administrative or executive branch of government and the legislative branch. That is not what we have here. It is not part of the tradition. One can read any of the debates in the House of Commons in the United Kingdom and one will find that they are, and I am, part of the parliamentary system.

I can recall a member for Sudbury years ago; I do not know whether the member for Sudbury East recalls him; I know the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Stokes) recalls him. Elmer Sopha made some of the great speeches. He was one of the great orators in this House and made quite a bit of sense on some days but not on all days. He reminded all of us that parliament is a partisan place. It is where party politics are part of the way we do business. I am not always comfortable with that although I should not confess that. By its nature, it is a partisan place.

One does not stand up very often even when one agrees with the government and say, "Yes, the government has done the right thing" and so on, and I do not expect it, though I will give the members some political advice: if they did it, their criticisms would have greater credibility, but they never do it. I say that very kindly; they never do it. I should not say "never," that is too strong. Very rarely do they do it in terms of government policy. It is their job to be critical.

I am not opposed to select committees. Their House leader always reminds me we have too many select committees. He is coming through the door here. He tells me with great regularity we have far too many select committees. I do not know how one could structure a select committee on educational finance. I do not think one could have one that would bring forward a productive result. Those determinations are based on taxing levels and what we believe our economic policy should be.

If the members opposite are not content, then they are critical. That is part of the process. One might have a select committee on hockey violence. The member has raised this as an example. There one would find a tremendous degree of unanimity. I am not suggesting we do it, believe me, but that is the kind of issue where one might get a measure of consensus on how it should be approached. I do not know.

Mr. Martel: The minister turned it down. He has not done anything about it. We allow the kids to get killed in Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I say to the member for Sudbury East that I respect the sincerity with which he is approaching this issue since he has become so involved in it. It is not a question of not doing something about it. I am not an expert in this field, either. I have a youngster who played a little hockey for a time, but I know it is not a question of legislation per se; it involves instead discussion with the people in leadership in the amateur hockey associations, the referees and so on.

Perhaps that is one area that would be appropriate, but we would be leading ourselves astray if we thought we could have a select committee dealing with educational finance that would produce that sort of result. I am not being negative with respect to some of these suggestions. I have to deal with realities. Those are some of the realities as I see them. I hear the member for Erie (Mr. Haggerty) and he knows what I am saying.

Mr. Chairman: Is this a new comment?

Mr. Stokes: Mr. Chairman, it is a new topic. It is a throwback from something that was said earlier.

5:30 p.m.

Mr. Chairman: Before the member proceeds, is the member for Port Arthur following the same line of thought?

Mr. Foulds: It is exactly on this topic.

Mr. Chairman: We did have an earlier --

Mr. Foulds: I am on the same subject as we are currently discussing.

Mr. Chairman: Then we should proceed with that.

Mr. Foulds: I want to ask the Premier specifically about his legislative program, or lack thereof, with regard to items that were raised in the speech from the throne.

In the speech from the throne the government said it would have efforts and initiatives to improve women's rights. Where is the program? Where is the legislation?

The government said it would introduce programs that would "assist small communities to upgrade police and fire stations, support the growth of recreational boating and help develop new marinas." Where is the program? Where is the funding? Where is the legislation?

The government said it would "work with our tourist industry to create tourism co-operatives to help unemployed tradespeople find jobs." Where is the program? Where is the initiative?

The government said it would prepare "initiatives based primarily on the review of the sheltered workshop program to widen work and training opportunities for handicapped persons in our society." Where is the program? Where are the initiatives?

The government said, "The future wellbeing of our agriculture industry will be assisted by creating a widely representative advisory council on agriculture." Has it been appointed? Where is the program? Where are the initiatives?

The government said, "While we remain vigilant in the protection of Ontario's birthright, the environment, we are prepared to reform, from experience, the processes in our regulatory framework." Where is the program? Where is the reform? Where are the initiatives?

The speech said, "My government has resolved, in the face of increasing pressure on opportunities in the financial sector, to determine the necessary measures to ensure the health and competitiveness of the financial institutions operating in Ontario." Where is the program? Where is the legislation? Where are the initiatives?

The government said, "Following careful and extensive consultations, the government will be introducing, in this session, reforms to the workers' compensation system." Where is the legislation? Where are the initiatives?

The government said, "The Ministry of Health will increase access to the most up-to-date methods to prevent and treat kidney disease." Where is the program? Where are the initiatives? Where is the legislation?

Those are just a few.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, I have some difficulty in recalling all of them, but my recollection --

Mr. Wildman: That is obvious.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I mean all of the ones the member has recited.

Mr. Foulds: None of those required the budget.

Hon. Mr. Davis: With great respect, several of them do and most of them do not require legislation. I say that with the greatest of respect. Some are under way, some have been started and some will be --

Mr. Foulds: Give us the examples.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I will go through them. By the time we get back to these, I will have the total list and will tell the member exactly where they stand. With great respect, one does not go through and ask, "Where are the policy, the initiatives and the legislation?" because many of them do not require legislation.

Mr. Foulds: Where is the initiative?

Mr. Rae: Mr. Chairman, frankly I am tired and I am concerned with respect to the Workers' Compensation Act that we are going to be faced, as we have been faced in previous sessions, with a situation where the day before, the week before or two days before the House is due to adjourn, the minister will bring down some changes to the Workers' Compensation Act and say: "There you are. Either you take the whole package or nothing."

This is the way the last week works around here. That is one thing that is exactly the same as in Ottawa. It is the same thing. Governments put it off until the very end, then they whip in everything they want to get through and they say, "Either you get the good things and the bad things, all of it, or nothing." That is the leverage that is applied. This whole blank space gets bigger and bigger and the bills are piling up.

Is the government intending to bring in the workers' compensation reforms prior to any adjournment date in June or July? When is it going to be doing it?

Hon. Mr. Davis: The member sort of asked the question on a high note and I thought he had a supplementary --

Mr. Rae: I know. I was not quite sure.

Hon. Mr. Davis: He was not sure exactly what it was he was asking.

Mr. Rae: Nothing more came out. That is all.

Hon. Mr. Davis: That is unique for the member.

Mr. Breaugh: You have never been accused of that.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I have lost my voice on occasion. I am in the process now, as a matter of fact.

I am trying to be as frank as I can with the leader of the New Democratic Party. There are fairly comprehensive amendments to the Workers' Compensation Act. I hope we have them ready for introduction before we adjourn this spring.

Mr. Rae: Does the Premier expect to have them passed?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I doubt it. Some may suggest that on some parts of it they may want -- I hope not -- another series of hearings or perhaps some opportunity for public discussion.

Mr. Stokes: Mr. Chairman, I am sure you would want to join with me in welcoming a former member to this House, Gordon Smith, the former member for Simcoe East. Welcome. We shared responsibilities similar to those you have now, Mr. Chairman, and I am sure all members will agree with me that he served with distinction. I am sure we are happy to have him visit us again.

Mr. Nixon: You do not have to worry about him. He drove down in a Rolls-Royce.

Mr. Stokes: I wonder if he is still dealing in clocks.

I want to get back to something that was discussed a little earlier when we talked about freedom of information. I am talking about freedom of choice. I cannot think of a better and more immediate opportunity to discuss a problem that was brought to my attention during question period this afternoon.

I got an emergency call from the chairman of a local school board who said one of the members of the board had just been advised by his supervisor that, as a result of changes to the Public Service Act, he could no longer sit on the local school board because he happens to be a member of the Ontario Provincial Police.

I went over and discussed it with the Solicitor General (Mr. G. W. Taylor). He said it was news to him and he had never heard of it. He said, "Let us go and talk to our colleague the Chairman of Management Board." The Chairman of Management Board (Mr. McCague) said: "I do not know anything about it either, but they may be right. I recall something that happened within recent vintage."

I have since got a call from the Solicitor General's office confirming that a member of the OPP who serves as a school board member has to make a decision: he either resigns from the OPP or he resigns from the school board.

The Premier will know that in small communities in the north we really have to shake the bushes to get somebody to serve on municipal councils, school boards and the public-spirited bodies where one really has to get the best people possible. He knows what happens at municipal and school board elections where, almost without exception, it happens by acclamation. One really has to go out and get people to serve.

We happen to have an excellent OPP officer in my home town who asked me whether he should attend a school board meeting in Marathon, 58 miles away. In checking with the officials, they said, "That is the law." It did not happen by legislation; it happened as a result of regulation. Apparently there was an OPP constable who wanted to run for a political office. I think it was for the government party.

Mr. Wildman: Federally.

Mr. Stokes: Yes, federally. They took it to arbitration and the policeman and his association won the case. Apparently the Premier's people in the Civil Service Commission did not like that, so they brought in a regulation that treats the OPP as other senior civil servants. I am told if one is at the directorship level or higher, one cannot run for the federal Parliament, provincial parliament, local council or a school board.

5:40 p.m.

I do not know the rationale behind that, but I do not see bogymen behind every tree. We have civil servants or OPP constables who are public-spirited, knowledgeable and dedicated, and here we have disfranchised a whole new group of people from serving in a way in which we think they are competent to serve. I just wonder if the Premier is aware of what is happening. Apparently, the Solicitor General did not know the consequences of the regulation and the Chairman of Management Board did not know.

I had to advise this Ontario Provincial Police constable not to go to the meeting in Marathon but not to resign. I said I would raise this very troublesome question at the earliest opportunity. I was going to raise it tomorrow in question period if I could get on the list.

I am imploring the Premier to look into this and to see the reasons this regulation was passed. Is it something we are not aware of? Is it something the OPP is not aware of? Is it something the people in northern Ontario who elect these people are not aware of?

This guy is a very valuable member of a local school board. He did not phone; it was somebody else, a member of the board, who called on his behalf. I do not expect the Premier to answer off the cuff, but there must be some rationale for the action that was taken. A lot of people are disturbed about it, and they are going to continue to be disturbed unless we can get some reasonable and plausible answer to the action that has been taken.

I do not think it is fair. I think they are being disfranchised; they are being denied freedom of action in a public-spirited way. I just hope the Premier will take this as notice and either change the thing or come up with some plausible explanation as to why something like this could happen in Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I will certainly inquire into it. I know the honourable member understands that if this regulation is having this effect, just so everybody will understand, it is not confined to northern Ontario; the same would apply to the Peel Board of Education.

Mr. Stokes: No. It has a much more profound impact on northern Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Davis: No. We need good school board members in Peel as much as the member does where he is.

Mr. Stokes: Agreed.

Hon. Mr. Davis: As long as the member understands that. I am delighted that an OPP officer is contributing to school board activities.

Mr. Laughren: That is debatable, too.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am quite serious about that. I will find out.

I could give the member a guess. It is like so many regulations where one may or may not find the broad principle acceptable but where there is a rationale; then when it comes into specific application, we can always find circumstances where we believe the regulation should not apply.

I cannot say that is the case in this instance, but I will inquire. I may not be able to reply to the member directly tomorrow, but I will have one of the ministers of the crown do so.

The Deputy Chairman: Is this on the same subject?

Mr. Mackenzie: It is on what we were discussing just moments ago on the items we have on the agenda, Mr. Chairman.

The Deputy Chairman: The member for Kitchener-Wilmot would have gone next then.

Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Chairman, I have a perplexing difficulty that perhaps the Premier of Ontario can help me out of.

As the Premier is probably well aware, all members of this Legislature are attending at school tree plantings, bicentennial celebrations and Education Week celebrations. My agenda has been no different. In the last two weeks I have visited seven schools, which come under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Education of Ontario, and I have been talking about things such as the bicentennial celebrations.

But I must admit I am having great difficulty explaining to the children and the pupils of Ontario why we are celebrating Ontario's bicentennial in 1984. The difficulty, of course, is relating back 200 years and trying to identify what happened in 1784 that justifies this celebration.

I would draw to the Premier's attention a textbook entitled, The Story of Ontario, by Joseph Scott. The Premier may recognize it because when he was the Minister of Education of Ontario this was one of the approved textbooks. The Premier, of course, will well realize that I am aware of this because I used it in the schools of Ontario when the Premier was the Minister of Education for Ontario.

Let me quote from the textbook that I assume was approved by the then Minister of Education in Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Davis: That assumption is in error.

Mr. Sweeney: Oh, is it? I am sorry. Let us say if it was not approved by him, the then Minister of Education would certainly have had something to say about it.

It says, "The year 1791 may be called the birthday of our province." I will not read all of this, as I am conscious of the time, but it goes on to point out that was the year in which the Constitutional Act or, as it is sometimes called, the Canada Act was passed. That was the year when, for all practical purposes, the western half of what was then the colony of Quebec was broken off, divided at the Ottawa River, to create for the first time an area then known as Canada West which, of course, is now Ontario.

In other words, prior to 1791, Ontario, or any particular geographic outline the Premier wishes to define, simply did not exist. It was all part of the jurisdiction then known as Quebec, the French colony under British domination or British jurisdiction. It was not until 1791, by an act of the Parliament of Britain, known as the Constitutional Act or the Canada Act, that Ontario as we know it today, or for the most part as we know it today, was created. It simply did not exist before that.

The Premier will be well aware of the fact, according to this textbook his ministry approved for the schools of Ontario, that was the year in which the first elected assembly was created in Ontario. It did not exist before that. In 1791, for the very first time, the people of Ontario had the opportunity, albeit in some rather strange ways I will not go into, to elect their representatives.

The text goes on to point out some of the very important laws that were passed by that very first assembly elected for Canada West in 1791, laws which, for example, allowed us to have trial by jury, which was not possible in this jurisdiction before; laws which allowed the British landholding system, which we did not have before; laws, which I thought were very enlightened, that were passed for the very first time in North America prohibiting slavery.

I wonder if the former Minister of Education was even aware of that. The first elected assembly of what is now Ontario passed the first law in North America prohibiting slavery because some of the United Empire Loyalists who came up here both before and after 1784 --

Hon. Mr. Davis: And during 1784.

Mr. Sweeney: And during. The only thing in this textbook that applies to 1784 is the fact that it was the one single year in which the largest number -- not the first and not the last, but the largest number -- of United Empire Loyalists came into what is now Ontario. That is the only significant historical fact and an important one to keep in mind.

The point I am trying to make is that here we have a textbook that was approved for the schools of Ontario, and it says the physical creation of what we now know as Ontario did not even occur until 1791. The first elected assembly was not created or permitted until 1791. Some of the significant laws with respect to trial by jury, the British land-holding system -- about which, by the way, we even had a reference today from the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations -- the abolition of slavery, everything that was truly significant in terms of a bicentennial celebration happened in 1791 and should be celebrated in 1991.

5:50 p.m.

I go back to my original question. How do we go around this province speaking to the children of Ontario? I am not talking about anything partisan and I hope the Premier will recognize that I make absolutely no partisan remarks when I am talking to children in the schools in Ontario. I never have and I never will; I do not think it is appropriate. How do we explain this? I would appreciate an answer from the Premier.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The former academic adviser has given me a tremendous challenge to try to explain to those schools he attends why 1984.

Mr. Breaugh: The year before the next provincial election. That is clear.

Mr. Rae: It is the 200th anniversary of the first Tory riding association in Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Not necessarily.

Mr. Breaugh: We are trying to help the Premier.

The Deputy Chairman: Does the leader of the third party want the answer?

Hon. Mr. Davis: He is preoccupied with Tory riding associations.

Mr. Rae: The arrival of the first Tories in Ontario -- not the first people but the first Tories.

Hon. Mr. Davis: That is not true. There were some here before 1784.

Mr. Rae: Not in my riding.

The Deputy Chairman: The Premier has the floor and he is about to answer the question.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I thought the member would have said there are not that many Tories in his riding even now. We are getting more all the time. We would be happy to send them over.

Mr. McClellan: There are no Tories in my riding.

The Deputy Chairman: Order.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, would you bring the House to order.

The Deputy Chairman: The Premier will answer the question.

Mr. Wildman: It is such an esoteric argument.

Hon. Mr. Davis: It is, really. It is partially esoteric because unlike --

Mr. Rae: Who were the first Tories anyway?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think it was the Rae family. My recollection is that historically some went to the Liberal Party. The brother of the leader of the third party is obviously a supporter of the capitalist approach; I sensed that in New York the other day. His uncle, obviously, is more culturally endowed than he is and a bit of a pragmatist. Does he want any more about his family?

Mr. Breaugh: I said he was not going to answer the question.

The Deputy Chairman: That does not pertain to the question.

Hon. Mr. Davis: It does not at all, but the member for York South brought his family into it.

Mr. Rae: No, the Premier did.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Yes, I did. He is quite right. The uncle of the leader of the third party is a very fine musician.

The member knows a little about history, the teaching of history and the evolution of jurisdictions in Europe, south of the line, even in this country. The formal date for some states of the union, some of which are still called commonwealths even with respect to the United States as a whole, of the signing of a treaty or the signing of some formal document is not necessarily the most important part of the evolution or development of that jurisdiction from a historical standpoint.

I would argue not as a teacher or as a former teacher -- I do not have that experience as the member does -- but if it had not been for the settlements in 1784 -- some before and again some after -- we might not have had the acts of 1791. I give the member this challenge that if the events in 1784 had not taken place, would we have had the acts of 1791? I think that he, as an analyst of history and of how these things evolve, would probably have to agree that would not have taken place and this province might not have ever emerged in its present form.

I was down in Quinte riding the other day and I was with his colleague the member for Quinte (Mr. O'Neil). There is no question about the perception at that dinner. They all approached me on this, that in terms of the change in the settlement of this province, the thing that gave it a different character and started it on its growth was the settlement in 1784. No one is arguing that in legal terms that was the beginning of the province of Ontario, but that has not been the history of country after country, province after province or state after state.

Mr. Sweeney: The government is making a celebration but there is no birthday.

Hon. Mr. Davis: With great respect, there are some people who will argue that in terms of the ultimate celebration, the conception is as relevant --

Mr. Nixon: I wonder what the Premier thinks of as the ultimate celebration.

Hon. Mr. Davis: That could be misunderstood.

Mr. Foulds: Go ahead, Johnny Carson.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I do not know. All I am suggesting is that if the member would like to discuss this with Professor Careless, who was my professor of history at the University of Toronto --

Mr. McClellan: Careless.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Careless; he is a very able professor. I want to tell the member that he is.

Mr. Sweeney: Is the Premier aware that in the book of Professor Careless, 1891 was the first centenary, not 1884?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I understand that. I would refer the member to some of the articles or some of the statements made by Professor Careless in relation to the bicentennial. I had no trouble. I was up in Fesserton the other day. Does the member know where Fesserton is?

Some hon. members: Yes.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I did not ask them. I asked him. Does he know where Fesserton is?

Mr. Sweeney: I can find it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: He does not know where Fesserton is. It is sort of half way between Coldwater and Waubaushene. It is up in the great county of Simcoe, Huronia, where much of our history had its beginnings before the United Empire Loyalists.

A friend of mine teaches school there. They have three or four grades. They did a great job. They put on a little play of what Fesserton was like. They were celebrating their 100th anniversary. We combined it with the bicentennial. I planted a tree and it is growing with enthusiasm.

I try to approach it on this basis. The bicentennial is not a celebration of a specific date in history in terms of a new province being created and people sitting down to sign a formal constitution. What 1784 was and what 1984 represents in our bicentennial is really the historical understanding and awareness that this was the approximate date that put Ontario and its future on the road.

Mr. Foulds: Approximate; give or take a decade.

Mr. Wildman: Approximate.

Hon. Mr. Davis: It could have been from January 1, 1784, until the end of December, 1784.

Mr. Kerrio: It happened in 1492.

Hon. Mr. Davis: It did not happen in 1492 at all. The member just wants to take a little credit for his fellow countryman in 1492. That is all he wants to do. I have no trouble talking to students about how 1984 and 1784 are relevant periods in our history.

Mr. Sweeney: You are really stretching it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: We are not stretching it. One always interprets history. I have read more history books based on the same set of facts that come to different conclusions.

In our household we have a mixed marriage. It is no secret. My wife is a former American. She is now a Canadian because she could not tolerate the Globe and Mail having a headline, "Premier's Wife Refuses to Vote for Him." She has become a Canadian.

The Americans' perception of the battles of the War of 1812 are quite different from those of Canadians. They have the same set of facts. For a long time, I think Kathleen thought Laura Secord really came from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. For years in some American schools they thought they won the battle of Queenston Heights. It just is not true. They interpreted history in a different fashion.

I am trying to explain. We are getting close to the supper hour. I hope I have convinced the distinguished academic that we have selected the right year and that we should all be joyful. As the member for Brock (Mr. Welch) would say, we should rejoice together in the celebration of this bicentennial for the people of this province.

As with the member for Quinte and with the pictures I have seen of the member for Victoria-Haliburton (Mr. Eakins) planting a tree and raising the flag, I was intrigued as to how we are all stepping into the enthusiasm and sharing as members of this House. This is one area that is nonpartisan, where we should all join together in observing this important date in the history of this province. The member should explain that to his students.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Eaton, the committee of supply reported progress.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.

May 14, 1984