Journal des débats 1984-nov-15 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr. Speaker: Before proceeding with the business of the House, I would ask all members of the assembly to join me in recognizing and welcoming in the Speaker's gallery a distinguished jurist and a great Canadian who laid the foundation for civil rights in Ontario, the Honourable James C. McRuer.

Mr. McRuer has presented to the Legislature today the tray which was presented to him by the lawyer members of the Ontario Legislature in 1970. Some of the members of the class of 1970, as well as his family, are here with him.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I want to say a word or two about the presence of Mr. McRuer in the House today, particularly since his record of service in this community has been so useful and extensive.

I would be less than fair if I did not point out that the McRuer farm is still in operation, by coincidence in the constituency of Brant-Oxford-Norfolk. I believe Mr. McRuer's brother is still one of the principal farmers, and his grand nephew is certainly a highly respected member of the farm community in the broadest sense in that area.

I think it is also fair to note that before Mr. McRuer ascended the bench and his views lost any partisan colour, he was a very active campaigner on behalf of the Liberal Party, particularly on behalf of the greatest Liberal of them all, Mitchell F. Hepburn.

I do not want to misrepresent the former Chief Justice's position in this regard. As we know, political purity, if not virginity, is restored by order in council when people ascend the bench, go to the Ontario Municipal Board or do anything like that.

I also recall one of his greatest works on civil rights, which he undertook at the behest, I believe, of the regime of John Robarts, the late Premier. The views and decisions expressed in it are still very much the cornerstone of legislation and opinions expressed in this House and in this jurisdiction.

I know of no other individual whose service as a lawyer, as a judge, as a jurist and as a man who involved himself in the most healthy and active way in all the important matters of the community makes a better example to those of us in public life than Jim McRuer's. Naturally, we are very honoured to be sitting in his presence today.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, it was 10 years ago, as a law student at the University of Toronto, that I first made the acquaintance of Mr. McRuer. He was at that time a visiting lecturer at the university and as active and vital a member of the faculty in 1974 as any other.

We are today in the presence of much of the history of the 20th century in this province. Mr. McRuer's career has stretched right across the course of the 20th century. It is one of extraordinary distinction in public service. He had a distinguished career as a great lawyer and a great advocate in the middle years of this century. He went on to become Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Ontario.

He then went on to write what I think is without question the document that has done more to transform and civilize administrative law in Ontario than any other. If there is one person who can be said to be responsible for giving the citizens of this province some rights when taking on a state that has become extremely large, a government that has become extremely bureaucratic and a set of agencies and regulatory boards that, before the McRuer commission, had powers that went well beyond those that would be acceptable to most of us in a modern democratic state, it is James McRuer.

We also salute him as the last real Liberal in Ontario and we congratulate him, naturally, on that part of his career. It was a very long time ago that he was active in that area, at the heyday of the Liberal Party in Ontario, but in that historic sense we certainly want to welcome him in the Legislature today. I am sure all members from all sides will appreciate the incredible impact the McRuer commission had on all aspects of life in this province and will welcome him as well.

If citizens who are affected by every single act of government have rights today, it is because of what James McRuer did in his report and because of what this Legislature did in reforming the basic structure of law in this province with respect to administration and the rights of the individual citizen.

My colleague the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Stokes) has quite rightly pointed out that if future generations want to have a look at the comments the then Premier made on the McRuer report they are available in the Legislature, they are kept on view in the Legislature. Together with the tray Mr. McRuer presented to the Legislature today, I know they will be a fitting symbol and a tribute to the life -- an extraordinary, wonderful, vivid life -- of one of the greatest citizens this province has ever known.

Hon. G. W. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the government and as a member of the Justice policy field for the government and the executive council, let me echo the words of my two colleagues opposite in regard to Mr. McRuer and add to them my own very brief comments. One uses the words, although they may seem trite at times, "a legend in his own time," and these are words that apply so vividly to this gentleman.

2:10 p.m.

As a young lawyer starting out in the practice of law, I found his cases were paramount and set precedents in many of our decisions. Then later on he performed all those other public service ventures that he did in regard to the McRuer commission, which have so moulded our laws, our views and our ideals in this province in so many fields. I am sure many of the members of this Legislature have from time to time, and probably very often, used his material in supporting and arguing their positions. They have led our legislative forums and blazed a path for us here.

With admiration I note his exemplary efforts in all fields of law. This legislative chamber has taken his great words and applied them many times. Having heard the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) pay such homage to a lawyer and a jurist, I think it is too bad Mr. Justice McRuer was not here on other occasions when that gentleman was vying for his Queen's Counsel designation. It must be that today the member did find those Liberal roots and was so happy to extol the virtues of this great man.

All jests aside, we have with us a man who will live on with what he has put before us for many great years in the future.

AGRICULTURAL AWARD

Mr. McGuigan: Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw to the attention of the House that a resident of my riding, David Lugtigheid, a 14-year-old lad, has won the world's soybean championship at the Royal Winter Fair. He is the son of Peter and Joan Lugtigheid and the grandson of Mr. and Mrs. Peter Lugtigheid, who came from Holland in the 1920s. The family has made a great contribution to the agricultural and social life of Kent county and all of southwestern Ontario.

RELEASE OF INFORMATION

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. It concerns a series of rather bizarre incidents which I want to summarize very quickly. It relates to remarks that were alleged to have been made in the Northern Daily News, the Kirkland Lake newspaper, by the member for Timiskaming (Mr. Havrot). The story says:

"Education Minister Bette Stephenson told her caucus a negotiator for striking college teachers spat in the face of a college negotiator during negotiations between the two groups, Ed Havrot has revealed.

"Caucus member Ed Havrot, PC-Timiskaming, said yesterday Stephenson made the revelation during a caucus meeting last Tuesday."

I raised this question in my speech in the House last week, and it was raised again by my colleague the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren) in the same debate. The minister said this: "In response to a point of the member for Nickel Belt, which has nothing to do with the principle of the bill, whatever was reported in the newspaper, which I heard about, I did not say." Those are the words of the minister last Friday.

The same newspaper, the Northern Daily News, on November 12, 1984, had a story entitled "Havrot Demands Answers" by Margaret Montrose of the Northern Daily News. The story says:

"An angry Ed Havrot wants a few questions answered.

"The Timiskaming MPP wants to know why Minister of Education Bette Stephenson's office is denying any knowledge of an incident in which a union negotiator representing college teachers allegedly spat on a Council of Regents negotiator.

"Havrot, who told the Northern Daily News about the incident after Stephenson recounted the information in a caucus meeting last week, is now wondering what's going on.

"Stephenson's office denied having any information about the issue when inquiries were made last week.

"'In all the years I've been involved in politics, I have never misled anyone.' said Havrot.

"He said he suspects Stephenson might have been misled about the incident, and now her staff is trying to cover up.

"Like Havrot, Stephenson was relying on information passed on to her, and that information may have been incorrect. However, Havrot said, that's no reason for her office to deny any knowledge of it.

"Another possibility is that both sides in the disagreement are 'covering their a....,' Havrot said."

Apparently, that is how the member for Timiskaming speaks when he is in his riding. I do not know. He certainly is not like that when he is here.

"He likened the situation to two children fighting, and when asked what happened, they reply 'nothing,' yet they are beating the hell out of each other.

"Havrot said he hasn't talked with Stephenson since her office made statements last week, but he intends to, and he added he'll 'give her assistant a piece of my mind.'

"As of today, Havrot has not heard anything from the Ontario Public Service Employees Union about the incident. He said he'll be meeting with local union representatives to discuss the strike later."

I am raising this as a question of privilege. I repeated the entire incident to the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson), quoting it to her from the newspaper and she denied it happened.

We have a statement again today from the member for Timiskaming that it is, in fact, what she said during the caucus meeting and that he is not misleading anyone. I think we are entitled to have the incident cleared up since it relates to statements made by the minister in the House.

Mr. Speaker: Interesting as it may be, it is hardly a point of privilege and it is quite obviously beyond my authority to deal with.

[Later]

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I was searching for the appropriate part of the standing orders, but I believe there is provision in the standing orders that a member may now be heard if unanimous consent is granted by the House.

In view of what has been said and in view of the fact that some people may feel that either the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson) or the member for Timiskaming (Mr. Havrot) is misleading the House or has misled it, I believe the member for Timiskaming should now be heard, but that requires the unanimous consent of the House.

Mr. Speaker: That provision of the standing orders applies only during debate; so it is hardly a point of order.

VISITORS

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, as we peer through the glare of all these lights that are shining on us, it is apparent that we have in the gallery, as well as the honoured guests already referred to, a number of good old friends indeed. I think it would be a shame to let the occasion pass without honouring them because, as I look at them, I see a very interesting collection of former members of the Legislature, each one of whom made the rafters ring in this House in his defence of truth and justice. We miss them very much on all sides.

With your permission, Mr. Speaker, we should welcome them back into this chamber, the scene of some of the days of their greatest triumphs. Many of them have gone on to other duties and responsibilities at least as important. We are delighted to have them here. I see Arthur Meen, John Yaremko, Leonard Braithwaite, James Breithaupt and, if I am not mistaken, Vernon Singer, QC.

Mr. Speaker: With all respect, you left out one, Dante De Monte, who has identified himself as the only practising lawyer of the group.

SEATING PLAN

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether this qualifies as a statement. If it is not a statement, it is a point of information because I know it is not point of anything else. Maybe it is in recognition of our honoured guests. I know how close and how tight the budget in the Office of the Assembly is, but our brand new seating plans which have been placed upon our seats here today, at least at this end of the House, still show as members of the House Albert Roy, Sheila Copps, Jim Breithaupt, Patrick Reid, Eric Cunningham, Don Boudria and Michael Morris Cassidy. Is this old home week?

Mr. Speaker: I would like to point out to the honourable member, and I must say he raised this point with me earlier, that is not the latest issue of the seating plan. That is currently on its way up here and will be on the members' desks no later than the beginning of the week.

2:20 p.m.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I certainly want to join my colleague the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk in extending a very warm welcome to our former colleagues. It is good to see them in the gallery. I can well recall our many heated debates. Their voices rang loud and clear throughout this Legislature. It is great to have them back.

PLANT SHUTDOWN

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, my colleague the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay) and I met with officials of Stelco Inc. yesterday to be informed it has decided to close the Griffith iron ore mine at Ear Falls on April 1, 1985. An official public announcement is being made at 2 p.m. today.

The Stelco executives indicated to us their decision was based on a comprehensive review that concluded ore from the Griffith mine had the highest delivered cost of any of its ore-producing facilities. Transportation and mining costs were cited as among the reasons for this decision.

The Griffith mine came into operation in 1968 and has been operating for the past three years at 50 to 60 per cent capacity. The current work force is 280 persons.

This information came as a shock, not only to myself but also to my cabinet colleagues. After consultation with the Minister of Industry and Trade (Mr. F. S. Miller), the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Pope) and the Minister of Labour, I wish to inform the House that the Premier (Mr. Davis) has today sent a letter to the president and chief executive officer of Stelco, Mr. J. D. Allan. requesting an immediate review of this decision.

Should this review not result in a change in the company's decision, the government will ask that it not be implemented until the company, the Ontario government and the township of Ear Falls can put in place measures that will ensure the continued viability of that community.

The members will also be interested to know that the government will approach the government of Canada to discuss a program of assistance to single-industry resource communities announced last week by the Minister of Finance, the Honourable Michael Wilson.

Finally, I wish to assure the members of this House that in my discussions with Stelco I made it abundantly clear that the government was determined to do everything it can to ensure the consequences of this decision are carried out humanely, responsibly and with total regard for the welfare of all the workers, their families and the communities affected. I would point out that this closing will affect Red Lake, Balmertown, Cochenour and Ear Falls.

UNIVERSITY RESEARCH INCENTIVE FUND

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to inform the House about details of the government's university research incentive fund, which was announced in the May budget. This initiative is designed to improve the research capacity of Ontario's universities and strengthen the partnership with the private sector.

Mr. Martel: What happened to the other committee on one-industry towns?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: It is working.

Mr. Martel: Fourteen thousand people moved out.

Mr. Speaker: It is very difficult to hear the minister's remarks over the voice of the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Bernier).

Hon. Mr. Bernier: He provokes me. Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Since the budget announcement, extensive discussions have taken place between government, the senior representatives of the universities and the private sector to ensure that the university research incentive fund program is both flexible and responsive.

Today, clear program guidelines and application procedures have been mailed to all the universities and to more than 1,000 corporations, industry associations and privately supported research organizations in Ontario. The fund will be used to share the costs of approved research projects that have potential economic benefit for this province.

An integral feature of the program calls for the retention of equipment used in the research project by the universities. By so doing, the fund will increase the research capacity of Ontario's universities as well as the availability of research equipment for future and related use.

The government has committed $30 million to the fund for the next three years. Every $2 invested in an approved research project by a private corporation will be matched by $1 from that fund. The share of the project's costs assumed by the private sector may include contributions in kind such as equipment, staff assigned to the project, etc., as well as reasonable costs directly associated with the preliminary development phase.

In the near future, I will announce the membership of the selection committee composed of senior representatives from industry, the universities and government who will have the appropriate scientific and technological expertise to review applications and advise us on the award of grants from the fund. Competitions will be held three times a year, and the deadline for submission for the first competition is December 31, 1984.

The selection committee will use the following criteria when reviewing applications: (1) the quality of the proposed research; (2) the experience and qualifications of the researchers; (3) the potential economic impact of the expected results on industrial expansion, improved productivity, job creation, regional development and increase in trade; (4) the market viability of expected projects; and (5) the extent to which the research will enhance the research and development capabilities of Ontario universities in respect of both staff and research infrastructure.

I believe the interest and the activities generated by this program will have a lasting influence in bringing closer ties between the business and academic worlds for the benefit of all the people of Ontario and, indeed, of Canada.

ORAL QUESTIONS

TRAVEL AND HOSPITALITY EXPENDITURES

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, my first question is to the supervisor of government spending, the Chairman of Management Board.

Given the government's restraint doctrine and given the advice of the Treasurer (Mr. Grossman) to municipalities and public sector agencies throughout the province that the time has now arrived not just for restraint but for flat-lining the tendency to spend more government money, is the minister aware that in the just-published Public Accounts, 1983-84, volume 3, Details of Expenditures, we are treated to the spectacle that last year the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Timbrell) increased his travel expenditure by 106 per cent, from $28,173 to $58,040, and that the Treasurer, the flat-liner himself, increased his personal travel budget by 16.8 per cent?

Is the Chairman of Management Board, as part of this flat-lining government, aware of this information? How does he account for these rates of increase; in the case of the Minister of Agriculture and Food an increase in his personal travel account of more than 100 per cent, and in the case of the flat-lining Treasurer himself an increase in his personal travel account of almost 17 per cent?

Hon. Mr. McCague: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the first question, yes, I am aware; I have the book here too.

Then if we set aside the editorial comment that the honourable member makes, I have no way of following the two ministers around. I would just say to the member that I am sure the Minister of Agriculture and Food, for instance, has been in his riding, has been there in the interests of the job he holds, that of Minister of Agriculture and Food, and has been in every part of this province. I am also well aware that the Treasurer has travelled to many parts of this province carrying the good word on behalf of the government of Ontario.

2:30 p.m.

Mr. Conway: The Minister of Agriculture and Food must have tractor lag after this kind of travel increase. How does the Chairman of Management Board account for so dramatic an increase in the personal travel budgets of leading members of this restraint-oriented government, a government that, through its Treasurer, encourages the hospital workers at Sensenbrenner in Kapuskasing to live with less and the municipalities in Dufferin-Simcoe and elsewhere to flat-line and be much more prudent in their expenditure of public funds.

Hon. Mr. McCague: To a great extent the emphasis of the member's question seems to be on flat-lining. I do not know of a year yet in which the budgets that went to the municipalities were flat-lined, and I am not at all sure there will be a year in the future when that will happen. That is a decision for which he will have to wait. I understand the questions he is asking nowadays are all aimed at the leadership candidates, who are all wonderful gentlemen.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, the view that it is hard to tell the difference between the four horsemen of the apocalypse and that they are roughly equal is one that I am sure is shared on all sides of the house.

However, surely there is another question that is quite fundamental. As these four horsemen and other cabinet ministers have flown and driven around the province in all ways, shapes and forms in the last year, surely the same restraint that is being applied to people who work in nursing homes and hospitals, and to people who work in all parts of the province, should be applied to ministerial spending. Can the minister explain why there appears to be a double standard going on for public servants in Ontario today?

Hon. Mr. McCague: Mr. Speaker, there is no double standard. I think it is important that the Minister of Agriculture and Food, the Treasurer and any other ministers who have that type of portfolio get around the province, speak to people to find out what they are thinking and bring that message back here. I do not think one can equate it to the kinds of things the honourable member would like to equate it to.

Mr. Conway: I remind the Chairman of Management Board that flat-lining is the stated policy of the Treasurer. My final supplementary also relates to items contained in this most interesting volume 3 of our Public Accounts, which has just been published.

Can the supervisor of government spending indicate to this House, and to the people beyond who are subject to the restraint yoke of this government, what particular benefits accrued to the taxpayers of Ontario when his government invited the Institute for Ultimate Reality and Meaning to lunch at a cost of $723, and what particular benefits accrued to the taxpayers of Ontario when, at the minister's request, they spent $1,000 for wine and cheese in aid of the Planetary Initiative Congress?

Hon. Mr. McCague: I do not understand the jargon of the member for Renfrew North. It is probably too far north for me to understand. I will take his questions under advisement and give him the answers he deserves at some later date.

Mr. Conway: The taxpayers wait with bated breath to find out exactly what the Institute for Ultimate Reality and Meaning is. Is that a Hugh Segal operation?

Mr. Speaker: Is that the member's question?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: No, it is not.

Mr. Nixon: Nobody is asking you.

Mr. Conway: The minister of all education opines on these matters and I seek her guidance. She refused to comment when invited moments ago and now she cannot contain herself. I do not have the Northern Daily News.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

[Later]

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, the member for Renfrew North asked a question of the Chairman of Management Board to which I have the answer here. If he wished, I could give him the answer at this time. He asked about the amount of $1,000 for the Planetary Initiative Congress reception.

This group, composed of 400 people, met on June 17 last year at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. The purpose of the group is this: It is a broad coalition of organizations and groups joining together to discuss global problems such as the arms race, poverty, pollution, hunger, energy shortages and unemployment, with a view to changing attitudes towards and finding solutions for these problems.

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate that information. The minister of all education has privately communicated her information on the Institute for Ultimate Reality and Meaning, which group we lunched in the amount of $723.

In the light of the government's rigorous application of its restraint doctrine to people such as the Sensenbrenner Hospital workers, what policy is in force with respect to governmental hospitality to ensure that the restraint doctrine is applied with equal rigour and clarity to that budget as it is to low-paid hospital workers, such as those at Sensenbrenner in Kapuskasing, whom the Treasurer has flat-lined? He has very rigorously flat-lined their incomes so that they are not likely to be taken out for lunch, dinner, wine or cheese by the executive council of Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Wells: The total amount is $350,000 for government hospitality. The guidelines are all very carefully laid out. I can send the member a copy of those, if he so wishes. He will find all the uses for this indicated on pages 154 and 155 of Public Accounts. Unlike other sections of Public Accounts, where amounts under $5,000 and so forth are not indicated, everything down to $226 and $187 is all indicated here.

I think my friend would agree that as a province of nine million people and one of the key provinces of Canada, there is a responsibility for Ontario to provide hospitality for various groups that come to meet in this province and for very distinguished visitors who come here. Compared to a budget of about $23 billion, the amount is minuscule.

The constraints placed on all other ministries apply to those things with which the hospitality fund has to deal. The bottom line is that there are a lot more responses or requests that come in for assistance than we are able to fulfil.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment. It concerns who is protecting Ontario's interests in the key matters of environmental protection now that his federal brethren have undertaken to eviscerate much of the federal environmental budget, particularly as it relates to water quality protection in the very important Great Lakes of southern Ontario.

The minister is aware that last Thursday night his federal cousin, the Honourable Michael Wilson, in his document concerning Canadian economic policy, cut $44 million from very important environmental protection programs. As a result of Mr. Wilson's cuts, the new Canadian Centre for Toxicology centre at Guelph will not enjoy federal support, nor will the herring gull egg monitoring program located at the Canada Centre for Inland Waters at Burlington, which program has been very instrumental in helping us determine the presence of dioxins in the water of the Great Lakes.

What particular undertaking is the Minister of the Environment prepared to give this House that he will fight these ill-considered cuts by his federal brethren in Ottawa, which will have a very serious and negative impact on our ability to protect and improve the water quality of the Great Lakes?

Hon. Mr. Brandt: Mr. Speaker, it is a delight for us on this side of the House to finally see a government that lives within its means and spends within the capacity of the taxpayers of Canada. That is a delight.

I want to give this House the assurance that if there are any essential programs that, for whatever reason, are not undertaken by the federal government through its previous agenda of responsibilities, I plan on meeting with my counterpart the federal Minister of the Environment, and during the course of those discussions I want to give members the assurance that we will work co-operatively to make sure that all of those needed programs will be carried out either by this level of government or by the federal government.

Mr. Conway: The minister will know that four million Ontarians take their water from the Great Lakes, Ontario and Erie. He will also know that dioxins are leaking from the Occidental Chemical Corp. dumps in Niagara Falls, New York, and migrating out into the Great Lakes system.

What particular undertakings, beyond a meeting, is the Minister of the Environment prepared to give these four million Ontarians who are very concerned about this chemical contamination of the Great Lakes waters in the light of the ill-considered cuts in environmental protection that have now been engaged in by his federal brethren in Ottawa?

Hon. Mr. Brandt: Since the member has indicated some interest in the water quality in the Niagara River, and ultimately the drinking water of some four million Ontario residents, I give him the assurance that there is a report of a three-year study undertaken by the Environmental Protection Agency in the United States, the state of New York, the province of Ontario and the federal government of Canada, that will be released at the end of this month.

I have seen some preliminary information from that report and, knowing the member's concern about this issue, knowing how vital he considers this point to be, he will be absolutely delighted to know that, as I have been stating in this House time and again, the drinking water quality in Ontario is second to none in the world.

Mr. Conway: If the minister talks to his colleagues the member for Elgin (Mr. McNeil), the member for Mississauga South (Mr. Kennedy) and the member for Wellington-Dufferin-Peel (Mr. J. M. Johnson), all of whom joined with myself, the member for Wellington South (Mr. Worton), the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) and others to go to the University of Guelph yesterday, he will know there is very great concern in Guelph about the incredible decision taken by Mr. Michael Wilson to cut federal support to the new Canadian Centre for Toxicology.

What specific undertaking is the Minister of the Environment prepared to give Dr. William Winegard, the University of Guelph and his colleague the Minister of Colleges and Universities (Miss Stephenson) that the very important new toxicology centre will now proceed with the full support of the Ontario government?

2:40 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Brandt: I understand the concerns of the member with respect to the centre for toxicology. We are reviewing this. I am disappointed it was cut from the budget; I am prepared to say that. However, this government is looking at options, alternatives and other ways of proceeding with programs that will very effectively carry out some of the same responsibilities that were going to be part and parcel of the centre for toxicology.

I know the members want to know this information, but, as an example, we will probably be increasing some of the work we currently do with regard to research with some of our friends in universities.

Second, we are looking at some co-operative programs with my colleague the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Timbrell), who some years ago had a program in place that was very comparable to the centre for toxicology and that he put on the back burner awaiting the development of this new facility, which has now been delayed for some period of time.

Finally, I want to give the member the assurance that we are looking at the areas of concern he has raised now that the centre has been cut from the budget, and we will find ways to bring forward alternative programs that will fulfil the responsibilities of this government quite adequately.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I also have a question for the Minister of the Environment. He will know that when dioxin and Mirex were discovered in Lake Ontario they were discovered in gull eggs. He will know that it was this process of scientific investigation that first set all of us to realizing just how serious the poisoning of Lake Ontario has become.

The program that has been cancelled by Mr. Wilson deals specifically with the gathering of gull eggs and their assessment. The minister will know that this program has been cut at the Canada Centre for Inland Waters and is going to be cancelled in the new year.

Dealing specifically with that program, will the minister make a specific commitment today that the government of Ontario will spend the $250,000 a year it costs to keep that program going and at least recognize that it has made an enormous contribution to our knowledge of what is going on in the Great Lakes system?

Hon. Mr. Brandt: Mr. Speaker, I do not deny that the program has made an enormous contribution to our environmental knowledge in the province. I cannot undertake to give the leader of the third party a commitment today that we will undertake to continue that program. However, I can say we will review any of the programs that have been removed from the federal budget.

There are some areas of duplication. There are some areas in which this very same research is going on in other parts of the world; it does not specifically have to do with the dioxin study the member is talking about, but there are many areas where this research is going on. We will take an agenda of all of those research projects, review them very carefully and determine which ones are necessary for Ontario.

With respect to the whole question of dioxin, I do not know of a jurisdiction that has compiled more information and more expertise in the area of dioxin than has Ontario. As the member well knows, the levels of dioxin that we are currently monitoring and sampling for were unheard of just a few years ago. We have now developed equipment that will allow us to measure one part per quadrillion. Those kinds of infinitesimally small numbers are such that a few years ago we did not even know there were things such as dioxin in the water, so we are well advanced in that area. Perhaps more research is going to be necessary and, if so, we will undertake it.

Mr. Rae: The minister will know -- at least, I hope he knows -- that monitoring the Great Lakes with respect to this chemical pollution, and in particular this monitoring of the migratory birds program, is something to which Canada is committed under article 6 of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement and, under annex 2, the effects of toxic substances on wildlife have to be part of the research done on the Great Lakes.

We have had the Reaganite cuts under Anne Gorsuch in the United States. We have now had the Reaganite cuts in Environment Canada under Mr. Wilson. In the Ontario Ministry of the Environment, the minister has cut back air resources activity from $7.2 million in 1983-84 to $6.8 million, water resources activity from $9.1 million to $7.6 million, and his environmental control program from $38.6 million to $37 million. These have been actual cuts in expenditures.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Rae: Will the minister commit himself today to reversing this foolhardy process of cutting back on our knowledge and on our ability to provide safe water and clean air for our children and our grandchildren?

Hon. Mr. Brandt: The leader of the third party has once again extracted very selective figures from the budget of my ministry. The reality is that if he had looked at the global numbers as they relate to that operating category, research projects and all of those areas of involvement, he would see they have gone up very substantially over the course of the past year and that we have not in any way reduced our commitment to protect the environment of the citizens of this province.

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, the minister has cut some $29 million from his budget in the last two years. The threat that we are concerned about in the Niagara area is the leaching from some of those dump sites on the United States side. How does he propose to continue doing the kind of monitoring that is going to be necessary if the federal government and the provincial government take substantial amounts out of those budgets? That should be ongoing and, in fact, increased because of the great threat from those dump sites on the US side.

Hon. Mr. Brandt: Mr. Speaker, let me give the honourable member the assurance that, in fact, that area of our budget has been increased. The $29 million he referred to has come out of our capital expenditure program, specifically related to provincial projects.

I want to tell the member, as well as members of the third party who cannot seem to get it through their heads, that when we complete a project, when we have finished spending government money on it, there comes a time when perhaps we can save the taxpayers some dollars.

Mr. Kerrio: Not on Ontario water. They do not want to save money on Ontario water.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Brandt: I am going to explain how we do that. We have projects in this province that we are no longer going to have to fund because, quite frankly, we have completed all of the work over a period of time. Had the member attended my estimates, he would have received this information.

Over a period of time, the capital expenditures area of the provincial Ministry of the Environment budget will ultimately go down to zero because we will have completed those large provincial projects. There are only a few of them left.

In the same time frame, we are increasing the number of dollars we are spending on research activities and on other areas of environmental involvement, which is the exact kind of question that has been raised both by the leader of the third party and the member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Kerrio).

Let me again give the member a very clear, distinct and understandable commitment that we will continue to monitor the US sites and we will continue to have the Niagara River study team in place; they will not at all be altered or reduced in any way, shape or form. If anything, we will increase our commitment to that area.

Mr. Rae: No matter how the minister cuts it, we now have governments in Ontario, Washington and Ottawa that have chosen the environment as an area of significant reduction, not only in capital spending but also in monitoring with respect to basic things such as acid rain and other problems and, in particular, with respect to the monitoring of the Great Lakes.

What Reagan did in 1981 and 1982 to the American side of the Great Lakes, the minister and his friends in Ottawa are doing in 1984 and 1985 on the Canadian side.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Rae: It is nothing short of a disgrace when we consider how much of our drinking water and how much of our future depends on our having a safe Great Lakes system.

Can the minister at least make a positive commitment today, that for $250,000 a year -- that is all it costs; Bryce Mackasey's pension for five years -- he is at least prepared to spend that much in order to ensure the survival of the migratory birds project, which will allow us to keep on monitoring the eggs and allow us to monitor the dioxin and the Mirex and the other new compounds that pose a threat to the 21st century? Will he at least make that commitment in terms of $250,000 a year?

Hon. Mr. Brandt: In the spirit of cooperation, I will at least undertake to indicate to the leader of the third party that I will take the matter under active review.

Mr. Rae: That is better than the royal commission. I take that for what it is worth.

2:50 p.m.

NURSING HOMES

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health. Is he aware that the third largest nursing home company in Ontario, the Bestview Holdings Ltd., which has a total of 1,044 beds, has now signed a deal with Beverly Enterprises of Pasadena, California, in which, subject to approval from the Foreign Investment Review Agency, Beverly will now purchase all of the shares of Bestview?

This sale marks the first takeover of a nursing home chain by an American multinational company in the history of this province. Can the minister explain what it will mean to Ontario in terms of new jobs, improving quality of care, and improving the overall structure of nursing home care in Ontario? Can he explain to us why his ministry is powerless to do anything to stop it?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, as presented, there are several questions involved. I am not sure which the Speaker would like me to answer.

The short answer to the first question is yes, I am aware there is a pending purchase of shares of Bestview corporation. I have been advised of it. Of course, my ministry does not have any authority to regulate the purchase of shares of a Canadian corporation. That is something that is beyond the jurisdiction of my ministry.

The member for York South asked whether I have any concerns about the quality of care. I think he is aware that Bestview is a corporation with a very fine reputation in the nursing home field. The same management will be remaining at Bestview, as I understand it. There have certainly been assurances of the maintenance of the quality of care for which Bestview is known. Obviously it is something we will continue to monitor very carefully.

In short, there have been some suggestions that the corporation may well be prepared to invest money from its corporate foundation in the form of capital and also in the form of research money in the area of diseases and ailments of the ageing in this country.

Mr. Rae: Can the minister tell us, first, in one brief answer, what benefit is there to this province and its taxpayers in having $25,000 a day going to a nursing home chain that is now going to be owned entirely by American shareholders?

What possible benefit is it to the taxpayers of Ontario to have that amount of public money going out of the country, not for the provision of anything new, not because these shareholders are investing any new money in Ontario, but simply because they are taking over a group of nursing homes that already exists?

What possible benefit is it to the people of Ontario to have that money going south of the border when it should be staying here and providing for the care of our citizens?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Surely the member should put his question in context. If his concern is for the maintenance and provision of high-quality care to residents of this province requiring nursing home care, then that care is going to be continued.

Is his particular hangup on this issue the fact that there will continue to be private sector involvement in the provision of high-quality health care in Ontario? Extending that one step further to a degree of economic nationalism as he would apply it in this situation, is he suggesting no one other than Canadians ought to be involved in the provision of high-quality health care in Canada?

I would point out to the member that there are a number of well-known Canadian nursing home corporations having extensive private holdings in the United States. They provide high-quality health care there. Is the member suggesting we close our borders to investment from the United States?

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, our concern in this matter is that with finite health dollars, because we do not have an infinite amount of health money in Ontario, the money is going out of this country in addition to going out of the system. This has absolutely nothing to do with good patient care.

Does the minister, as the minister who sets the policy for health care in Ontario, not agree that his ministry should have input into who owns the nursing home beds in this province? Does he not agree the legislation should be changed so that we at least have some input into who buys the shares of these corporations? Then we can determine who the owners are.

Does the minister also not understand there is a loss of local control over the ownership of these nursing home beds because they are now owned by foreign interests rather than by Ontario interests?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, absolutely not. That is surely garbage once again coming from that party. They are so hung up on this narrow ideology that seems to motivate them that they never can see the forest for the trees.

Our responsibility is to ensure high-quality health care in this province, and we will continue to do that. But no, we are not going to get into trying to determine whom it is appropriate to have invest in this province, other than to ensure that they are reputable and responsible individuals. I am not going to start conducting investigations of either the member or people who are prepared to invest money and provide high-quality health care in this province.

DEVELOPMENTALLY HANDICAPPED

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services. When I asked the minister recently in this House when he was going to provide funding to meet the genuine needs of mentally handicapped individuals in the Niagara region, he indicated he knew there was a problem and that it was being studied.

If the minister is aware of the problem, which is lack of adequate accommodation, facilities, services and programs for mentally handicapped individuals in the Niagara region, and if he is aware of the solution, which is the provision of funding to meet these needs, why does he not move immediately by allocating the necessary money to assist those who are at such a disadvantage in receiving the kind of help they need and the kind of help that can be provided only by the provincial government?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely delighted the member asked me, and he is not going to like the answer. There is a meeting today with all of them, including the one who gives him the misinformation.

Mr. Bradley: It is always interesting to hear that the volunteers who are involved with the associations for the mentally retarded are people who give us the wrong information.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Bradley: It is also nice to know that a five-part series on channel 11 prompts some action over there.

When some mentally retarded people in the Niagara region have been reported to be living in cars -- there has been a report of one individual living in a car, for instance, one in an abandoned factory and several in so-called flop-houses -- and when the documented needs of these people have been so well known to the Ministry of Community and Social Services for so long, why has the minister delayed so long?

How can he justify this delay in the provision of these funds? How can his ministry continue to use the desire to force the regionalization of the six associations for the mentally retarded as an apparent condition for providing the funding that is so badly needed?

Hon. Mr. Drea: This question of forcing anybody to do anything is not correct. The member heard me say in this House that it is not correct.

Mr. Bradley: That is not the story that is coming back, and the minister knows it.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Drea: I am not terribly concerned about what stories the member wants to tell. He asked me a question; he is now getting a reply.

Mr. Bradley: These are volunteers in that field.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Proceed, please.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Nobody is forcing anybody to do anything. There is a meeting of my deputy minister and the representatives of six of the associations in the Niagara Peninsula today. We have asked them to bring forward certain proposals together. We have suggested to them that the time has come to take an overall planning approach to the problems in the Niagara Peninsula, and I am quite sure the meeting this afternoon will be very fruitful.

If the member has any information about a person who is developmentally handicapped and known to the government who is living in an automobile, I would like to have it. If the member has any information about a person who is developmentally handicapped and known to the government -- in other words, one of our clients -- who is living in a factory, I would like to know about it. As I am sure the member will agree and admit, something will be done about it instantly.

3 p.m.

PLANT SHUTDOWN

Mr. Stokes: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Bernier), I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Labour, as a result of the statement the Minister of Northern Affairs made earlier today. The Minister of Labour was mentioned in the statement.

First, is it his impression that Stelco, in the closure of the Griffith mine at Ear Falls, intends to import even more iron ore from captive mining companies in the United States while closing out operations at Ear Falls, which means the loss of at least 280 jobs directly and even more with the spinoff effect?

Second, whatever happened to the special committee that was set up by the government, under the chairmanship of the Minister of Industry and Trade (Mr. F. S. Miller), to look into the effects of plant closures on one-industry towns in northern Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, in response to the member's first question, the information provided to me by the officials from Stelco is that the same ratio of iron ore purchased between Canada and the United States will be maintained if the Griffith mine is closed. It now is approximately 50 per cent Canadian iron ore and 50 per cent US iron ore.

There was a second question about the committee set up under the chairmanship of the Minister of Industry and Trade. That committee wound down its deliberations and the responsibility was moved from the Ministry of Industry and Trade to the Ministry of Northern Affairs. It is the lead ministry in that respect.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, that is an incredible abdication of responsibility and leadership on the part of the minister and his colleague the Minister of Northern Affairs.

Are those ministers aware of the financial situation of Stelco from the latest figures available? For the nine months ended September 30, 1984, Stelco had a net income of $31.7 million and paid out dividends of more than $38 million on preferred shares. That is the same company that is crying poor and complaining that it is the cost of the ore that is causing the shutdown of this mine.

Is the minister also aware that the production taxes paid per ton of ore are lower in this part of North America than in almost every other part? I believe the only other part that is lower is Michigan, which is slightly lower. Brazil is lower if one wants to dip down to South America.

Will the minister give us his assurance that before that mine is allowed to close, the financial situation of Stelco will be taken into consideration so that another resource-based company is not allowed, yet again, to walk away from a one-industry community in northern Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, if the member will recall the statement made by my colleague the Minister of Northern Affairs, he said a letter had gone out today under the signature of the Premier (Mr. Davis) asking Stelco to review its decision. There will be ample opportunity to obtain the information the member is requesting at the time of that review. Much of the information I already have.

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Speaker, we had similar questions concerning plant closures, partial closures and mass layoffs on Tuesday. The minister stated at the time that Bob Joyce of the plant closure review and employment adjustment branch looked after these things, that the information flowed through to the ministry and all kinds of things were being done.

Can the minister inform the House exactly what can be done under the legislation that exists today to assist these 280 people who are going to lose their jobs and whose town is going to be closed down? What powers does the committee within his ministry have, other than public relations powers, to make people feel the committee is there and may be able to do something about it?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, obviously the member is not aware of the work that is done by Frank Clouthier.

Mr. Laughren: We know exactly what the minister is doing. Nothing.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: I know very well what is done by this government.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Would the honourable member resume his seat, please. I might point out that was not a point of order, a point of privilege or anything else.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: The member opposite is fair-minded. I would like to offer him the opportunity to conic over to the ministry and meet with Bob Joyce, with me and with other senior members of the ministry. We will be happy to take him through the various steps that are taken to protect the workers in Ontario.

FAMILY BENEFITS

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, I know the Minister of Community and Social Services will remember the discussions we have had in the past regarding the level of social assistance in Ontario. At one point the minister had this to say:

"The cash allowance" -- referring to social assistance payments -- "does not tell the whole story. Recipients of social assistance receive other cash and noncash benefits. When all these benefits are added up, I think most people would agree that this combined income level sufficiently provides for basic needs."

I am sure the minister is aware that a recent Social Planning Council of Metropolitan Toronto report takes into account the other cash and noncash benefits and still provides a dismal picture of the growth over the past several years. In fact, Ontario ranks ninth in its monthly benefits to families on social assistance, including the maximum shelter allowance. It ranks seventh in after-shelter income for families of one parent and child. It is curiously lower still, in 10th position, for families of two adults and two children. In fact, we only rank higher than New Brunswick overall.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Wrye: What response does the minister have to this evidence of Ontario's really dismal performance with regard to families?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, first of all, that is not true. I would point out the press release turned out by the social planning council was not only mythical, but it failed to take into account the increases effective January 1, which were announced last month. The figures used were mythical because they were based upon young singles having rents of $300 a month. Fewer than four per cent of the young singles in Ontario have rents of more than $300 a month.

Second, I would point out that Ontario cannot be ninth when young people in New Brunswick get $108 a month; in Quebec, $154 a month; in Newfoundland, $264 a month; and in Ontario, $361 a month.

The social planning council's report does not include free Ontario health insurance plan coverage, drugs and a number of other benefits in this province.

There is one category in which we are somewhat behind in my view, and that is in the case of the family on general welfare assistance with two children. I am going to remedy that. I could not remedy it in this increase because we had other priorities, but it has now become our number one priority.

3:10 p.m.

Quite often it is said that the social assistance benefits in this province have not kept pace with inflation. If we go back to January 1975 and look at a family consisting of a single parent and two children, such a family has received increases over the years of 129.6 per cent, while the consumer price index increase was 123.3 per cent during that time.

If we look at the guaranteed annual income system for the single disabled person, the increase has been 125.2 per cent in that period while inflation or the consumer price index has risen by 123.3 per cent. Over that period, benefits for a single woman 60 to 64 years of age on family benefits have gone up by 205 per cent compared to that 123 per cent increase in inflation. The single employable has not kept pace because -- oh, yes, he has; it is pretty even. He has received 125 per cent in terms of increases and inflation has been 123.3 per cent.

The current case I mentioned, where in my view we were not quite where we should be, is that for two adults and two children on general welfare assistance, which is particularly a problem of the recession, increases have been 117 per cent over those nine years compared to an increase in the cost of living of 123.3 per cent, but I have said we would make it a priority.

Mr. Wrye: Speaking of myths, in his answer the minister really took on a mythical straw man and decided to bash it down because he dealt with the single employable individual. My question, as the minister I am sure might remember, dealt with families. I will come back to families in my supplementary.

Can the minister explain and justify why, according to the levels produced in this report, Ontario ranks ninth in 1984 --

Hon. Mr. Drea: It does not.

Mr. Wrye: I am excluding the minister's 1985 increase, which comes in January, but this year Ontario ranks ninth in three out of four categories and exceeds only the level in New Brunswick. Why are we not treating those families with dignity and giving them the kind of income they need, particularly the children of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Drea: I dispute the fact we rank ninth. I think I have given enough figures to dispute that. I am glad to see the member says I have knocked down a mythical straw man. I am glad to see he agrees that the whole report of the social planning council, a group that admitted it had cooked its books before, is now producing mythical straw men for the minister to knock down.

In the last two years there is no government in Canada that has produced two increases except the province of Ontario. No one is meeting the problems of the recession, particularly with respect to welfare and the provision of social assistance, as well as the provision of social assistance on a long-term basis to the disabled, better than this province. In all fairness, I suggest the honourable member realizes that.

INDEPENDENT MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations regarding Mr. Skinner, a constituent of mine.

Mr. Skinner was injured on June 25. His attending physician said maybe he would be able to resume work on July 16. The Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. sent him for an independent medical examination on July 19 and terminated his benefits as of that day, despite the fact that both the attending physician and his partner believed the man still had disability at that time.

Since this is a growing practice that insurance companies are engaging in, sending people for independent examinations, can the minister indicate to me what action the government is taking to prevent this from occurring since there is no appeal mechanism for these people to have their problem addressed?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: First, Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that the member is accurate in suggesting that there is any widespread problem in this area. I receive complaints such as this on very few occasions and, in most cases I may say, we have been able to mediate the situation and achieve what we thought was a just and fair disposition of the situation. If I do not already have this information, and the member may have written to me about it already, then I will certainly have it reviewed and get back to him on it.

Mr. Martel: The minister might say it is not a growing problem, but I think it is. The superintendent of insurance is looking at it, and I know that to be a fact.

This man has subsequently gone to an orthopaedic surgeon and had cortisone twice injected in his foot. Despite that, the disability clause in the contract says it has to be total; in fact, he should not be at work.

Based on the report of the select committee on company law some years ago, is it not time this province started to move towards sickness and accident disability benefits in the New Zealand fashion because of the number of people who fall between the stools, despite all the programs we have both in this province and federally?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: As the member well knows, the public has an option today in the private sector to select among a great variety of disability plans; many are incorporated as part of an employment package. The balance of the population insures itself as it wishes. I know of no present plans of the government to embark on the kind of project to which the member has referred.

3:20 p.m.

RELEASE OF STUDY

Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Revenue. He is no doubt aware of the request by the township of Woolwich for a study with regard to its assessment and the fact that, on a regional basis, it is paying much more per household for regional services than other municipalities in the Waterloo region.

The minister recently replied by letter to the township, indicating he was not releasing that study. Given that the ministry encouraged the township to ask for the study, what logical reason can the minister have for hiding that information from the taxpayers of Ontario after the taxpayers have paid for it?

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Mr. Speaker, I am well aware of the situation the honourable member outlined, as a delegation from the township of Woolwich was in to see me and we discussed this at length. At the present time, we do not have a policy of doing section 63 studies on regional areas, as the member well knows. At present, that is the policy.

Mr. Epp: First, why would the minister encourage the township to encourage the minister to have such a study if he cannot release the study after it is conducted? Is that not a waste of taxpayers' money?

Second, the minister indicated to the township in his letter: "Legislation does not currently authorize the reassessment or presentation of impact study data at the regional level. In addition, cabinet has not yet concluded its consideration of this issue."

Since the government has been in power for 41 years. and since the member for Wilson Heights (Mr. Rotenberg) arrogantly states at committee meetings that it is going to be in power for another 41 years, why does he not bring in the legislation? The government has the majority of 71 members. Why does the minister not bring in legislation? If he is trying to imply that he wants to address this issue, why does he not bring in the legislation to address it?

Hon. Mr. Gregory: I am delighted to hear these remarks by the member who has been running around Ontario downgrading the section 63 studies for many months. I have yet to hear a report from him. I would like to see that study to see what monumental recommendations he is going to make towards promoting section 63 studies. We have done and we do studies on municipalities. If the member is telling me he would support a move towards section 63 studies on regions, I will be delighted to hear that remark from him.

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, is it not true that when the minister wants to release these impact studies, he simply releases them, and that when a study comes up with a set of numbers he does not like, he simply hides behind them and does not release them? Why does the minister not make it a policy that he will release the studies, no matter what they show and even if he does not like them?

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Mr. Speaker, the only time we prepare an impact study under section 63 is when it is requested by a local council. We do not impose, nor do we encourage councils to request them. When they request them, we reply quickly to the study. If the honourable member has a specific area he wants to talk about, I will be delighted to hear about that one. If he can point out to me a situation where a council has requested an impact study and we have refused it, I will be delighted to hear it.

ACCESS TO MEDICAL TREATMENT

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, on November 13, I was asked by the member for Essex South (Mr. Mancini) to look into the matter of the death of a gentleman from Barrie, Ontario, who had suffered a brain haemorrhage on October 5. have been advised that the coroner in this matter has decided not to hold an inquest following a preliminary look at the facts.

Following our discussions with the hospitals involved, the staff of my ministry believes every effort was made both to obtain a bed for the gentleman and to ensure appropriate treatment was made available to him.

One of the things I did not understand at the time the question was asked, and perhaps others in the House were not aware of it, was that the time lapse between the haemorrhage occurring and the gentleman being found accommodation in the Wellesley Hospital was, I believe, three hours, which, in view of the distance to be travelled, was not an inordinate length of time in locating a hospital bed.

The problem, I hope, will be alleviated in the future by the use of the central bed registry to facilitate more quickly the locating of available hospital beds in this kind of situation. However, upon admission to the hospital it was determined that the gentleman was already brain-dead as a result of the haemorrhage, and the diagnosis was then confirmed by two neurologists and a radiologist.

I understand and can appreciate the fact that in a tragedy of this nature it is often difficult for a family to accept this kind of tragic event initially, but I have been assured that nothing further could have been done to assist the gentleman.

It is the practice in this particular hospital, as it is in some other hospitals, that when a diagnosis of brain death occurs, the physicians discuss with the family the desirability of the possibility of salvaging some good out of a tragic death by donating organs for transplant purposes to others whose lives might thereby be saved.

I understand that such a discussion occurred in this case. Unfortunately, it would appear from the question I was asked in the House that the family somehow had the impression it was a little precipitate, and that is most unfortunate, I think. I believe the physicians involved thought they were acting in the best interests of all concerned.

I hope this satisfies the concerns that were raised by the honourable member. If there are further questions, he may wish to have me discuss them with him privately. I will be glad to do that.

Mr. Speaker: If I may just explain to the honourable member, the minister suggested -- and maybe you did not hear it -- that he would be pleased to discuss with you privately any questions you may have.

PETITIONS

RESHAPING OF UNIVERSITY SYSTEM

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of some 10,000 Ontarians who belong to a coalition made up of the Canadian Federation of Students–Ontario, the Ontario Confederation of University Faculty Associations, the Canadian Union of Educational Workers and the Confederation of Ontario University Staff Associations, some of whose leaders are with us in the gallery today, I present the following petition signed by some 10,000 members of the coalition and addressed to the Ontario Legislature by these good citizens, who believe that investment in education is essential for the future of this province and who express concern about the government's new plan to restructure the university system, which will not, in their view, achieve a quality and accessible education for the people of Ontario.

On their behalf, to the minister of all education, I table this petition signed by 10,000 people, who very rightly draw to this province's attention their very legitimate concern about what is happening to higher education in this our beloved bicentennial province.

M. Rae: M. l'Orateur, de la part de 3,000 étudiants a l'Université d'Ottawa, j'aimerais présenter une pétition à la Législature de l'Ontario, qui s'écrit comme suit:

"A mon avis, investir dans l'éducation est essentiel pour l'avenir de l'Ontario.

"A l'heure actuelle, le gouvernement ne verse pas assez de fonds aux universités. Son nouveau plan de restructuration du système universitaire, que la commission présidée par le Dr Edmund Bovey est en train de préparer, ne produira pas une éducation post-secondaire de qualité et plus accessible aux citoyens et citoyennes de l'Ontario

"Je veux que le gouvernement de l'Ontario augmente son financement de l'éducation post-secondaire tout en augmentant sa part du coà»t global de l'éducation supérieure."

In the name of the 3,000 students at the University of Ottawa who have signed this petition to the Legislature, I present it now on their behalf.

3:30 p.m.

REPORTS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

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

That supply in the following amounts and to defray the expenses of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1985:

Ministry administration program, $15,639,000; agricultural marketing and development program, $56,014,600; agricultural technology and field services program, $86,976,700; and financial assistance to agriculture program, $128,029,800.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Kerr from the standing committee on social development reported the following resolution:

That supply in the following amounts and to defray the expenses of the Ministry of Health be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1985:

Ministry administration program, $85,172,500; institutional health program, $4,810,184,900; public and mental health program, $627,663,400; and health insurance program, $2,718,990,200.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND OTHER STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS

Mr. Sheppard from the standing committee on regulations and other statutory instruments presented the committee's report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bill without amendment:

Bill Pr31, An Act respecting the United Jewish Welfare Fund.

Your committee would recommend that fees plus the actual cost of printing be remitted on Bill Pr31, An Act respecting the United Jewish Welfare Fund.

Motion agreed to.

MOTIONS

ESTIMATES

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that the estimates of the Management Board of Cabinet be transferred from the committee of supply to the standing committee on administration of justice.

Motion agreed to.

TRANSFER OF BILL

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that Bill 132, An Act to amend the City of Sudbury Hydro-Electric Service Act, 1980, standing in the name of the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mr. Bennett), be transferred to the Minister of Energy (Mr. Andrewes).

Motion agreed to.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that standing order 64(h) respecting notice for private members' items of business be waived for ballot item 32 in the name of the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway).

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Conway moved, seconded by Mr. Nixon, first reading of Bill 146, An Act to amend the Residential Tenancies Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Conway: I thank you, Mr. Speaker, my friend the member for Sudbury (Mr. Gordon) and my friend the government House leader for accommodating my truancy in this matter.

I am introducing legislation that establishes a computerized central rent registry for Ontario residents. As a result of this legislation, landlords will be required to file relevant information from January 1, 1976, to the present for all units, including those located in publicly owned buildings, with the exception of units for which rents are based solely on the tenant's income.

I know my friend the member for York East (Mr. Elgie), the minister who said this is a matter of urgent and pressing concern, will move along very quickly to give this unanimous and speedy consent.

RESIDENTIAL COMPLEXES FINANCING COSTS RESTRAINT AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Elgie moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Drea, first reading of Bill 147, An Act to amend the Residential Complexes Financing Costs Restraint Act. 1982.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce for first reading a bill to amend the Residential Complexes Financing Costs Restraint Act, 1982. As members will recall, this legislation will sunset on December 31, 1984. This amendment will extend the act for another year, as I had indicated previously, until December 31, 1985, and make a complementary amendment of another date reference in the act.

When I released the volume I report of the Commission of Inquiry into Residential Tenancies on October 30, I stated our intention to extend the sunset provision while the government considers a recommendation in the report that the act be kept in force. As members will recall, the act imposes a five per cent ceiling on additional rent increases resulting from financing costs on the sale of a property.

TOWNSHIP OF MARATHON LAND ACT

Hon. Mr. Bernier moved, seconded by Hon. Miss Stephenson, first reading of Bill 148, An Act respecting Certain Land in the Township of Marathon in the District of Thunder Bay.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to remove a cloud on the title of numerous lots and blocks on Plan 55M-468 Marathon, resulting from the possibility that Road C, as described in the bill, is a public highway, although it was never formally assumed as a public highway.

TOWN OF IROQUOIS FALLS ACT

Mr. Treleaven moved, on behalf of Mr. Piché, seconded by Mr. Sheppard, first reading of Bill Pr39, An Act respecting the Town of Iroquois Falls.

Motion agreed to.

3:40 p.m.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS IN ORDERS AND NOTICES

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the answers to questions 509, 512, 516, 525, 527, 535, 536, 542, 543, 545, 546, 547, 548, 549 and 551, as well as the interim answer to question 544, all of these standing in Orders and Notices [see Hansard for Friday, November 16].

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

INDEPENDENCE ANNIVERSARIES

Mr. Shymko moved, seconded by Mr. Kolyn, resolution 30:

That recognizing the universality and indivisibility of freedom and the adherence to the principles of political liberties and national sovereignty as fundamental elements of our free and democratic society; and recognizing in this bicentennial year the significant contribution to Ontario and Canada made by peoples who have settled on our shores as political refugees escaping persecution in their former homelands where national independence and political liberties had been lost as a result of foreign occupation and domination; and acknowledging our government's traditional recognition of the independence proclamations enshrined in the course of history by the sovereign will of the nations with whom these Canadians are related by ancestry, language and culture, this House invites all Ontarians to commemorate these special independence anniversaries on the respective dates that they are celebrated by the various communities, and suggests that the Premier sign, upon request and at his discretion, appropriate proclamations on these occasions and allow for any other appropriate recognition on the commemorative day, and asks this government to urge the government of Canada to institute a similar practice in Ottawa.

Mr. Speaker: I point out that you may have up to 20 minutes for your presentation, as provided in the standing orders. If you so wish, you may reserve any portion of that time for your windup. Other speakers may have up to 10 minutes.

Mr. Shymko: Mr. Speaker, I am sure members will be commenting on the various aspects of this resolution. I would like to stress the universality of the resolution.

It is said that every two seconds a new human life is given to the world and is cast into that moving stream which is the force of history. Sooner or later, as all human beings have done since the beginning of time, each individual begins his search for the faith by which we live. In every person's quest for faith, or a set of values or principles, he or she turns to something higher than himself or herself. He or she turns to a body of ideals which promises to give meaning to his or her life.

It is in search of those ideals that we as legislators open our daily deliberations in this House with a prayer seeking that wisdom and guidance prevail in our deliberations. I would like to state that my resolution addresses that very important element which is stressed in our prayer. I would like to remind members of what is said every day.

In our prayer we speak of a strong and abiding sense of the great responsibilities laid upon us. I would like to appeal to that sense of responsibility. We speak of seeking a deep and thorough understanding of the needs of the people we serve. I would like to appeal, once again, to that understanding of a genuine need to which our citizens aspire and which is addressed by this resolution.

Above all, we say we want to be inspired to decisions which establish and maintain a land where freedom prevails and justice rules. My resolution addresses not the tangible and practical aspects of legislation but that intangible side of our human entity, the power and importance of which are often forgotten; namely, mans quest for liberty and justice as foundations of a true and genuine peace, not only in this country but throughout the world.

How fortunate we are to live, grow and prosper in a society ruled by the force of civilized, humane law. where freedom reigns and justice prevails, not by the law of brutal primitive force where often fear and terror are the orders of the day.

Here in Canada we recognize that freedom is universal and indivisible, that freedom is an inalienable birthright that cuts across all frontiers and boundaries, all limits of race, nationality and religion, and the region where man lives on the various parts of the earth. In this great country of ours, we adhere to the principles of political liberties, individual human rights and national sovereignty as fundamental elements of our free and democratic society. However, the picture is quite different for the vast majority of the world's population.

I would like to point out a tragic irony. Man today has entered the space age. Through his wisdom, ability and ingenuity, he is conquering the vastness of the universe beyond his planet. Along with this tremendous material, technological and scientific progress, we would expect man to have progressed equally in freedom, justice and respect for the sacredness of human life.

The opposite is true today. The so-called free world is shrinking while, increasingly, three fifths of humanity lives under conditions where individual civil liberties and the collective national freedom and sovereignty we cherish and enjoy as citizens of Canada can only be dreamed about by millions of men and women throughout the earth. Many of us are familiar with the statistics published in the annual reports of many institutions, among them Freedom House and Amnesty International, to substantiate this irony.

In celebrating the bicentennial of our province this year, a province founded by the settlement of the first wave of those who could be described as political refugees, let us be mindful of the tens of thousands of people from various corners of the world who have settled on our shores in this province and in this land, beginning with the turn of the 19th century, for reasons that were often political, reasons that could be described as a search for liberty.

In this special year, and by means of this humble resolution, let us pay tribute to those refugees of the past, to their descendants today and to the most recent arrivals who have escaped persecution, discrimination, violations of civil liberties, human rights and national freedoms in their former homelands, homelands where national independence and political liberties have been lost, often as a result of foreign occupation and domination. Let us recognize the lasting, significant contribution these refugees have made to this province and to Canada.

This should in no way diminish our equal and important concern for those who have sought asylum in our midst as a result of political reprisals by totalitarian regimes in countries that, nevertheless, are considered sovereign and are not occupied by any foreign domination. They are here among us because of the infringement and violation of their human liberties. My resolution does not, perhaps, address that, but we should not forget it and we should be mindful of it.

3:50 p.m.

Unless politicians such as ourselves make a minimum effort, a minimum commitment symbolized by this resolution, and awaken the conscience of humanity from apathy and indifference, the numbers of such refugees surely and definitely will continue to grow. That is why our indifference to the rights of our fellow human beings ceases to be justified and why we must, I appeal to members, try to experience a sense of duty and a collective sense of responsibility to alleviate their destiny and make a personal commitment at times such as today in this resolution.

Every year I have had the privilege of representing the Premier (Mr. Davis), along with honourable members representing the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Peterson) and the leader of the third party, at many anniversaries of so-called independence days celebrated by Canadians of many origins. The list is long, and I will not even try to name them. They are celebrated every year in every part of this province and every part of our country.

These are anniversaries of independence-day proclamations that were enshrined in the course of history by the sovereign will of the nations with whom these Canadians today share a common ancestry and a common heritage. Many of these proclamations of independence have proclaimed democratic, parliamentary systems of government, systems of government that we understand and live under in our society today.

All I ask is that this traditional recognition be expressed in our official greetings, in the written greetings of the leader of the third party, the Leader of the Opposition and the Premier, and in our own personal greetings as MPPs, and that this recognition be formally expressed by means of an annual proclamation, as is the custom in many countries and in many states south of the border. This would remind all Ontarians and all Canadians that too often we take for granted the freedoms we enjoy here every day as a civilized and compassionate nation free of tyranny and oppression.

The importance of this resolution is that these Canadians of various backgrounds, members can be assured, hold the painful memory of how quickly and how easily independence and freedom can be set aside by the use of might, the use of power and the use of force and terror.

Therefore, the observance of these anniversaries by these countless Canadians and our appropriate proclamations on these occasions would not only keep alive the spirit of freedom and independence for their respective peoples as a beacon of hope but would also remind all Canadians, irrespective of our origins, that to be preserved, freedom must be valued. It would, therefore, strengthen the resolve of all Canadians to assure that our nation, which we cherish, will continue to be free and united around the ideal of human dignity, justice, tolerance and opportunity for all.

As I said earlier, it would also express our official acknowledgement of the quality of citizenship and the contribution by these Canadians to making Canada a better country for this and future generations. As honourable members are aware, such official recognition has always been relegated to the municipal level by way of proclamations that have been signed every year by the mayors of many municipalities in our province and by such gestures and activities as flag-raising ceremonies in front of city halls.

Yet no similar practice has ever been instituted at the two senior levels of government. It is, therefore, most reasonable and appropriate, in my opinion, to complement this tradition in a more substantial manner by way of proclamations and to sanction our customary practice of issuing official greetings.

What holds our province and our country together is the common dream we all share of a society based on the principles of freedom, peace and order. It is that most fundamental principle of freedom, we must remind ourselves, that underlies our Constitution today. It is this freedom and this principle that is the basis of our enduring peace and order. This dream is shared by those Canadians of various backgrounds who hold these anniversaries and participate in them. It is equally shared by all men of goodwill throughout the world.

I would like to conclude with the words of Benjamin Franklin, who conveyed the feelings of that universality and the sharing of that faith and concern we all feel as human beings when he said, "God grant that not only the love of liberty but a thorough knowledge of the rights of man may pervade all nations of the earth, so that a philosopher may set his foot anywhere on its surface and say, 'This is my country.'"

The Deputy Speaker: The member has about six minutes remaining, of which he can use any part.

Mr. Ruprecht: Mr. Speaker, certainly the sentiments of this resolution which is before us are very laudable and we would be hard pressed not to support them. I certainly do.

The resolution speaks about the significant contribution that people have made who come from other countries as political refugees. We agree with that sentiment as well. These people who have come from other countries because of political problems in their homeland have come here and have become active citizens. They have provided exceptional service to our community. We find them in all professions and all walks of life: industry, the arts, culture, wherever Canadians make themselves felt.

The resolution also speaks of the regret that is being felt because of the loss of national independence and political liberties in other countries. That is why people have come to this country of democracy. We deeply regret the action that has been taken by some governments to dominate others or to try to snuff out their political will. We also realize there are foreign occupations and foreign powers of occupation that thwart the national will of their people.

As well, the resolution states all Ontarians should be invited to commemorate these independence anniversaries. That again is very laudable. In this country, not only should we be grateful for our democratic institutions and should we try to remember the past and the fact that this country has fought against tyranny and terror, but we should ensure that these very laudable sentiments of democracy are practised here in this Legislature and taught in the schools of this land. They certainly need to be commemorated by those people who have left some tyrannical state and have come to make Canada their new country.

In this instance, when we have other people trying to remind us every year of what happens politically back in their own country and reminding us that we should be grateful for the democratic institutions of this nation, they are doing us a service. As for this resolution, it speaks of those who come from other countries, from tyrannical places, and who are teaching us these lessons over and over again so that we remember not only on Remembrance Day. In that sense they are indeed providing a service to this country and to us as Ontarians.

4 p.m.

All these are very laudable sentiments. We would be very hard pressed to find anyone who could possibly criticize any of these remarks. But since we also have to look at the specifics of the resolution, I would ask the person who moved it to consider some changes in its operational application.

It says in this resolution "that the Premier sign, upon request," proclamations on these independence anniversaries. I would like to know a little more about how a request will be made. Is it going to be made by one person or by a committee? Does one have to call the Premier directly? Is the Premier going to be available if someone calls him and wants to have the anniversary, independence day or whatever the Premier will call this proclaimed? If he cannot be reached by phone, is this request going to have to be in writing?

Is this going to be an announcement going out to every community saying: "We herewith declare that if you want to have your anniversary day celebrated in Ontario, you have to put this in writing. Here are the points: point 1, point 2 and point 3; here are the justifications: point 4, point 5 and point 6; and here are the solutions: point 7, point 8 and point 9."

I do not know. We would encourage that sort of thing should this resolution find its way through the regulatory channels through legislation. This would have to be specified. Just what will the procedure be? It is important to get to that.

The resolution goes on to say "at his discretion," referring to the Premier. In other words, the Premier will have to decide to which of these anniversaries he will say yes to, which he is going to decline and which he is not going to respond to. Is it going to be the anniversaries of the Ukrainians? Is it going to be the anniversaries of the Byelorussians, the Croatians, the Bulgarians or the Macedonians? What about the anniversaries of the Baltic states? Will the Premier say yes or no? I would assume he would say yes, but I do not know what the criterion will be. What about the Slovenians? What will the Premier say to the Vietnamese? What about the nations of Latin America?

I do not profess to know all the answers. Even though I had indicated to members these sentiments are laudable and I would certainly agree with the total preamble, I am saying I find it short in terms of its operation and how we implement these laudable sentiments.

The resolution goes on to say further that there would be an allowance made for "any other appropriate recognition." What does this resolution have in mind for "any other appropriate recognition"? I do not know what that could possibly mean. Would the mover be more specific about what he means here so we can support him 100 per cent?

Perhaps we might consider that it be made operational by establishing a special group of people belonging to the Legislature that will then look at these applications individually and make a decision, not based on a political party, not based on whether the groups are a friend or a foe of a political party and not based on whether they have connections with a specific member of the provincial parliament, a minister of the crown or even a person in the opposition, but based on total independence.

What I would like to see really is very clear and very simple, namely, that these anniversary celebrations as they are exercised, written and proclaimed at present in flag-raising ceremonies across this city, are independent, nonpartisan and nonpolitical.

All I am saying is that we totally and wholeheartedly agree with the sentiments of this resolution and will support it. Excuse me, I will support it, because I do not know what the other members are going to do. At the same time, let us look at the specifics. If the member could come up with certain specifics in this resolution and tell us a little more of what he has in mind, not only would I appreciate it, but I am sure he would also get the total and unanimous support of the whole House.

The Deputy Speaker: As the honourable member may know, there is a specific prohibition against any amendment. The resolution is quite in order, and the mover does have an opportunity -- he has some time left -- to answer any questions you may raise, as you did in your debate.

Mr. Philip: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak on this resolution. I know from serving with the member on the select committee on the Ombudsman which dealt with the motion of my colleague the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) about human rights that the member for High Park-Swansea (Mr. Shymko) certainly has a deep concern. I compliment him on the speech he made earlier on the resolution. At the same time, I know and can identify in a very real way with the legitimate criticisms made by the member for Parkdale (Mr. Ruprecht). This resolution is far too general and, if implemented in its present form, is open to the worst kind of political manipulation by the government.

It is embarrassing -- and I hate to do this to the member for High Park-Swansea --

Mr. Gordon: But you are going to.

Mr. Philip: -- because the regular method of dealing with the problems he is deeply concerned about was proposed in a very real way.

Mr. Gordon: But you are going to do it.

Mr. Philip: I will talk about the member for Sudbury (Mr. Gordon) because he is one of the ones who blocked doing anything specific about human rights in this Legislature. He can just settle down and listen.

One will find the motion for the adoption of the recommendations of the special report of the select committee on the Ombudsman if one opens up Orders and Notices today. It is still there. That committee, on which the member for High Park-Swansea served so well and of which he was an important person in leading to the recommendation, made a very specific recommendation by which this House and the select committee on the Ombudsman in particular could have dealt with the very real human rights concerns that our constituents have about their relatives in fascist and communist countries.

Unfortunately, much to the embarrassment of the member for High Park-Swansea and other Conservative members of the select committee on the Ombudsman who were party to that proposal, their party would not support it and would not bring forward that recommendation.

It is too bad that this government can introduce resolutions on human rights and platitudes on human rights, but when it comes to real action whereby it can save the lives of people in other countries as a result of the recommendations of the Ombudsman committee, it will not bring forward that report and act on it.

On October 25 when my colleague the member for Riverdale, in his frustration as a private member, brought forth as his resolution the very resolution of the committee on the Ombudsman, there were a number of Conservatives, including the member for Sudbury, who blocked that very real recommendation. I am pleased to see that the member for Lakeshore (Mr. Kolyn), who seconded this motion, and the member for High Park-Swansea were not part of that blocking motion.

I know the member for High Park-Swansea was embarrassed when his colleagues blocked that motion, a motion in which he played an important role -- of all the Conservatives the most important role -- in constructing that very important resolution. He comes to us with a very general resolution, and I understand his frustration and I will support his resolution because I know the depth and sincerity with which he has brought it forward.

4:10 p.m.

I would like to show the members the kinds of problems that we in the committee on the Ombudsman were concerned about, the kinds of problems which, if our committee report had been adopted, we could deal with on a weekly or monthly basis as crises occurred. In our gallery to the left, there is a constituent of the member for High Park-Swansea, Dr. Ana Maria Barrenechea. She is the sister-in-law of a trade union leader who was arrested on Friday, November 9, in Chile.

On Friday, November 9, in raids on the National Miners' Federation and the National Peasants' Confederation headquarters, 18 trade unionists, among them this lady's brother-in-law, Ariel Urrutia, and Alamiro Guzman and Juan Antinao were arrested by security forces of President Pinochet.

They were not listed or recognized by the government officials as prisoners. That is one of the worst violations of human rights -- the relatives do not know where those people are.

Many other raids took place in different parts of the country, especially in shanty towns, where more than 2,000 men aged 15 to 60 were arrested as well.

Two days ago, on November 13, after receiving international pressure, General Humberto Gordon, the chief in charge of the Chilean secret police, held a news conference to release the names of the trade unionists arrested as well as to inform that they would be confined to different points in the country.

To be confined to different points in the country means that one is in absolute isolation from relatives and friends. As my colleague will tell the House, in the case of a few who happen to be fortunate enough, relatives out of the country can send money and occasionally visit those people who have been imprisoned without any kind of trial or hearing.

To be confined in Chile means to live under constant police vigilance, such as signing the book twice a day at the local police headquarters and always being followed by secret police officers.

In other words, these people have been punished without any charge being laid and without any kind of judicial proceedings. The physical and emotional condition of the detainees have deteriorated. Six of these people, including the brother-in-law of Dr. Barrenechea, have medical problems. To be sent to those rural, isolated and southern parts of the country puts them in grave physical danger.

She confided to me a story I found rather touching. She told me that when she was in Chile in January, her brother showed her a medical document with great pride. That medical document was a signed statement by a medical practitioner who said that the gentleman, her brother-in-law, had a heart condition and, if arrested, he should not be tortured by electricity because it could result in his death. That is the kind of system they face in Chile.

I was talking yesterday to a lawyer by the name of Barbara Jackman who was in Chile from September 4, 1984, to October 6, 1984, who met with various human rights lawyers, organizations and social and community groups. The state of siege was called after she left and the situation is now even worse than when she was there.

Time does not permit me to go into all the details, but in a very legal way I would love to outline the procedure by which people are dealt with as political prisoners.

Prisoners who are eventually acknowledged as such by the military are kept in jail for up to three or four years without charges being laid. There is a secret investigation by a military prosecutor that goes on and on. There are two types of military trials. There is a military tribunal at which evidence is given to a military lawyer and notes are taken, and the defence counsel is limited as to whom and to what extent he can cross-examine.

The war council is the second type of trial. From the secret investigation, it goes directly to a seven-man military panel. They start and complete the trial without stopping except for night. It is normally over in a day or two. There is no appeal. Three men are facing the death penalty and two women are facing five years in that process. A constitutional challenge to the legality of this process is being heard, but it is fairly clear that, with the kind of junta that exists in Chile, little is likely to happen.

I would like to ask members in the few seconds I have left, even if they do not read Spanish, at least to read the figures of the Chilean Commission on Human Rights. The figures show that in 1979 a total of 1,144 people were detained for political reasons and without any kind of trial. In 1983 that figure rose to 10,401.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): The honourable member has concluded his time allotment.

Mr. Philip: Mr. Speaker, I would urge you to read resolution 47, which I tabled on Tuesday and which deals with the need for the release of those 18 trade unionists who are now --

The Acting Speaker: We thank the honourable member immensely for his words.

Mr. Gordon: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise this afternoon in support of the resolution put forward by the member for High Park-Swansea, for it is a particularly appropriate time for this assembly to reconfirm its commitment to Ontario's multicultural heritage, a heritage that promotes tolerance, harmony and understanding among the various ethnic groups that make Ontario the rich province it is today.

Mr. Philip: You hypocrite.

Mr. Gordon: It is an appropriate resolution because it reinforces the multicultural focus our bicentennial --

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member will withdraw. He has made a comment that is not within the parliamentary tradition of love and kindness to another honourable member.

Mr. Philip: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. Is "hypocrite" not an appropriate word?

The Acting Speaker: It is not.

Mr. Philip: Then I will withdraw the word "hypocrite." He certainly was double-faced in his comments.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. Just sit down, please.

Mr. Gordon: It is yet another avenue through which formal recognition is given to the most important contribution that ethnic groups from all corners of the globe have made to our celebrations.

It is also appropriate because it reflects Ontario's despair about the persecution, strife and political hardship that innocent members of ethnic groups in other countries are currently facing. The violent incidents we have heard about in India recently speak loudly of how fortunate Canadians are to live in a society that thrives on freedom and diversity.

But the freedom and diversity that this country and this province have afforded people of every race, colour and creed cannot be taken lightly. It is necessary that we as the political representatives of the people of Ontario continually reaffirm and strengthen our commitment to freedom, tolerance and diversity. It must be remembered that such privileges are special and rare. Relatively few people in this world can truly say they live in a country where freedom and democracy are the cornerstones of their policy.

Canada, especially Ontario, is particularly unusual in that these values form the foundation of our country. People came and continue to come to be able to enjoy personal freedom and tolerance, no matter what their origin. As members will know, such a history is exceptional in the modern world. Most countries of today whose histories extend much further back than Canada's were founded not on such values as freedom but rather on nationalism, the will of one homogeneous people to self-determination.

Many historians ascribe the birth of nationalism to the French Revolution of 1789. Others point to more recent events, such as the Treaty of Versailles at the end of the First World War. No matter when the birth of nationalism, it can be credited with the birth of many modern-day nations, such as France, Austria and Germany. Unfortunately, it can also be credited with many of the political conflicts, some violent, that endure today. The Basques in Spain and the Corsicans in France are among those groups whose conflicts are testament to the sustained strength of nationalism.

Canada is special in that we have a country where different ethnic groups and nationals are encouraged to live side by side and share in the experience such diversity brings. Our colourful history is grounded in the settlement of people who desire to retain and maintain their national identity. Indeed, Ontario's first settlers, the United Empire Loyalists, were the first to seek refuge for their national beliefs.

4:20 p.m.

Today Ontario continues to provide refuge and a welcome mat to those of every nation or national belief. As a country, we celebrate the diversities such a mélange of people brings to Canada. As a province, we stress the richness such a mix adds to our community. I look back with fond recollections on my days as mayor of Sudbury and my involvement with the ethnic groups there. In Sudbury, a full 12 per cent --

Mr. Laughren: Is that back when the member was a Liberal?

Mr. Gordon: I can see the New Democrats do not want me to talk about Sudbury, as I am being interrupted. Do I take it they are not interested in the ethnic groups in Sudbury and I am not allowed to talk about them because they want to interfere? I can see that is not the case.

In Sudbury. a full 12 per cent of the population --

Mr. Laughren: The member does not practise what he preaches.

Mr. Gordon: I can see the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren) objects to my talking about the ethnic people in Sudbury. If that is the case, will he please rise?

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: My objections are based on the fact the member for Sudbury does not practise what he preaches.

Mr. Gordon: The reason they are rising and objecting to this speech is that they do not want me to finish and they do not want me to talk about the people of Sudbury.

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member has six minutes and 13 seconds.

Mr. Gordon: I will continue. In Sudbury, a full 12 per cent of the population belongs to ethnic groups that list their mother tongue as other than French or English. For instance, there are more than 5,300 Italians living in Sudbury. I had the good fortune to spend last weekend at the 37th anniversary of the Caruso Club. That group has become one of the very key cornerstones of our community.

As well, we have 3,200 residents of Sudbury who are Finnish. Those members who like to cross-country ski and those who enjoy excellent male choirs will not find better; the Finnish people are in the forefront in that regard. We also have those very brave Poles living in Sudbury who fought off Hitler during the Second World War and who are now determined they are not going to let the tyranny of communism crush them.

I could go on listing other ethnic groups, butt fear I may use all my allotted time, because the 1981 census lists 17 different ethnic groups in Sudbury. I see the member for High Park-Swansea, who put this motion forward. There are 2,270 Ukrainians living in Sudbury. At Yarmarok time, everybody knows Ukrainians live in Sudbury. They are there with their culture, speeches and music and it is very entertaining for the entire population.

In Sudbury, Polish Independence Day, which this year fell on Sunday, November 11, was celebrated this month. Next month, on December 6, the Finns will be celebrating the 65th anniversary of their independence. Municipalities have traditionally participated in events on such independence days. This support has explicitly recognized and expressed appreciation for the contribution made by the different ethnic groups. I trust communities will continue to express such support.

As the member for High Park-Swansea has said, there is also a role for the province to play in such ethnic celebrations. Now through the Office of the Premier, greetings are sent to various celebrations on an ad hoc basis. It is my hope and intention that through this resolution, this assembly will formalize Ontario's participation in such events. The nature of the participation must necessarily vary from event to event.

Sometimes the government through a ministry will provide funding for ethnic celebrations. This was certainly the case throughout our bicentennial celebrations. At other times, it is more appropriate that a simple greeting be forwarded by the Premier at his discretion to ethnic celebrations such as independence days. Such is the purpose of the resolution currently before us. I must say I am completely in support of that resolution.

As well, I want to answer one point raised by one of the New Democratic Party members at the beginning of my speech. It is unfortunate that those people continually keep painting themselves into that corner. That corner is, "If it is not done our way, then you are the enemy."

It is truly sad and that is one thing that is going to keep them in the third-party position in this province for years to come. It is that kind of mentality that, instead of lifting the tone of a debate, drags it down. It has a nasty edge to it and is certainly not seen by the people of Ontario to be complimentary or humanistic. They say they represent the humanistic values of this society, but they do not act like it. That is one of their problems.

The other point too, in discussing this committee --

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, on a point of information --

The Acting Speaker: There is no such point.

Mr. Laughren: On a point of privilege --

The Acting Speaker: A point of privilege? There is such a point.

Mr. Laughren: I am confused then. The member is making a good speech, and I do not understand why anyone would call the member for Sudbury a hypocrite.

The Acting Speaker: I just do not know, and that is not a point to be considered.

Mr. Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I think the member for Nickel Belt pointed out one of his problems. He said, "I do not understand." That is one of his problems. He just does not understand that a Legislature like this is not in a position to decide whether the Sikhs or the Hindus are right; it is not the place of this Legislature to decide whether the Irish Republican Army or the British are right, and that is exactly the point of view the members opposite are putting forth in that debate they are so incensed about.

Mr. Rae: No, we were not. That is a complete distortion.

Mr. Gordon: The members opposite can say they were not, but if you listen to the member in the second row, you can see that is the case. It is so obvious how incensed they become. They do not want to hear the truth. The minute somebody says anything is truthful, either they say, "I do not understand," or they call that person a hypocrite. I cannot believe the names they persist in calling people.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr. Gordon: I had thought they would have left those names back in kindergarten. I do not think enough Ivory soap was used in washing out some people's mouths when they were growing up. Nevertheless, I always find it delightful to talk to the New Democrats, because they are men of such good cheer.

Mr. Laughren: Are you a Liberal or a Tory?

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr. Gordon: I know what I am. The problem is that the member for Nickel Belt --

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member's time has expired.

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Speaker, I have reviewed the resolution that has been presented by the member for High Park-Swansea. I think quite a bit of thought has gone into the resolution. I know some of the background of the honourable member, I know some of the difficulties his family had before coming to Canada and I can see why he would want to bring such a resolution before the House. Some other members have already stated that this resolution deserves support, and I intend to support it.

I was surprised that the member for High Park-Swansea read his speech. I think this is the first time I have seen the member read a speech in the House. He may have been ordered to read his speech, because sometimes the member wants to be faithful to his past and completely honest about the way he sees things, and sometimes when he is being faithful to his past and completely honest about the things he believes in and the way he sees them, he may on occasion have embarrassed the government.

I do not know why the government would be embarrassed by some of the subjects the member has raised. I have listened to those subjects. He usually talks about freedom for people who have been oppressed, for people who have lost their freedom, for people whose countries have been totally usurped and taken over and who have had their identity totally taken from them by superior military force.

If a member has strong feelings about those kinds of things, and we should have strong feelings about things of that nature, then I feel he should be able to speak his piece. The member for High Park-Swansea does not have to read his speeches. We understand how he feels about these matters. He should just let it come forth.

4:30 p.m.

I also want to say that several of the main points that have been discussed here were totally missed by my friend the member for Sudbury. I know the member for Sudbury quite well and we get along. The point the member for High Park-Swansea wanted to make and the contribution to the debate made by the member for Sudbury had no relation whatsoever.

Being born in a different land and coming to Canada with my family when I was a small child, I know what the member for Sudbury was saying. He was saying that in many communities across this great province there are significant ethnic groups, be they Italian, Portuguese, Lebanese, German, or whatever. They are many and they do add some colour and flavour. You can have some good pasta now in Ontario, whereas 15 years ago it was not possible. But that is not the point the member for High Park-Swansea was making in his resolution.

The member for High Park-Swansea was not talking about spaghetti and meatballs. He was talking about freedom. He was talking about rights of individuals. He was talking about religious rights, political rights and all the freedoms associated with having a government democratically elected and/or democratically defeated, depending on what the people choose on a particular occasion.

Let us raise the level of debate above the parochial level as to whether or not the Ukrainians wear the dress they wore in their home country, which makes a parade very colourful. That is not what the resolution is about at all.

We want to support the member for High Park-Swansea in his proclamation that we have not spoken out enough in this Legislature on the rights of humanity. I understand that this is not the national government of Canada -- it is the provincial government -- and that in some ways our international role is limited. But we are parliamentarians in the true sense of the word. When we speak as a parliament, other states and other nations must listen because we are democratically elected under a system that cannot be perverted by people with power and money.

The resolution of the member for High Park-Swansea is important because it gives us this short afternoon to talk about the inhumanities some nations perpetrate on their citizens. We are appalled by these countries, no matter which superpower they support.

For example, if the regime in charge of Argentina was supportive of the United States in a military sense, that in no way, in my view, makes what they did right. The thousands of people who disappeared and were murdered in Argentina were not consoled by the fact that they were a friend of America or a perceived friend of the west. On the other side, there are other countries which do exactly the same, if not worse than what Argentina has done and they purport to be friends of Russia.

We have been caught, unfortunately, in a situation where the superpowers have entered this debate on freedoms. One superpower tells its friends: "Yes, they are our friends. Yes, they may have made mistakes and there may be no human rights in that country, but we must overlook that because they are our military friends and, who knows, some day we may need them." The United States and Russia have constantly done this, and it is about time that some of us spoke out about it forthrightly. We must speak out against injustice, against the loss of freedoms wherever they may take place, whenever we see that injustice or loss of rights taking place, whenever it happens.

It was mentioned earlier that there is a terrible problem in India concerning the cultural, historical and language backgrounds of the Sikh and Hindu populations. It is sad to see that happening, but it is happening.

We might want to inject our views of that matter into the debate, but I agree that it is very difficult to take sides. I could not take sides. I do not really understand or know all the problems. But in my view, the very fact that we speak about this matter may contribute in some very small way to a solution.

Ontario has accepted people from all over the world. I live in a small town and we have been able to enter the mainstream of the population in jobs, through the educational system and through all the other social aspects of the community. This is not unique just to Amherstburg. This is unique to the whole province of Ontario.

We are a tolerant people here in Ontario. One of the reasons we are so tolerant is that we may have come from jurisdictions that showed little or no tolerance. Here, in this land, we want to show the tolerance to others that we ourselves may not have been able to receive.

I believe that is the intention of the member for High Park-Swansea. That is what he wants debated. He wants us to rise in our places and support the amnesty groups that want freedom for political prisoners because they have a different view of the world. He wants us to rise in our places and support different groups who believe a government has no right to starve a population for any political reason whatsoever. These are the serious issues of the day.

We cannot stand here in isolation and watch all other free states or nations lose their freedoms and think that may not happen to ourselves somewhere down the road. We must stand together with people who believe in all these freedoms for humanity. If we do that, then we strengthen our own freedoms.

Mr. Samis: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak in support of the motion. I congratulate the member for presenting it. His concern for the fate of minorities, especially in eastern Europe, and the fate of individuals under totalitarian regimes is well known. I think that concern is a very sincere one and I commend him for it.

In supporting the resolution, I share the concerns and the questions brought up by the member for Parkdale. I think they are very legitimate and the fears are very real. I hope the honourable member will address those questions in his response.

While the intent of the resolution is a high-sounding one, I think he would be the first to admit that there is a potential for political and partisan exploitation no matter who is in power and no matter in which jurisdiction. I hope he will address the fears that were raised.

The member for High Park-Swansea has spoken frequently about the rights of individuals in a democratic society. When we talk about the rights of individuals, we also talk about the rights of the people. To me, one of the fundamental rights of any people on the face of the earth is that of independence, to rule one's own society and exercise sovereignty.

We in Canada are fortunate to live in a democratic society. Through the process of evolution, we have been able to achieve a fair measure of sovereignty and independence. Unfortunately, we are one of the few countries left in the world that can exercise the rights and privileges of a democracy.

Since the end of the Second World War, we have noticed a considerable increase in the whole scope and nature of independence in the world.

We saw the decline and fall of the British Empire, especially in west Africa and parts of Asia. Fortunately, it was a fairly evolutionary and democratic process with a minimum of violence in which dozens of nations achieved independence.

The same process took effect in the French empire, especially in the 1960s under de Gaulle when many of the states in western Africa achieved their independence. The same also applied to the few remaining legacies of the Spanish empire --

4:40 p.m.

The Acting Speaker: I thank the honourable member. His time has expired.

I recognize now the member for High Park-Swansea, who has six minutes 12 seconds.

Mr. Shymko: Mr. Speaker, I want to express my gratitude for the support I think I have from members opposite. It is unfortunate that the members for Parkdale and Etobicoke (Mr. Philip) are not here to listen to some of the comments I wanted to make in answer to the questions they raised.

I share a very deep sense of a principle that public opinion and the pressure of world opinion have a tremendous bearing in alleviating the plight of individuals and, collectively, groups who are in terrible predicaments in terms of violations of basic liberties and civil rights. Institutions such as parliaments and legislatures are very critical and have a great impact in helping these individuals and groups.

I am not here to comment on the Ombudsman's resolution, but I think we should work towards some kind of resolution that will be accommodating to all members. I am sure there is a middle ground we can reach. I am sure the reasons it was defeated may have been related to the fact the present federal government or the present party in power in Ottawa had made a number of public statements that once they had formed a government there would be the establishment of a subcommittee on international violation of human rights within the standing committee on external affairs and defence. Statements such as these had been made. Whether or not that will be delivered is another question. I hope it will.

This Legislature can have an impact in looking at another resolution along the lines of asking that the federal government at the preferred level of jurisdiction establish such a subcommittee. It is unfortunate that we could not find a consensus. The resolution of the member for Riverdale and my views are well known both in the Ombudsman committee as well as outside the committee with respect to concerns I had with regard to the international violation of human rights.

I think we should continue our efforts in trying to establish, or to pass a resolution that would force the federal government to establish, some kind of a forum or framework to deal with this area of concern.

The member for Parkdale mentioned the nonpolitical nature. I think he knows me well enough to understand that my resolution is not partisan. Certainly the intention never had been partisan. It is unfortunate that he interprets this as being partisan in nature.

He does raise some questions. He was an alderman with the great city council of the city of Toronto and is well aware of the procedures the mayor had used in handling the requests for such proclamations. I know the member for Sudbury, who was the mayor of that great city in northern Ontario, had also followed certain rules and procedures. I think he is well aware of how these requests are handled. I would imagine that is what I would like to see the Office of the Premier do.

As to the appropriateness of which dates are to be selected, if the member looks at the publication of a calendar by the Ontario Multicultural Historical Society, he will notice dates and events that are publicly known that he and I and other members regularly attend. Certainly these are the anniversaries to which greetings are sent by the Leader of the Opposition, the leader of the third party and the Premier's office.

Obviously the anniversary of the liberation of Afghanistan by the Soviet forces as an independence would not be appropriate. One may have some reservations about the date of the Bolshevik revolution as a declaration of independence. What one talks about are declarations of independence based on the values, the system of government and guarantees of individual freedoms that we understand are similar to those that we share and cherish here in Canada.

There are other ways of highlighting this, in addition to a proclamation, as the member for Parkdale knows; receptions may be held, delegations may meet in the office of the Premier, and there are various additional ways.

Concerning the comments from the member for Etobicoke with regard to the situation in certain parts of the world and the representation from my constituent and the plight of her relatives in Chile, I would like to say that public opinion has restored democracies in formerly authoritarian regimes in such countries as Greece, Portugal, Spain and Argentina. There is hope that changes will occur in El Salvador, and I think this is because of public pressure. These changes happened, in part, because there was at least a semblance of some system in place in those regimes. I am very confident it will happen in Chile. We will see these changes occurring.

It is much easier for a dissident from Chile to go back to Chile today than it is for a dissident from the Soviet Union or some other countries. There are obviously levels of repression and one has to be careful not to discriminate against one particular form of oppression.

I thank members for their support.

TELEVISION IN LEGISLATURE

Mr. Bradley moved, seconded by Mr. Wrye, resolution 40:

That in the opinion of this House, electronic video Hansard should be installed in the chamber to provide coverage of all proceedings in the House in addition to that provided at present by the written and electronic media.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): May I remind the honourable member he has up to 20 minutes to make his presentation and may reserve any portion thereof for final wrapup.

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, that such a resolution must be introduced at all in the autumn of 1984 is a sad commentary on the commitment to freedom of information on the part of the government of Ontario. One would assume every legislator in this House would recognize and respect the right of the people of this province to complete and free access to the deliberations which take place in the legislative chamber.

The arguments in favour of the implementation of electronic video Hansard in the Legislative Assembly of Ontario are many and compelling. The arguments against such an initiative are clearly self-serving on the part of the government and without merit with respect to providing the maximum information to viewers in order that they might have as much access to the legislative process as possible.

While the freedom-of-information argument is perhaps the most important to be advanced in favour of my resolution, other reasons for the adoption of the proposal I have put forward are significant and deserving of consideration. In this regard, I am fortunate to have had the assistance of a legislative intern, Lorraine Luski, who wrote her internship paper on this subject after doing extensive research on my behalf. She has marshalled some rather interesting quotes and information on the issue, and I will be taking the liberty of utilizing some of this material in the next few minutes.

Without a doubt, the present system, with its limitations, works clearly in favour of the government in power. Television coverage is weighted heavily in favour of ministerial statements and replies to questions posed by the two opposition leaders. Little coverage is provided for government back-benchers or individuals on the opposition benches, other than the leaders, even though the questions asked by such individuals may be of regional or even province-wide significance.

On countless occasions, the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) has drawn to the attention of the Speaker the dismantling and the disappearance of television cameras midway through the question period as though no further significant interventions could possibly be forthcoming subsequent to ministerial statements and the opposition leaders' questions.

Yet surely the people of Fort William or Kirkland Lake or Cornwall or Wingham have a right to view their problems and issues being addressed by local members or by opposition critics in specific fields. Surely the residents of all 125 constituencies in Ontario deserve the opportunity to observe the legislative performance of their own elected representatives, to assist them in making judgements and choices on election day based upon more than the member's ability to cut ribbons, tell after-dinner stories and get birth certificates in short order.

4:50 p.m.

The installation of three or four permanent television cameras to supplement the coverage provided at present through the mobile cameras located in the Speaker's gallery would provide comprehensive, unfettered and fair coverage of the entire question period and other legislative proceedings, the kind of comprehensive coverage that simply cannot be provided when most of the cameras are removed, as they were a week ago Tuesday, after only 27 minutes of question period.

These cameras would focus exclusively, as they do in the House of Commons and in the Saskatchewan Legislature, on those participating in the debate rather than abandoning the leaders of the opposition in mid-question or mid-sentence to cover a grand entrance by the Premier in his Argonaut sweater, an entrance carefully orchestrated by his two assistants who stand on the sidelines with supercilious grins on their faces, having succeeded once again in diverting attention from important and serious issues in favour of the colourful frivolity of the Premier.

In her internship paper, Ms. Luski included a rather appropriate quote from an article entitled "Camera Shy in the Senate," which appeared in the May 15, 1984, edition of the Boston Globe. In describing the advantages of television in the coverage of legislative proceedings, the Boston Globe story stated: "Television is an opportunity to go over the heads of reporters and allow legislators to communicate directly with constituents. The unblinking eye of television does not pick the juiciest quotations out of context, does not emphasize conflict beyond what actually happens, and does not insert a lot of colourful adjectives that tilt stories one way or the other."

While one would be unwise to advocate the replacement of the present electronic video coverage with the kind of television coverage contemplated in the Boston Globe article -- and a careful review of the wording of my resolution will reveal no such motive on my part -- it would be advantageous to supplement the present coverage with the electronic video Hansard that I have advocated, to allow viewers to form their own interpretations and to do their own editing.

Observers of the federal parliamentary scene contend that televising of the House of Commons has had a favourable effect upon the behaviour of MPs and would likely have a similar effect on MPPs. Morris Wolfe, writing in the January-February 1978 edition of Saturday Night magazine, sensed, "One no longer sees members reading newspapers or doing crosswords in the House...there are fewer yawns...questions and answers are becoming more direct and concise."

It may be fairly assumed that all of us would conduct the business of the House in a more refined and courteous manner, that there would be better concentration on the issues before the Legislature and that attendance would improve if my resolution were to be acted upon favourably by the Board of Internal Economy.

It is often said that Canadians do not have as much knowledge of the legislative process and the workings of government as they should have in order to make political judgements and to influence their representatives in a positive and measurable way. The televising of the proceedings of the Ontario Legislature by TVOntario and by other networks that might be interested could result in an increased awareness of the legislative process and a better understanding of the issues with which legislators must deal.

Former federal cabinet minister Robert Stanbury argued, "Our democratic institutions are more important to us now than ever before, yet in an age of 'total information,' many of us are not aware of how our parliamentary institutions work." Having watched the televised proceedings of the United Nations Security Council sessions on the Middle East crises and the United States Senate committee hearings on Vietnam, Stanbury contends that, by observing the complex and sometimes agonizing process where serious representatives search for solutions to nearly insoluble problems, perhaps the public will realize there are no easy shortcuts to pressing issues. Moreover, by observing this rational, thoughtful process, the public will resist demagoguery and approach public decision-making in a more thoughtful, informed manner.

Those of us who sit in the provincial House understand only too well -- and this can be shared by members on both sides of the House -- that provincial issues are almost always relegated to second or even third place behind the federal and municipal issues that arise. The recognition level of the opposition leaders and even the government cabinet ministers is quite low in comparison to those on the federal stage. Yet the provincial government affects everyone in a direct and important way. Full televising of our provincial parliament would allow viewers to become aware of the significant role played by provincial legislators in their lives.

One concern that opponents of this initiative have expressed is that no one would watch the proceedings. According to former House of Commons Speaker James Jerome, however, since television was introduced into that chamber, the audience has been substantially higher than even the most optimistic members anticipated. As he says, "One audience measurement taken during the constitutional debate was about 750,000, half the size of the audience measurement for the national news, and considered to be a phenomenally high rating for that sort of presentation."

The implementation of my resolution would help to solve some purely technical problems as well, in regard to the poor quality of sound and picture available through the present setup, a situation that is caused to a great extent by the location of the cameras.

Orland French, in a Globe and Mail column of November 30, 1982, described the quality of the picture produced as being, and I quote from his column, "reminiscent of the 1950s." He went on to say, "The cameras get a good profile of Premier Davis and Mr. Peterson, but views of MPPs close to the Speaker's gallery are a study in balding heads. MPPs immediately next to the gallery are lost entirely as they are directly under the cameras."

What I am proposing is the lowest-cost, automated electronic video Hansard available in Canada, modelled along the lines of that which has been adopted by the Saskatchewan Legislature, a system that cost that province $1.3 million to install and costs about $250,000 a year to operate. I am suggesting that TVOntario, the Ontario educational network which covers, I believe, 92 per cent of the province, be the main vehicle for this programming as it is in this province for the question period from the House of Commons.

Of course, members opposite will find it ironic, as I do, that the House of Commons is carried on the educational television network of Ontario and the provincial Legislature is not. Cable systems, networks and local television stations would be welcome to the service provided by the electronic Hansard.

I understand the reluctance of the government to see this measure implemented as it would focus attention on provincial issues and on members of the opposition.

The Canadian Broadcasting Corp. cameras installed especially for the Treasurer's budget address and removed for the two opposition critics would remain, as would the opportunity for the opposition viewpoint to be heard. I am referring, of course, to the permanent camera installations that were here and are always here at a time that is appropriate for the government, such as the speech from the throne and the budget speech.

I understand the reluctance. It would be less than justified, however, to have the same government that spends $50 million a year on advertising and uses every other modern technological tool associated with communications, including extensive taxpayer-paid polling, oppose a progressive measure designed to bring fairness and balance to the legislative process and provide the kind of freedom of information about which the government talks but does little to implement.

While the reluctance of the government to approve this initiative is understandable, what is disconcerting is the opposition of some members of the press gallery and the representations made to the Board of Internal Economy on behalf of this group.

I understand the concern expressed by television reporters that the installation of permanent cameras for the purpose of an electronic video Hansard might prompt the government to suggest the removal of the mobile cameras. Members will note that my resolution calls for the electronic Hansard to be a supplement to their coverage, not a replacement for them. I hope this resistance from those upon whom we rely to inform the public will disappear and be removed as an excuse for government inaction on this issue.

Perhaps a piece written by freelance columnist Eric Dowd captures the issue as well as any column I have seen on this issue. Let me quote from his article of June 29, 1983. According to Mr. Dowd: "Cameras do lie, frequently. Most days in the Ontario Legislature there are cameras from eight or nine television networks or stations taping parts of the proceedings, but it would be difficult to claim they provide a comprehensive, and therefore accurate, picture of what goes on.

"The TV reporters, as competent as anyone else in their journalistic trade, are looking for what they regard as news stories, preferably an average of two, to send to their employers each day. The requirement is filled mostly by statements, or responses to questions, by Premier William Davis and his ministers -- the concentration on what the government says can normally be justified because it affects and is of interest to people.

5 p.m.

"The stories generally have to fill between 30 and 75 seconds -- anything much over that, except in special circumstances, is held to be too long to hold an audience. Once government has told its side, there is obviously not much time for a word from the opposition, although some reporters do their best to get in an opposition comment.

"TV is normally not much interested in the frequent nonanswers Davis and some of his ministers give -- beating around the bush is difficult to make into a quick story. Nor does TV normally take much note of a minister caught poorly informed or stuttering and stammering in his search for a reply (except when he makes an awesome gaffe). This is simply not much of a news event compared to some positive-sounding government announcement.

"TV also has the technical problem of having to rush its equipment out into the corridors before the daily question period ends, mostly to catch ministers leaving, which means it usually grabs what it wants from government statements and the two opposition party leaders' questions and government responses, and is on its way. Back-benchers, who follow the leaders and occasionally ask better questions, are not seen much on TV.

"The opposition parties have long wanted to do something about the unequal showing they get and have been pushing to get the whole of the question period, instead of small excerpts selected by the news media, taped and broadcast daily on the province's educational TV channel, which already carries the daily Commons question period.

"TVOntario would be glad to broadcast it each night, before the show from the Commons. It also feels schools, individually, would want to tape the night-time question periods and show students the parts they consider to be of interest.

"Davis and his inner circle have always been extremely lukewarm to the full question period being broadcast -- apart from genuine reservations about cost, the Conservatives know they have nothing to gain from a more thorough TV coverage that would inevitably increase the small platform now given the opposition.

"The staff report proposed the Legislature allow TV stations to take excerpts they want from its tape, but at the same time move out their untidy, noisy nest of cameras which now takes precious space in a Legislature gallery that used to be occupied by VIPs -- and government spokesmen echoed that, if the Legislature put in its own cameras, the TV stations would have to move out."

This, of course, was in response to a civil service report which was brought forward, I believe, to the Board of Internal Economy.

"The Legislature press gallery objected strongly to being asked to move -- justifiably, because the Legislature tape (as in the Commons) would show only legislators speaking, and never heckling or demonstrations in the public gallery, or MPPs dozing or scratching their noses, or other events legislators feel do not show them in their best light.

"The press gallery went further and opposed the Legislature even setting up its own cameras on the ground that -- even if the TV stations were allowed to keep cameras in -- some of them are so penny-pinching they would grab the free official tapes and withdraw their own cameras to save money and would wind up with less objective TV coverage.

"The government could have said the Legislature will tape the question period, but the TV stations' cameras can stay, and hope they would. But instead it is saying the issue of putting the question period on TV is dead and citing the opposition of the press gallery. A proposal which would have provided a worthwhile new insight into the Legislature has been sunk, ironically, with the help of the media."

That ends the quotation from the column which was presented by Eric Dowd in a syndicated column across the province.

It is said as well, and I believe I saw this in the Camp commission report, that there is a movement towards executive power in the province. Members who are sitting in here, as I look in the House, are not those who are in the position to exercise that executive power, instead they are individual legislators who have a stake, I believe, in making this particular chamber more relevant to democratic government in this province.

My motion, of course, if adopted by this House and acted upon by the Board of Internal Economy, would have some effect in reducing slightly the dominance of the executive position of government and increasing the relevance of the Legislative Assembly.

Let us hope my resolution will not meet the same fate this afternoon as was described in the article by Eric Dowd. Let us hope this government will recognize its responsibility to the people of Ontario, as the legislatures and state senates in 35 states and the national Congress have done in the United States and as the governments of Canada and some of our provinces have done so aptly.

As Speaker Jerome stated so well in summation: "Democratic government means government in view of the public. In present-day society, this means television, for television is the medium through which the public sees major events."

If this government defeats this resolution or if government members prevent this from coming to a vote this afternoon, the people of Ontario can justifiably ask the question, 'What do they have to hide?"

The Deputy Speaker: The honourable member has a little over a moment remaining, I believe.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, in response to what my friend across the way said, I want to suggest it was his whip who signed a report in 1976 endorsing the installation of television in this Legislature, and so did all the Conservative members on that select committee.

I want to remind my friends in the Legislature that in 1975 Donald Morrow, chairman of the select committee on the Camp commission on the Legislature, said, "To reiterate, we are convinced that it is past time when the Ontario Legislature should have television." The committee said, "This committee cannot impress too strongly upon the Speaker's committee the importance of proceeding with some dispatch to assure the complete and satisfactory provision of facilities." That was in 1976.

The installation of the equipment we have was temporary at best. At one time, it was a fire hazard. To date, it has not been improved at all. The select committee twice reaffirmed its position on television in the Legislature. To date, it has been of no avail.

What Camp and Morrow saw was that it would enhance the role of the private member. One of the things Camp looked at was enhancing the role of the back-bencher. Obviously the back-benchers on that side of the House do not see themselves as having any role and prefer not to have the television cameras in to show how totally useless they might be.

Mr. Robinson: Oh, imputing motive.

Mr. Martel: The back-benchers must not want a role because they are the ones who keep it out.

If one looks at the archaic system up there, it focuses on the Premier (Mr. Davis). One almost needs binoculars to watch the Premier on television. I suppose he has at least a half-decent focus compared to my leader, whose head is constantly behind the camera if he is facing the Speaker. None other than the Solicitor General (Mr. G. W. Taylor) has complained on occasion about the fact that the only shot that goes is the back of his head.

Mr. Wildman: That is his good side.

Hon. G. W. Taylor: That is not a complaint, just a statement of fact.

Mr. Martel: Yes, it is a statement of fact. I am always intrigued when question period starts. The cameras are on. Halfway through, the Premier leaves and everybody from the press gallery on this side is gone. There is no one left. If we had an installation on both sides, the proceedings would continue.

Many companies in northern Ontario cannot afford to have someone down here for television coverage. It is too expensive and costly to place someone here. They could pick up a feed from the video whenever they wanted. It would all continue to be shown despite the fact the people from the press gallery might want to go out to get a direct interview, to learn more than what was stated by the Premier or any ministers in the House.

I cannot understand what is wrong with that. I do know the government is bitterly opposed to it. The government House leader talks about it costing $5 million, when he knows the Speaker from the Ontario Legislature went to Saskatchewan and there is a report on file that says the installation is about $1.3 million for the most up-to-date equipment. They fly around with $5-million figures deliberately to try to convince people we should not have it.

Mr. Robinson: It was $6 million in Ottawa.

Mr. Martel: No. The member for Scarborough-Ellesmere should not play around with the Ottawa experience. That was before the technology even came out. After I sit down, I will send the member the report that was presented to the members of the Board of Internal Economy showing what the cost would be. Then he will know.

Mr. Robinson: I would be pleased to receive it. Thank you.

Mr. Martel: Then he will not come here with that silly argument.

Mr. Robinson: I did not. I told the member what the price was in Ottawa.

Mr. Martel: What has that got to do with here?

Mr. McClellan: Nothing.

Mr. Robinson: Okay.

5:10 p.m.

Mr. Martel: Part of the whole television thing was sent out on an experimental basis. It was supposed to be temporary in nature, but it has now been nine years.

On one occasion one of those cameras almost fell. Luckily, it was grabbed. It could have killed one of the pages or injured one of the members. It is an archaic system. It is out of date and the members and I know it. The only conclusion I can come to is that the government is afraid it will bumble, that it will look bad and that it will look stupid. It cannot tolerate that. If that is not the reason, it will have to come up with something substantive, and it cannot.

The press gallery helped to defeat our getting television here. When the people in the media came before the board, we told them there was no suggestion those cameras would ever come out. They chose to ignore that. They were given assurances by my friend the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) and myself that there was no intention to remove them from the gallery. There are other people interested in this --

Mr. Nixon: Remember, they will not allow any cameras over the Speaker's chair either.

Mr. Martel: None is allowed over the Speaker's chair where one could get a shot at the members at this end. No way; they do not want it there. However, it is good over here because it gets the Premier.

It is interesting that the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation has written to the Premier to suggest that television is needed. What better means is there to teach kids what goes here than by using TVOntario? We contribute in the neighbourhood of $40 million a year to TVOntario. It reaches almost the entire province. High school teachers could be using it daily for Man and His World courses and elementary teachers could be using it daily for social studies classes in teaching what our parliamentary system is all about.

I am sure other members still get letters, as we do, from people thinking we are in Ottawa. They do not know which legislature it is. They do not know how it operates or functions. The Premier is always worried. Look at what we spent during the bicentennial year to get across the message about the history of Ontario.

What better way could there be than to use the Legislature from which all the legislation, the debates, the current issues, everything emanates? That little group over there has decided it is not good for the people of Ontario to see it. There is something perverse about what they are doing.

I would like to see somebody over there have a little courage. I invited the whip to come in and speak on it since he voted to support it. After a while, I suppose he will be whipping the members to defeat the motion or to veto it and not allow it to come to a vote. When he was on the back benches, he thought it was great for back-benchers. Now that he is in the cabinet, it is not so good.

In northern Ontario, most of the stations cannot afford to have a camera in the Legislature full-time. They could pick upon the feed. I spoke to some people in the media back home in the last two weeks. They would love to be able to pick it up and show it, but they cannot get it. One has to pay for it at a high price.

Only six or seven people can afford to have cameras here. One cannot put someone here from Sudbury, Timmins, Thunder Bay or eastern Ontario. It is an injustice to the people. It is an injustice that it does not go into the schools. We put up the money, or a major chunk of it, for TVOntario. We have the network to utilize it. The game those people are playing is just awful.

There is another thing I found offensive in the past couple of weeks. I saw the Provincial Auditor's book. We used to have television so that a member could send a clip home. You could send a 15-minute program for cable. But it was too expensive for the government to pay Rogers to produce it here so we could send it to our ridings.

What did those jokers do? They turned around and used $90,000 to buy their own equipment to send it out. Is that not wonderful? They took the money from the Legislature that was going to be for all of us to benefit from and cut out the program because it was going to be too expensive. Then they turned around and bought almost $100,000 worth of equipment so the Tories could have it.

Mr. Stokes: Where did they get the money?

Mr. Martel: They used it from their fund, because they have so much money left over they do not know what to do with it -- almost $100,000 to send back to the ridings of the members opposite. Just what the hell is going on around here? Is the government that perverse or that frightened of some bad publicity?

Mr. Treleaven: Mr. Speaker, first in answer to the member for Sudbury East, I for one did not use it. I do not think the majority of the Progressive Conservative members used whatever television facilities there are when the service was paid, free or otherwise.

I will carry on with my notes. The concept of a video Hansard for the Ontario Legislature has been discussed since the early 1970s, as my friend the member for Sudbury East mentioned. Many arguments have been made for and against it, and the member for St. Catharines (Mr. Bradley) has reiterated many reasons for it. However, no consensus among the members has yet been reached, and this is 1984.

There are four main considerations on this topic.

Mr. McClellan: I will bet there are.

Mr. Treleaven: Yes, certainly. The first is the technical feasibility. That is the first area of concern.

Mr. McClellan: They have not invented a TV camera that will work in here.

Mr. Treleaven: There are a number of different types of systems that have been installed in other jurisdictions to provide coverage of legislative proceedings.

Mr. Bradley: Saskatchewan.

Mr. Treleaven: Saskatchewan, Quebec, the federal government. Yes, all of those.

Mr. Martel: I want you to read that. Never mind your nonsense about technical feasibility.

Mr. Treleaven: Mr. Speaker, I am being hassled by the member for Sudbury East. The member for Sudbury (Mr. Gordon) was much more subdued and unprovocative when he was speaking on the previous resolution. I hope the member for Sudbury East will follow his example.

The type of system installed has differed in the various jurisdictions because of the physical layout of each legislative chamber, the kind of coverage desired and the amount of money spent. It is apparent that no one system can be universally applied, nor has any system demonstrated itself to be technically superior when the resulting products are compared.

Each legislative chamber must be considered individually when discussing the technical feasibility of installing a permanent video Hansard. In the Ontario chamber there are a number of physical constraints that could make the installation of certain systems very difficult and costly. Additionally, the maintenance of the historical value and appearance of the chamber, which should be of prime importance, could also limit the feasibility of certain systems.

If one looks at the setup in Ottawa, the cameras are behind the curtains or in the breaks between the curtains; they are not at all obvious. We do not have any curtain system in this Legislature. What we will end up with is a bunch of cameras behind us, as we have at budget time, with somebody cranking away behind the back benches.

Mr. Barlow: It is distracting to us back-benchers.

Mr. Treleaven: It certainly is. Consequently, any video Hansard system that might be installed must be designed specifically for this chamber, and it has not been satisfactorily demonstrated that a system could be designed that would produce the quality of product necessary, given space constraints, that would maintain the structural integrity of the chamber and that would be unobtrusive and minimize disruption to the members and staff of the assembly.

The second area of concern is the administrative setup. We have heard today of the $1.3-million setup in Saskatchewan and also the $6-million cost -- I would defer to my friend the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere; my information is that it would be between $4.5 million and $5 million -- in each of Quebec and the House of Commons.

Mr. Rae: Somebody blow out the candle over there. They have not invented electricity yet.

5:20 p.m.

Mr. Treleaven: No, in Oxford we have gone down to coal-oil lanterns. We have gone way past the candle stage.

Even though those other, more expensive systems were put in ahead of the Saskatchewan one, members might note that in Ottawa it takes a crew of 41 to operate the system. That is terribly expensive. In the Quebec National Assembly it takes 39 permanent and three part-time staff to operate its cameras and equipment.

It is unclear what type of arrangement would be preferable for the chamber here in Ontario. There is also the problem of distribution of the final product to consider.

Mr. Martel: TVOntario.

Mr. Treleaven: My friend the member for Sudbury East talks about TVO. The member for St. Catharines suggested TVO or some other network might be interested. At this point, we do not know whether anyone is interested in carrying it.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: That is not factual. There have been presentations made by TV companies to do it; so that is nonsense. The member should look at what Rogers offers.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The member for Oxford (Mr. Treleaven) is giving his opinion. I distinctly remember the member for Oxford was most attentive while the member for Sudbury East was making his presentation.

Mr. Martel: But I did not try to misrepresent the facts.

Mr. Treleaven: Nor did I interrupt when the members were speaking.

Mr. Martel: I did not try to misrepresent the facts.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to take the member's time, but the member for Sudbury East has an obligation to the House to withdraw that remark, please.

Mr. Martel: No. I said, "I did not try to misrepresent the facts." Check the record.

The Deputy Speaker: We were flirting with it earlier.

Mr. Martel: I will withdraw it if it is offensive.

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you very much.

Mr. Treleaven: Mr. Speaker, it would be my suggestion that trying to misrepresent the facts would be even worse than misrepresenting the facts. However, that is just an aside.

The third concern is the perceived need, which is perhaps the most controversial aspect of this issue. The arguments for such a system were outlined ad infinitum by the member for St. Catharines, but the arguments against it are several. Lack of interest on the part of the public to view live coverage daily is one of them.

The member for Sudbury East talks about the myriad of constituents who get in touch with him. That may be because they are on the Pickerel and French rivers and they have nothing else to watch except game shows on TV. I have a place on the Pickerel River, and I watch TV up there; so maybe I would be interested in it if I were there. However, in nearly four years of being a member, I have not had one letter or phone call from any constituent asking for Instant Hansard or TV coverage. It certainly is a nonissue in Oxford.

An hon. member: And the Pickerel River.

Mr. Treleaven: It certainly is a nonissue in my section of the Pickerel River and certainly not required or requested.

The member for St. Catharines mentioned that the Legislature should do its duty to the people of Ontario. I would suggest that we would do our duty by listening to them and listening to the silence out there in requests for Instant Hansard.

Another thing that was mentioned by the member for Sudbury East was that we should use it as an educational tool in the schools and educate the children with what goes on in here. It would be really great if we educated them with the gestures we saw here about a week and a half ago. That is great education to show the kids. They can get those gestures in the pool rooms of Oxford and everywhere else, but I do not think this is the chamber where those should be seen. We all learned things in the pool room that we do not necessarily bring everywhere else.

Mr. Martel: What about the language of a cabinet minister? He suggested I do a biological impossibility.

Mr. Treleaven: My eyes are much better than my ears.

The fourth concern is cost. We have talked about the cost. At this point it is unknown. I have not heard either the member for St. Catharines or the member for Sudbury East refer to the actual cost. They keep pumping up the cost of Saskatchewan several years ago.

In summary, this resolution is understandable in so far as it recommends that the government institute a service that may benefit some of the citizens of the province. Since I am running out of time, let me suggest that this resolution should not be supported. It has too many questions that are unanswered, such as cost and interest in the public.

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support this resolution and the long-overdue installation of electronic Hansard here in the Legislature so the people of Ontario can receive all the news that the journalists believe is newsworthy in each and every market of Ontario.

I stand in my place this afternoon as a television producer and a former journalist to tell my friend the member for Oxford in no uncertain terms that the proposal is technically feasible, the product can be distributed, there is a need and the cost can be held down. Those, I believe, were his four points, but I want to get into them just a little bit.

Concerning technical feasibility, as my friend the member for St. Catharines has pointed out, there are absolutely no problems with technical feasibility on a short-term basis with the Treasurer's budgets, the speeches from the throne and other special occasions. A crew will obviously have to be brought in, probably from the Canadian Broadcasting Corp., whose lighting people are considered to be among the best in North America, to light this Legislature properly and to worry about the location and proper installation of cameras. But that is a minor matter, which could probably be overcome in a matter of weeks.

Concerning the distribution of the final product, I am stunned that the member for Oxford does not realize, coming as he does from an area just to the east of London, that each and every day of the week at 4:30 and 5:30 p.m. there is a feed of pertinent material to all the CBC owned-and-operated stations, to all the CBC affiliate stations and indeed to the CTV affiliate stations so those people may watch that pertinent material at six o'clock in the evening.

Let me give my friend an example. Today a very important matter was raised about the closure of a plant in northern Ontario. Presumably that matter has reached the confines of the newsrooms in the immediate area. It would be no great matter for the statement of the minister, the exchange among the member for Essex South (Mr. Mancini), the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren) and the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Stokes), and the answers of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay) to be fed out for inclusion as part of an overall package on the six o'clock news on this very distressing news for northern Ontario.

There is no problem with that. It is up to the networks to decide and to put it together. They have managed to do it in Ottawa and in Quebec City. The material in the Quebec National Assembly is fed to literally dozens and dozens of stations on a very local and daily basis.

5:30 p.m.

Concerning perceived need, I want to challenge my friend. I was the executive producer of the supper-hour newscast in Windsor, and one of the most frustrating things I had as a journalist, not as a partisan politician, was when something important happened in the Legislature concerning my own community.

I was left to call Toronto frantically, hoping without much hope that perhaps the CBC Toronto cameraman had turned on his camera at the appropriate point to get that very important Windsor story, and finding outmost days that he had not.

Then I would get on the phone and try to arrange to find out whether the appropriate member or another member from the Essex county area would be returning home that evening, so that we could perhaps have him appear live on the late news.

Finally, we would try to arrange a telephone hookup or, if the story were big enough, some kind of hookup between CBC Toronto and CBC Windsor.

As a former journalist, I can tell the members that there is a perceived need to cover this place just as there is a perceived need --

Mr. Barlow: By whom?

Mr. Wrye: By the public. There is a perceived need to cover this place just as there is a perceived need to cover Ottawa and the municipal area.

With respect to cost, the costs are what we want them to be. We can have the Cadillac of electronic Hansards or we can go the Ottawa-Quebec City route. We can go to the other extreme of the Saskatchewan route -- it probably is an extreme and is probably as far as one can go -- or we can begin to marry them and go somewhere in between. However, I tell my friend opposite that in terms of some of the other moneys we spend around this place, the cost is relatively minimal.

Knowing this debate was coming forward, I stayed up the other night to watch most of the TVOntario replay of question period from Ottawa. As an Ontario legislator and a resident of this province, I was treated to important matters, three from Newfoundland, two from Manitoba, three from Quebec, along with two or three matters of general national importance and a couple of Ontario matters.

Today in question period, as an Ontario resident, I heard a number of important matters discussed that were of province-wide and local or regional concern. It seems to me it would be much more appropriate and much more important for the audience that watches TVO every night to be getting a replay of question period from Ontario than of question period from Ottawa, although I have absolutely no objection to them getting both.

I also want to talk a little about the educational value. My friend the member for St. Catharines talked about it. I think it is very important. We talk a lot to ourselves about how important this place is and how important our democracy is. I listened to part of the debate on the previous item. Implicit in that previous item was the importance of our parliamentary democracy.

However, we are not making any effort and we are seeing the results -- I mean this in a nonpartisan way -- with respect to the public's perception of us and the public's participation at election time. We are seeing the results of a public grown cynical about us. It is important for all of us. If we think we are about important matters in this place, and if we do not always carry ourselves with total decorum -- perhaps we do not, as my friend the member for Oxford has pointed out -- maybe that will change as well.

Electronic Hansard in this Legislature would tell the public a little about how this institution works. Surely that is important. Surely in 1984, with democratic institutions under attack the world over, that is an important fact. It would give the general public an insight into the process of question period, into the process of debate and, as I pointed out, it might ultimately improve the decorum in this place.

I commend my friend the member for St. Catharines for providing an important proviso in his resolution about the electronic Hansard in this assembly being an extension of the present electronic facilities that are available. I am under no illusions that we will have eight or nine cameras. However, one of the matters I always opposed as a journalist, and I continue to oppose today as a legislator, is that the total video feed from this place should be under the control and in the hands of Mr. Speaker.

I believe that a free, unfettered press should have the right to make a few of its own judgements once in a while, whether it is a little unpleasantness aimed at an individual member who may deserve it or whether it is the unpleasantness we saw as recently as last Thursday in the gallery. That is a part of this process. It is apart of this place. One of the things that always disturbs me a bit about Ottawa is that whenever that kind of untoward incident occurs, we lose the coverage provided from that place.

Finally, one of my friends said today he really thought the debate on Tuesday night last was great. He said, "I came in and sat in my place and a real debate broke out." I hope in the weeks and months to come that on those occasions when a real debate breaks out, the people of Ontario will have the opportunity to see it and see this Legislature in action.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker. I wanted to get in on this debate and I am speaking as a private member. I think I am correct in saying that I am one of the two private members in the House -- the member for High Park-Swansea (Mr. Shymko) and I served together in Ottawa -- who have been subjected to this process of having every word recorded on video cameras.

I am not going to speak in a partisan way because it is not a partisan issue; there are some real advantages to it from the point of view of everyone. When I say "everyone," I mean and include the press gallery, the government and members of the government party, private members and those of us who as political leaders or as cabinet members may have some particular points of view.

First, what are we all interested in? All of us are interested in the business of communicating with one another and with the public. For one to pretend today that television is not one of the key ways of communicating with the public is just to put one's head in the sand. Television is a very important medium. It is a medium we have to learn to work with and respect, and it happens to be an important one.

We could look back at the early debates about whether we should even have Hansard in this assembly; and let us not forget it was not until the 1940s that we took our work in this assembly seriously enough to have a written Hansard of what happened.

When I was first elected here, I wanted a copy of some budget speeches from the 1930s just to see how they compared with the views of the then Treasurer in 1982. I suspected they would be about the same. They said they were sorry, they could not get them for me because they never kept a record of them. It might have been quite useful to see just how close the parallel was. That is true.

What is the debate about today? It is partly a debate about camera angles. I do not mind saying that I suppose I am the political leader who gets the worst of the deal in terms of the camera shots. People ask whether that is all I am worried about. I do not mind saying it is something to which I object. If we on this side of the House are interested in communicating with the public, it puts us at an unfair disadvantage. That is a fact. It would be foolish of me not to state that fact quite bluntly.

However, it is not just a question of camera angles; it is also a question of our being able to provide the best possible service, not just to the public but also to the press gallery and to all the media of communication throughout Ontario. The member for Windsor-Sandwich (Mr. Wrye) has dealt with that from his point of view as one who had to work in Windsor with the disadvantages there.

I want to speak very directly to the members of the press gallery, because I know there have been views expressed, and they expressed those views to the Board of Internal Economy at one time. I want to say to them that I do not think there is any need for conflict with those of us who think it is important to get out of the Tin Lizzie stage of communication in this Legislature and try to move into the latter part of the 20th century in which we find ourselves.

It is in everyone's interest for journalists to be able to choose and to exercise the choice. In a sense, journalists decide what is news. I recognize that as a politician; that is the way it is. They decide which stories they are going to run. They decide which stories they are going to print. That is their right. That is the choice in exercising journalistic integrity which we as politicians have to respect.

5:40 p.m.

I am suggesting that we at least let that choice be made from the fullest range of material available, that we at least let that choice be made in the light of all the information being presented instead of the very difficult choice with which journalists are presented.

I do not criticize members of the gallery on my left who work with television cameras for leaving the House when the Premier leaves in order to get out of the Legislature. That is news. That is the way in which they are going to get a better angle. That is the way in which they are going to follow the story. They have no choice. Speaking as a private member, I fully respect that. I am not going to be critical of people who decide they have to follow their story and that may mean leaving this place. That is a choice every journalist has the right to make. It is a choice they have to make.

However, would it not be in everyone's interest if they also had a floating camera and the ability to go around and shoot in the scrum? They do that in Ottawa. There is not a network in Ottawa interested in communicating with the public that does not have several camera crews ready when a member comes outside the door, doing the same kinds of scrums in Ottawa as we have here. The process of scrums in following those stories is not going to change, it is going to be exactly the same.

All we are suggesting, and I think it is an important suggestion, is that there be the option of choosing exchanges, on a recorded Hansard basis, which gives each member the right, so to speak, to a decent camera angle and a decent opportunity to communicate directly with the public.

People say there is no interest out there, there is no demand. That is an incredibly arrogant view on the part of the members who have expressed that. I heard the member for Cambridge (Mr. Barlow) express it. I heard the member for Oxford express it. That almost amounts to a willingness on their part to suppress information, to suppress news.

Suppressing the presence of decent cameras and 20th century technology in this Legislature amounts to a determination to suppress the ability of the public to choose and the ability of the journalists, not only in the gallery but throughout the province, to choose from the most contemporary technology available.

I would like to make two other points in the very brief time I have available. At the same time as this government engages in this sort of direct suppression, it spends millions and millions of dollars -- indeed $20 million -- on advertising. The Ministry of Agriculture and Food has its own newspaper. Did the ministry ask all the farmers in Ontario whether they wanted a newspaper before it was sent out to them? Of course not. One has to raise that question.

This issue should be of interest to all private members; for example, all of us have cable channels in our ridings. Speaking from experience, as a private member, it is a very good service. I can call my cable company and say, "Here is a copy of a speech I gave on the Constitution," or whatever the issue happened to be. "Would you like to run it?" Sometimes they say yes and sometimes they say no. If they say yes, it is a very useful way for a private member to communicate with the public, to give that sense of what is going on. That does not just serve the interests of people on this side. It serves the interests of people on that side who are interested in communicating with their membership, with their public, in a modern way.

My final point -- and I do not think anyone has made it yet -- is that Toronto is the telecommunications capital of Canada. We are at the centre of some of the most exciting developments in technology in this country, perhaps in the world. The CBC has the most outdated plant, in terms of physical plant, when compared to any other place. One can go to Regina, Winnipeg or any other capital and one cannot compare the situation facing us here. That is an illogical situation which I do not understand.

I do not understand why this government does not want to make this Legislature a talking point for people who want to see how effectively, how efficiently and, indeed, cost-effectively we can create state-of-the-art communications with all our public. I do not understand why we cannot all agree as a family -- all members of the House on one side and the other, the press gallery, everybody -- that it is in our interests to have cameras up there, free-floating, doing what the journalists who are picking and choosing want to do. That is their right and an important right, which I will defend and which I think has to be defended.

I also think it is the right of all of us as citizens of this province to have this Legislature as a showpiece -- and I say that quite deliberately -- for our ability to communicate with each other as Canadians and as Ontarians. We have done something with communication in this country that has kept this country together. To me, it is a tragedy that we are missing the boat, missing an opportunity.

I think many members are simply sticking their heads in the sand in failing to recognize we have the chance to do something positive and progressive which will create some jobs and some opportunities, and will show the people of Ontario just how we can create a state-of-the-art ability to communicate with one another.

It would be very easy and very exciting. I think it is something which, frankly, we could do. We could readily afford it and I am simply quite astonished at the opposition I have heard today to what I would have thought would have had the consent of every member interested in communicating with his constituents.

Mr. Robinson: Mr. Speaker, with three minutes and change remaining, I have much more at hand to note than that. I am always surprised in trying to understand why emotions run so high across the way on this issue. I have no intention of tangling with the buzz-saw of Sudbury East, the member for Sudbury East, on this because he does feel very strongly about it.

Two or three things become abundantly clear in what we have seen demonstrated today, even in the debate on this bill alone. The first one was that the member for St. Catharines should be grateful the House was not televised this afternoon. He is a competent speaker, a competent member of this Legislature and a good orator on his feet. For 20 minutes this afternoon, he read word for word from a text in front of him. His constituents would not, I submit, receive a true picture of his ability by his performance here this afternoon.

It is of equal interest to note his House leader sat beside him looking over those notes for those 20 minutes and did not once jump up to point out that, during private members' hour, again, another member of this assembly was reading from a prepared text. How that escaped the member's attention, I truly do not know, but it did.

In the very brief time I have, there are two or three points that need to be made on this issue. First, those two tripods stand in silent tribute to the interest the TV members of the gallery here at Queen's Park have in this issue. They tell the story right there.

I also say, with respect to the technology, there has not yet been devised a system of televising legislatures -- certainly not in this country, and I have seen them -- that gives the perspective of what goes on in the House. It is not appropriate simply to focus in on the head and shoulders of one member and pretend that represents either the atmosphere or the perspective of the House at that given moment.

Further, when the member for St. Catharines presented his resolution this afternoon, he would not even have been able to do as they do in this nation's capital; that is, gather unto himself around his place a crowd of his members to look as though the assembly were full and packed at the particular time of his delivery. That is artificial television in Ottawa.

When I am on my feet, I am pleased to say that I am surrounded by my colleagues; a claim the member for St. Catharines could not make at the time of his presentation.

I want to say to the member for Windsor-Sandwich (Mr. Wrye) in the brief seconds remaining -- he and I both served at mother corporation in those years gone by -- that he would not, as a former journalist, accept for one second the selectivity of a House system of television. He would still, in Windsor, want to have a film of that demonstration in the gallery and he would want it available from somebody else. If that film were not available to him, Mr. Former Journalist would be the first one to complain about the selectivity of the system of television here in the Legislature.

In closing, I also wonder, during those times when nothing is going on and something else is going on somewhere around us, what would the cameras be focused on.

5:50 p.m.

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank those members on all sides who participated in the debate this afternoon, regardless of the position they happened to take on the resolution. As I indicated in my initial remarks, I appreciate the reason the government members might be opposed to this, but I think it is a matter that affects the privileges of all members of the Legislative Assembly.

I would have thought it would have been an important step forward for the Progressive Conservative government at a time when the government is going through a period of renewal. When there is a leadership convention, it is an opportunity for renewal. Regardless of what happens, I would have thought it would have been a good opportunity to share with the people of this province the happenings in this Legislature.

My fear is that the Tory members have had orders to block my motion. I have this unfortunate feeling because I suspect there are a number of people on the opposite side who actually agree with this resolution and are progressive enough to want to see it implemented as a tool of communication which is available to us now. It would be very helpful in educating the people of this province about the legislative process and in assisting them in their decision-making.

INDEPENDENCE ANNIVERSARIES

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Shymko has moved resolution 30.

Motion agreed to.

TELEVISION IN LEGISLATURE

5:56 p.m.

The House divided on Mr. Bradley's motion of resolution 40, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes

Bradley, Breaugh, Bryden, Charlton, Conway, Cooke, Eakins, Edighoffer, Elston, Epp, Grande, Kerrio, Laughren, Mancini, Martel, McClellan, McGuigan, Newman, Nixon, Philip, Rae, Reed, Ruprecht, Ruston, Stokes, Swart, Wildman, Wrye.

Nays

Andrewes, Ashe, Barlow, Birch, Brandt, Cousens, Cureatz, Dean, Drea, Eaton, Elgie, Eves, Gordon, Gregory, Harris, Hodgson, Johnson, J. M., Kolyn, Lane, MacQuarrie, McCaffrey, McCague, McLean, McNeil;

Pollock, Ramsay, Robinson, Rotenberg, Runciman, Scrivener, Sheppard, Shymko, Stevenson, K. R., Taylor. J. A., Treleaven, Villeneuve, Walker, Watson, Welch, Wells, Williams, Yakabuski.

Ayes 28; nays 42.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I would like to indicate the business of the House for the coming week.

Tonight we will deal with second readings of Bill 93 and Bill 82, with any divisions to be held at approximately 10:15 p.m.

Tomorrow, Friday, November 16, we will do estimates of the Deputy Premier (Mr. Welch) and we will also do estimates of the Deputy Premier on Monday afternoon.

On Tuesday, November 20, in the afternoon, we will do third readings of government bills on the order paper, second and third readings of any private bills on the order paper and committee of the whole on Bill 101, with any divisions stacked to approximately 5:45 p.m.

In the evening, we will do second readings and committee of the whole, if needed, of Bills 129, 131, 102 and 135, and possibly the bill introduced by the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Bernier) today, if that is agreeable.

On Wednesday, November 21, the usual three committees have permission to sit in the morning.

On Thursday, November 22, in the afternoon, we will do private members' ballot items in the names of the member for Dovercourt (Mr. Lupusella) and the member for Carleton East (Mr. MacQuarrie).

In the evening, we will be in committee of the whole on Bill 77, with votes stacked, followed by resumption, if time permits, of any business not completed Tuesday night.

On Friday, November 23, we will do estimates of the Deputy Premier.

The House recessed at 6:02 p.m.

15 novembre 1984