Journal des débats 1987-janv-22 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Recognizing that representative democracy is a form of government in which ultimate power is retained by the people and exercised through a system of representation and delegated authority;

Recognizing that the McGrath committee, through its Report of the Special Committee on Reform of the House of Commons (Canada), has argued that a reasonable latitude consistent with loyalty to a party, including the freedom to reject or amend legislation, should be exercised by individual government and opposition members, and has observed that defeat of a government bill or motion may, if necessary, be followed by a vote of confidence to sustain a government; and

Recognizing the beneficial effects of divergent viewpoints among elected members of political parties in the legislatures of other jurisdictions, such as the British House of Commons, and the beneficial early effects of the McGrath committee recommendations on the Canadian House of Commons;

Therefore, in order to facilitate constructive reform of the Legislature, this House,

1. supports in principle the reforms proposed by the McGrath committee;

2. affirms the McGrath committee's view that divergence of viewpoint among members of a particular party can convey strength, maturity and sensitivity;

3. affirms that private members should exercise a measure of independent judgement consistent with loyalty to their party's principles in speaking and voting according to conscience; and

4. asks the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly to undertake a comprehensive study and report back to the House concerning the desirability and feasibility of reforms, including those proposed by the McGrath committee, in order to strengthen the role of private members and of standing committees of the Legislature.

The Deputy Speaker: The honourable member has up to 20 minutes for his presentation and he may reserve any portion of it for the windup.

Mr. Henderson: I shall speak for about 15 minutes now.

Members of the Legislature should be more assertive lest they look too much like hired guns and rented lovers. Legislators have a three-way accountability: to constituents, to parties and to conscience. There is little inherently and necessarily adversarial in what we do. We all represent different constituencies. Few of us will ever run against each other. A greater sense of individual accountability to constituents, principles and conscience would promote a more constructive tone to legislative work. Legislators, too, in a democracy have free speech.

According to a recent Environics poll, only 42 per cent of Canadians believe their legislators to be honest and sincere; 12 per cent more than 16 months ago believe their elected representatives are less than honest and sincere; 75 per cent believe Canada's political system needs reform-and people claim that doctors have an image problem.

Wringing our hands about the decorum of question period does not help, but private members can work change in the legislative process. We need a heightened sense of individual accountability and a pulling away from partisan rhetoric, display and groupthink. We should be colleagues first and rivals second.

Many of us have felt pressed, sometimes vigorously, not to bring our own particular experience and views, sometimes views well honed in the crucible of hard experience, to complex legislative issues. The McGrath Special Committee on Reform of the House of Commons called that process intimidation.

"Intimidation" is a strong word. We can all agree that only parties other than our own would ever resort to anything such as that, but maybe we could also agree that feelings of intimidation are not uncommon. That type of pressure we all know of does not belong in democratic parties in a democratic Legislature. Representative democracy asks for more. All legislators are elected to represent constituents in this assembly. To be sure, we all belong to parties rich and noble in traditions. All of us identify ourselves with important political principles. We are proud of our parties. No one of us would lightly or carelessly argue or vote in a way that differed from that of the majority of our colleagues. No one wants to cause his friends embarrassment.

That is not the issue. We cannot exercise our mandates as legislators unless we feel free to speak and even vote our minds when we tell ourselves, in conscience or in principle, that we must. What else are democratic safeguards for?

Speaking personally, I have made no secret of my struggle on Bill 94. Some members did not share my point of view. In this present context, that is not important to me, for none of us demands to have our way, but all of us should demand to have our point of view well heard.

What matters is the process. What matters is that the viewpoints, right or wrong, and proposals, wise or not, when they are based on knowledge, training, experience, thought and close familiarity, belong in the deliberations of this assembly. We saw that here just a few weeks ago with the debate and vote on Bill 7. Those who would censure such divergences bring viewpoints I cannot condone. The more vigorous the censure, the more vigorously we must defend our freedoms as legislators. We all know divergent views exist in every healthy party. Is it really so embarrassing that we hear them? I want to hear them. I argue for a strengthening, not a relaxation, of the democratic disciplines of responsible representation and rational debate.

Educators in Ontario should feel proud of our example for their class decorum and not embarrassed to expose us to their classes' view. A shift in attitude is overdue. The experience of other jurisdictions gives us some encouragement. Members of the British House of Commons speak quite freely and quite publicly against the views of one another and their parties. Between 1972 and 1979, there were 65 defeats of government measures in the British House. So much for the claim that the British parliamentary tradition requires that members always vote on party lines.

1010

In Canada, the minority government of Pierre Trudeau lost eight votes between 1972 and 1974, and Lester Pearson's minority governments lost three. American legislators exercise almost total freedom, perhaps too much; they become too vulnerable. Let us seek a better middle ground in Ontario.

Very clearly, governments do not fall and legislatures do not become unworkable when the executive bows to the wishes of the House on a wide variety of measures and under a wide variety of circumstances. If necessary, a government can simply call a vote of confidence to sustain its mandate. The only reason for embarrassment would be if the government had failed to bring the bill to its caucus to learn of its own supporters' views.

The greatest embarrassment, it seems to me, should be the travesty of democracy in apparent unanimity based on enforced grouping. People doing what they are told are not involved in democratic government. Discipline that does not respect rational evaluation and discussion of alternatives in our caucuses and in our Legislature is no discipline at all in democracy. Agreement is not agreement if not freely given. Reasoned voices of constructive dissent are a matter for caucus pride, not for embarrassment.

The course I urge that we follow would be no easy road. We have all sometimes hidden behind our parties on unpopular matters or votes. Incidentally, one of the reforms, it seems to me, addresses the fate of private members' bills and resolutions that succeed. We sometimes take the easy road on those because, although they represent the will of an elected legislative body, we know they will mostly wither on the vine. Why should certain acts of an entire democratically elected body have less authority than others or be subjected to screening and censorship by a few? If we let that happen, what is to stop the growth of unchecked power?

All of our political ideologies favour such change. Liberalism boasts commitment to reform and favours greater freedom in political institutions. Conservatism argues for the upholding and strengthening of historic democratic traditions and institutions of parliament. Tories often speak for liberty and conscience. Democratic socialism advocates the emancipation of individuals from institutions that bind their creativity and freedom, and wisely so. I share that advocacy and I know it well. All these ideologies can never work unless elected legislators are truly free.

I know my New Democrat colleagues have a tradition of strong loyalty to party policy, and I respect that. The wording of my resolution deliberately respects that tradition because I hope New Democrats can support the general principle of reform for a greater democracy and a stronger role for our committees and that they will support this resolution even if they do not agree with everything I say about it.

The McGrath Special Committee on Reform of Canada's House of Commons took the view that rigid party discipline is not compatible with the philosophy of the democratic political party. Canadian politics, it says, has become too dominated by the ethic of party solidarity. The committee asked that parties, whips and leaders change their attitudes and urged that private members take the lead by changing theirs.

The McGrath committee urged that in the normal exercise of legislative duties, government members should feel free to amend or defeat clauses in bills, make amendments to bills, reduce estimates as a mark of disapproval, concur in committee reports critical of government and reject proposed legislation outright or oppose amendments.

The committee urged governments to let their supporters know that unquestioned obedience to the ministerial line is not the only route to advancement in the party. Private members, according to McGrath, must once again become the instruments through which citizens contribute to shaping the laws under which they live. The House of Commons has adopted many of the McGrath reforms, and committees of the Commons have since become much stronger and more democratic.

Just to show that I do not quote only Tories, here is what Don Johnston had to say about it: "Party discipline has greatly eroded the value of the House of Commons...Good MPs with independent views on public policy are stifled if their positions conflict with those of the cabinet." Since no persuasive argument is going to change the votes of members of the ruling party, opposition views are equally at risk of disregard, or perhaps more at risk. Public opinion registered in polls has greater influence on government than the views of elected members. Those are quotations or paraphrasings from Don Johnston.

This minority Legislature provides a most opportune moment. Johnston goes on to note that majority government has no incentive to reduce party discipline, despite the deleterious effect it is having on the House of Commons, the morale of its members and the perception of the public. Parliamentary reform likely will focus on mechanics rather than on substance, while my resolution focuses on substance, and the time to act is now.

Johnston calls for a real assault on the convention of discipline. He says that if members were free to exercise their own judgement, to propose their own policies, to build coalitions and counterpolicies put forward by the leadership, it is probable that elections would focus more on the merits of the individual member and less on party leaders. "The pursuit of power," he says, "comes quickly into conflict with democratic ideas."

I argue here that governments should lead by leading less, and oppositions surely gather credibility when the opposition is focused, reasoned, selective and therefore presumably not predictable. A leader stands very tall when he encourages his followers to follow principle and judgement. Rigid party so-called discipline is discipline in name. Disciplined democracy requires something more.

Electors might be surprised to know how little their elected representatives feel really free to represent their views, much less how influential they feel they can really be in shaping legislative policy when they do. An influential member of my party once argued that British parliamentary tradition requires voting along party lines. It absolutely does not.

I urge reform, reform of attitude as well as of practice, in three areas.

First, we should expand the authority and freedom of legislative committees, tenure their members, much reduce the influence of party whips in committees, ensure that voices of real democratic representation are brought to bear on committee work and try to bring a more constructive and collaborative quality to committee discussions.

Committees are at risk of becoming playing fields for interparty partisan struggles that have little to do with the real work of democratic government. Committee members are at risk of becoming pawns on a giant chessboard. Committees should match by name government ministries and perhaps departments, be slightly smaller in size and should not include parliamentary assistants naturally loyal to their respective ministries. They should have a role in the drafting of certain legislation, the scrutiny of order-in-council appointments and the drafting of regulations under bills.

Second, we should restore the authority and autonomy of private members. Their first role is to represent the views of their constituents according to their principles and their consciences, not to be spokespersons for parties or for party whips and leaders. Representative democracy demands no less. Political power always seeks to increase itself. So-called party discipline always contains the risk of serious miscarriage of representation in democracy.

Third, except in emergencies, no bill should be brought before the Legislature without at least an opportunity for caucus discussion, and perhaps sometimes committee discussion, by elected representatives responsive to constituents.

Liberal ideology urges constructive reform and greater freedom in political institutions. I will concede that we have no monopoly on either virtue, but I do invite all members to join with me in reaffirming our commitment to representative democracy and to show that free speech lives and thrives with Ontario legislators of all three major parties.

Those of us who have argued a personal view in this Legislature know just how tough it is. We have felt the heat. I am not about to be deterred by that. I have even felt occasionally a little reassured by Winston Churchill's famous quip, "Nothing in life is so exhilarating as to be shot at without result."

I will stop momentarily with another quotation, this one from Teddy Roosevelt, who said:

"The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood-who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself in a worthy cause. Who at best knows in the end the triumphs of high achievement, and if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat."

The Deputy Speaker: The member has reserved four minutes and 35 seconds for his wrapup.

1020

Mr. Sterling: First, I want to congratulate the member for Humber (Mr. Henderson) for bringing forward this resolution. The member has come to a point of view that I hold, but I have come to that position only after a much longer experience in the political field.

What the member is placing before the Legislature today is a question of who really governs this place. Do the electors who elect their MPP every four or five years or after whatever time expect that their MPP will really govern what happens in the Legislature and vote according to what his constituents might want him to do?

As an engineer, I learned that the stability in our physical environment results from a series of natural laws. Those laws allow us to live as humans here on earth, but we must be careful not to upset that delicate balance dictated by those natural pushes and pulls that are associated with physical and chemical equations. Parliament is much the same. Whereas in our physical world survival of the human species is the goal, in parliament our goal is to provide a system of government that is responsible to its citizens, who freely chose their governors.

We make the rules to run our houses of parliament, which should provide the necessary balance of power to reach our democratic ideals and goals. The execution of those rules is determined by us, the politicians, our advisers, the bureaucrats and the media. In Canada, we still have the same basic set of rules striking the balance of power that we had some 50 years ago. However, over those 50 years, there has been a tremendous increase in the involvement and complexity of government. The 20-second news clip for television has taken the place of the objective, reasoned article in the printed press.

Most important of all has been the changing role of the politician himself. As recently as the early 1960s, the legislative session sat for a short six weeks. The member's salary was really an honorarium. To exemplify the difference, in 1965 the Attorney General of Ontario continued to carry on his private law practice back home on the weekends while he held the very same position as Attorney General.

Now politics and the Legislature are full-time jobs. If one loses an election, one could have a difficult time re-entering the private world of work. This has led politicians to become less independent and concerned about long-time survival. If you fall into line and remain loyal to the party, you could become a cabinet minister if you are on the government side. You could become a critic of an important portfolio if you are on the opposition side. This improves not only one's political stature but also one's financial stature by as much as 40 per cent. Fall out of favour and not only do you risk your political future, but you could also risk the financial security of your family as well.

How does the balance of power work in our Legislature today? This can be measured by the requirement or obligation on one part of the system to justify its position to the other part of the system and to the public. Does the Premier feel obligated to sell his cabinet on his point of view on an issue? Will a cabinet member listen seriously to the suggestions of his caucus? Will a cabinet minister answer directly a question placed to him in this Legislature, and will he listen seriously and thoughtfully to debate in this Legislature? Will the media report on meaningful debate so that the government must also listen to that debate?

My experience and the experience of others has been that there are few instances where the cabinet has to justify its actions to this Legislature. Further, and perhaps even more distasteful, the head of government need not justify his position to his cabinet.

Let me illustrate this point further. We learn from Donald Johnston's book, Up the Hill, of the federal government's unexpected and expensive acquisition of Petrofina in 1981. He writes: "I was dumfounded: A commitment of that magnitude made without any advance notice to ministers, especially the President of Treasury Board? `Good Lord,' I thought. `Are my views irrelevant? Does the cabinet no longer count?'"

Perhaps the most flagrant use of this power in the Ontario government came on June 12, 1984, when the Progressive Conservative cabinet was told at 11 a.m. that Mr. Davis was going to announce at two o'clock that afternoon the extension of funding to separate schools. It was not a proposal. No cabinet submission was ever presented. It was an order. It was clear that little discussion would be tolerated. A similar charade took place in the Progressive Conservative caucus about 1 p.m. prior to the 2 p.m. announcement in the Legislature.

The other decision that took place in the Ontario cabinet with little consultation related to the government's purchase of an interest in Suncor. Few facts were presented and there was little discussion at the cabinet level.

I would like to make it clear that I am not commenting on the Peterson government, but my experience and the experience of others proves that the raw power is in fact there and in the hands of the Premier if he chooses to exercise it.

My answer to the question of who rules is that it is neither the members of this Legislature nor the critics. It is the Premier of the province who rules and rules alone, and the leaders of the party to a minor degree.

How can we change and rebalance the system so that we in truth have some indicia of democracy here in the Legislature? The member for Humber has proposed a certain number of changes to our written rules. I suggest that it is necessary to change not only the written rules but also the chemistry of what happens between each and every one of us in this Legislature, including my relationship with my leader, my relationship with the Premier and the relationships of government members with the Premier.

I am going to suggest some very radical things that I would like to see changed as well as supporting what the member for Humber is putting forward. I would like to remove the Premier's absolute control over the financial wellbeing of every member of this Legislature. I believe that every member of this Legislature, whether he is a cabinet minister, a parliamentary assistant, the head of a committee or a member of the opposition, should be paid the exact same dollars. Therefore, people seeking to become cabinet ministers, seeking a higher position in their party, seeking to become leader of their party would seek those positions on a matter of principle alone and they would not feel financially compelled to stay in a position if they differed with a policy of the Premier or of the leader of their party.

I would like to see another move towards the US style of government in terms of a member of this Legislature being able to put forward a bill and have it seriously considered before this Legislature. I need only refer to the bill that I have in front of this Legislature, Bill 71, the Non-Smokers' Protection Act, of which I know the Deputy Speaker is an avid supporter. I can ask questions in this Legislature, and I have the majority support of this Legislature, but will it become law?

I encourage the media to strengthen the hand of the individual members of the Legislature. If one member stands up and differs with his party, the media need not criticize the political party from where he comes. They should look thoughtfully to what that member says.

Last, I put forward the suggestion that there be a time limitation on how long any individual can serve as Premier. I believe we not only must follow the lead of the member for Humber but must also make some dramatic changes in how we interact with each other to make this a more meaningful place and to make people understand that this is a democracy and that their members can speak for them in a meaningful way.

1030

Mr. Breaugh: It will come as no surprise to anybody that I am in support of the resolution. We have been attempting to bring about this type of reform in this Legislature for a long time. Committee reports that I have been associated with have addressed themselves to standing orders, the rules of procedure here and the way committees function. For a long time, I personally have advocated, as have a number of members, a change in the process. To categorize it as a revolutionary change would be nonsensical; no one here wants that.

Most of us are advocates of the parliamentary process. I would like to see the parliamentary process developed along our own model. There are many who quote the traditions of Westminster. One of the shocks one gets when one visits the House of Commons at Westminster is that it is nothing like the mythology that is spread around Canada. It is a huge place, with 635 members.

The party discipline that is rammed down everybody's throat here is virtually nonexistent there. There they have a voting hall off to the side of the chamber. The role of the whips is to stand there to make sure they can push, shove, argue or cajole enough of the members of their own party into the right voting hall in order to carry the day, but it does not always work. Even Margaret Thatcher, bless her little heart, has wet and dry Tories. I do not know the difference between a wet Tory and a dry Tory, but there are two camps in her own caucus. Most of the members do not attend, so in reality the business is carried on by probably about 20 per cent of the members at Westminster.

The existence of political parties is a relatively new phenomenon at Westminster. Only in this century have they had much of a foothold. There is much blathering in Canadian politics that we must uphold the traditions of Westminster. Unfortunately, most of this blathering is carried on by people who have never been there and who do not even know what happens at Westminster.

Some people advocate an Americanization to the process, which is almost a total abdication of party identity let alone following along party lines. There is none. When I went to Washington, I asked some Democrats how they caucus on matters and how they meet as Democrats and decide what to do. I was shocked when they said "We do not do that." The Democratic Party never has had a caucus. They never meet. All the Democrats do not go into one room at one time and decide on what to do. However, they have a black caucus. Republicans and Democrats who happen to be black or are interested in black issues will meet to decide a strategy. People who are farmers will gather together from either party. In fact, they move back and forth from one party to the other with ease, because there is very little ideology involved. It is kind of who is in and who is out.

In many respects, people say there is too much division along party lines. I believe we have to get serious about this. I am a New Democrat, not because I think the New Democratic Party is perfect or because I think it is correct on every matter. It certainly is not, and cannot be; if it were, we would have no need for an Ontario provincial council or for party conventions to set policy.

We argue among ourselves on what is the best way to voice a policy. We argue among ourselves on what is the best strategy to put that in front of the people of Ontario. We argue about strategy on how to present it in the Legislature and on the hustings during an election. Every political party does that. There is not a mindset which removes your total brain when you join a political party. You retain a strong personal point of view and you express it at every occasion. You win some and you lose some.

Party politics means to me that, on a broad range of issues, I belong with the New Democrats. Sometimes I think they are nuts; sometimes I think they are absolute jerks. I very often say so. The leader's office gets phone calls saying how terrible I am; I should not say those things in public.

I have many faults, the largest of which I will not go into. One of the minor ones I have is that I do not take orders well. I never have, and at this stage in my life I never will. I do not take commands. I would be a very poor foot soldier in anybody's army. I would be an even worse general. That is me. You can like it, you can lump it, you can do whatever you want with it, but you will have to contend with it if you have any association with me. Just get used to it.

I had been here about two weeks when I ran afoul of Stephen Lewis. It took me only about five years to recover from that little gaffe, but I did. Death does not follow when you disobey your leader's call. You live with aggravation. People do not like you very well; they isolate you a bit. You will not be promoted very quickly, but this is not really of much concern to me.

Some day I will lose an election. It will probably happen to me, as it happens to most members. The world will not cease should that tragic event occur, nor will I. I quit teaching at a time when I was just beginning to get into a salary range that gave my family some comforts. I have paid a bitter price for that. Every time the teachers settle a contract back home, my wife brings it in and puts it on the kitchen table, and I live with another few days of grief about that decision. But the world did not end. It goes on, and when my time as a member of the Legislature is over, it will be just fine by me too. There will be something else for me to do, something else I want to do.

For those who are motivated by what we might laughingly call the prestige of being a member of the assembly, it really is not that much. You have a chance to do some things for some people. You win some battles and you lose some battles. So what? That is life; that is the parliamentary process.

I am an advocate of the parliamentary process, of most of what Jim McGrath and his committee had to say. My committee had a chance to meet with them on several occasions. I have no illusions that we are all going to strike off in different directions. In fact, what I would be content with is quite modest. I would like our committees to have more latitude to do what they want to do. I would like them to have more resources at their disposal.

I think there is a lot of talent in this chamber. I do not agree with a lot of it, but I grant that there is ability on all sides, and we ought to find a way to utilize that ability. I grant very quickly that if I find I vote against my own party more times than I vote with it, I am in the wrong party; that is obvious. But it should not be a sin, and it is not a sin, in my view, to vote against it.

Most of the time my arguments are not about principles but about strategy. Are we presenting this in the right way? Is this the right thing to do now? So what? I have no problem with that if the majority of my caucus wants to do something in a different way.

I have often said that if you wanted to provide a real look at Ontario politics, your first priority would be not to televise the proceedings of the assembly in the chamber but to televise the Tuesday morning caucus meetings. I know this is too much violence for the public to see, and the language is not parliamentary, but if you wanted to see Ontario politics where it really is at, all the crunching that goes on, you would televise the caucus meetings.

The truth is that in all the caucuses, on almost every piece of legislation and every idea brought forward, it is rare to walk in and get unanimous consent from your own caucus. There is an argument there, and usually a very good one-powerful, blunt, sometimes vicious-but that is where it is hammered out. Then you come out and present to the public a slightly more polished form of that.

I do not think there is a problem. I do not think the world would end if we decided that free votes were not the order of the day but were an acceptable way to proceed. I believe they are. I believe they happen whether you like them or not. I do not think it would be wrong-in fact, I think it would be quite right-if we found more vehicles for individual members to do something on their own.

1040

In this parliament, more private members' bills have become law than in any other parliament to date. There were three to be exact. That is not exactly earth-shaking. I would not see anything wrong with letting that process proceed a bit further as well. I believe that would be very useful and very constructive.

In fact, going back to the British Parliament, much of what is controversial in British law came about by means of private members. The political parties did not have the guts to do these things, so they said: "Find some stupid sucker who will move a motion like this and we will all get behind it. If it works out, fine, we will all take credit, and if it is wrong, we will say we did not know what the jerk wanted to do." British law is full of things that came about because one individual had the temerity to take the initiative.

Although this motion is perhaps a little on the pious side, to me it speaks to what politics is all about. It is not about always agreeing with one's party. It is not about always being right or wrong either. It is simply about human beings trying to do the best they can for other folks around them. We are not indispensable. It is not an end in itself.

If, at the end of my lifetime, the best I can do is say I was a member of the Ontario Legislature for a long time, then I have not done very much. If I have been able to help a few folks along the line, that gives me some credit. I never really worry whether my leader likes what I did today or what my party approves of, but at the end of each day, what I worry about is whether I approve of it. I learned that lesson a long time ago. If at least that one person is satisfied with my performance that day, I am happy.

Ms. Hart: Although I find myself to be in uncharacteristic sympathy with the views of the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh), I rise to speak against the resolution presented by the member for Humber.

The parliamentary system, as it is currently exercised in this province, in my view, serves us well. It is not a perfect system. We will not be able to come up with a perfect system. In fact, human beings will never be able to do that. It is a compromise that brings us the best decisions for the most people. I feel strongly about this, perhaps because I have had quite a bit of experience with the US system of brokerage and pork-barrel politics.

One of the prime reasons our system works as it is today is that governments are elected on policy platforms. We go out and campaign on those policies. The elected private members must be able to defend those policies. Otherwise, why would we choose that party in the first place? The voters vote for those platforms. They will not agree with every policy in the platform, but they evaluate the basket of policies and decide which party or which individual they can best live with as their representative in the Legislature. Voters expect those promises that came from the policies of each party to be kept. We hear great uproars if they are not kept.

I would also like to draw to the attention of the House that the policies do not come out of the air. Each party goes through a process of developing policies. The process involves the private members. If a private member disagrees with a policy once it has been enunciated and is public, in my view, that member did not do his homework when the policy was being developed. Each member can participate in any party, if he wishes. The only one I know about is my party, but I can view the parties opposite and I am sure each of the members has some say in what goes on and what is finally enunciated as a policy of his party.

It is at the early stages of the policy development that a private member's views are perhaps most strongly felt. At those stages, nobody is entirely sure how the policy will end up. We all have policy conferences. We all talk to our constituents, or at least I hope we do. We all have riding associations where we talk to the people there. These policies do not come out of the air. For us to stand up in this House once there has been a policy enunciated and made public and say, "Oh, I guess I do not really agree with that" is an abrogation of our responsibility at early stages.

If a government has enunciated a policy and cannot carry through with that policy, what are the electors to think? That this government cannot govern or that this opposition party cannot oppose and do its job is the obvious conclusion. In my view, our system as it is today enables the governing to take place. It enables unpopular decisions to be made. It enables us to avoid government by poll which, as we have seen, is not exactly the best way of dealing with the complex problems in this province.

It is true that when we get to the next election, the voters can turf out the government if promises have not been kept or if its policies cannot be implemented, but very often that is a four-year period. It seems to me that we are much more consistent and much more representative in acting on our policies and in carrying through with those policies during the term of our mandate.

Frankly, I am a little insulted by hearing that private members' views are currently muzzled and that we are not independent thinkers under our current system. I think of myself as an independent thinker, as I am sure everyone in this House does. The only difference in the way I think about how policy should be enunciated is that I think my views are best felt in caucus.

The member for Oshawa referred to his caucus and said he does not like to be ordered around. I do not like to be ordered around either. I am sure none of us does. I know that in our caucus every one of us has a chance to be heard, and I am sure that is true in all caucuses. That is the mechanism in our system under which our views are felt and heard. Each cabinet minister must bring to the government caucus policy initiatives and legislation. All of those things must be brought to caucus a number of times and each member can express his views. Virtually every caucus that I have attended has resulted in changes in policy initiatives or in legislation as the result of the views expressed by ordinary members.

Mr. Martel: She is the oldest young Liberal here.

Ms. Hart: My friend opposite is referring perhaps to a young fogy. I accept that kudos.

I have perhaps not been here long, but I have seen that caucus works. I would like to stand up and say strongly I am in favour of that system of caucus. Once we have come to a consensual view in caucus, we then stand up and defend the view of our party and, in my case, of my government. If each of us worked for individual stardom, the system would break down. We have a perfect example of how the system has broken down south of the border.

The trouble with that system is that tough decisions cannot be made. I use a couple of examples. One is the acid-rain issue. We know how tough it is for the Americans to get together and say, "Acid rain is a problem and we are going to do something about it." The reason it is so tough is that there are individual legislators who are virtually totally financed by special interests whose interests are against doing anything about acid rain and against controlling pollution.

We know campaigns are very expensive in the United States, much more expensive than they are here. In order to raise those millions of dollars, legislators, in the border states particularly, must be dependent on the big manufacturers, such as manufacturers of steel and other factories that cause a lot of pollution but people who give a lot of money to the campaigns of these legislators. I think it could be fairly said that those legislators are assumed to be the spokespeople for those industries. Consequently, legislation which is good not only for Canada but also for all the people of the United States cannot be passed. They are hidebound in their special interests.

1050

Another example is gun control. Every time the issue is raised in the United States, individual members are lobbied hard by the gun interests. I suspect we will never ever see gun-control legislation in the United States, because the legislators are absolutely tied up by special interests, the interests with the most money.

I like to think that in Ontario money is not the only thing that talks. One may call it protection, but as individual members we come to a decision about the best policy to go forward with and then we get up and defend that policy. There will always be a range of viewpoints within our caucus. My colleague the member for Oshawa mentioned that there was a range of viewpoints in his caucus. Mine is no different.

We are able to live with that range. We work it out in caucus. We may fight about it but we come to a conclusion, a consensus that we can all live with. In my view and experience, that kind of consensus is perhaps the best kind of policy decision we can come to in a province with so many regions and different interests to be represented. This is a province with many complexities, many more perhaps than the province where I was born, Nova Scotia, which is much smaller. There are many regions with different needs. We need a system that makes sure all those needs are brought to the table and that our policies are representative of all those needs.

Mr. Shymko: It is ironic that we are discussing a resolution whose intent is to protect the rights, privileges and very foundation of the parliamentary system of the individual members of this Legislature. I do not think there has ever been a debate in this Legislature on this topic. I compliment the member for Humber for introducing it. What an irony that here we are discussing a bill which will give us powers as individual members of the Legislature and there are only 15 members present. That is the first irony.

Interjections.

Mr. Shymko: With the respect I will accord my honourable colleague when he will speak for the few minutes he will be allowed-and I will refer to that-I will appreciate not having any interruptions. I certainly will not interrupt his remarks.

The second irony is that some remarks are being made about why the member for York East (Ms. Hart) takes an opposing view. That is precisely what we have been fighting for. I respect her differing view, differing with that of her colleague in her own party. That is what we are talking about. I respect that. At the same time, I agree with the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) that, given time, she will realize the resolution is not addressing the elimination of the party system. That is ingrained. It has been here, it is here and it will continue to be here.

I think the member is advocating the elimination of the presence, the hypocrisy, of even having a private members' hour on Thursday morning-in the past we have had it at different times-because there is no private members' hour. To give an example of the time allocation, I remember trying to speak on a nuclear arms free zone; I had barely 60 seconds to express a view that was somehow different from others. This is what we call equal time for democratic views. I am concerned that the member for Sudbury East, for example, cannot participate equally with the other parties in joining his colleague the member for Oshawa so that we have two speakers from the New Democratic Party, two from the official opposition and two from the Liberal Party.

The way the setup is made, we cannot have equal time. That has to be amended. I understand from the member for Oshawa, who is the chairman of a committee on the Legislative Assembly, that changes will be made, but I remind members, as the member for Oshawa has pointed out, of the glaring hypocrisy that barely two or three private members' bills have been passed, because the governing party controls the agenda. We will have unanimous consent on second reading because politics is 95 per cent perception and five per cent content.

One has to be careful with the voters when one discusses the heritage language bill, Bill 80; therefore, unanimous consent is given on it, but will Bill 80 ever come up for third reading? Never. Will my bill on labelling, which was passed with unanimous consent, ever see daylight as a law? Never. Will the bill from the member for Carleton-Grenville (Mr. Sterling), Bill 71, ever become law? Never, because there is a party structure that controls the agenda.

I refer to the fourth point of the resolution, to strengthen the role of private members. I would like to see a resolution that when a private member's bill or a private bill is introduced in a session in the Legislative Assembly and either receives unanimous consent on second reading or wins by whatever split there is on second reading, that bill should go to third reading. It must go to third reading. Let us stop playing the game of hypocrisy that we respect private members' hour. The government should eliminate private members' hour and not pretend.

I would like to have the attention of the member for York East. When I was elected in 1981, I presented a resolution that was watered down. There were meetings with the then Premier, and I had to be careful not to upset the status quo. In my resolution, presented during private members' hour in June 1982, I promoted the establishment of a day care centre in the Queen's Park complex for the children of working women. The Premier at the time was the Honourable Bill Davis. We were a majority party. I would like the honourable member to listen to this.

We had a majority, yet I remember in caucus the Premier came in and all he had to say was, "Back Yuri on this resolution and we will have a day care centre." No. The answer was a free vote. I had hoped and prayed that the members opposite, the New Democratic Party and the Liberal Party, in the spirit of nonpartisanship on an issue that was nonpartisan, would give me support, but no. Marching orders went out to the Liberal Party, then in opposition, and to the NDP, "Defeat Yuri's resolution." There was not one vote of support from the other side, and my resolution was defeated. That was my first lesson.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Morin): Your time has expired.

Mr. Shymko: I support this resolution. I would like to speak at length on this, but my time has expired.

Mr. Henderson: Does the member for Sudbury East not get any time at all?

The Acting Speaker: There are four minutes and 30 seconds remaining.

Mr. Henderson: Can I give him a minute?

The Acting Speaker: No, you cannot.

Mr. Henderson: The intent was there.

The Acting Speaker: If the member for High Park-Swansea (Mr. Shymko) wanted that time, you would be allowed to do it for him, but you cannot pass it on to the next speaker. Therefore, this is your choice.

Mr. Henderson: I feel badly about that because I would dearly like to hear what the member for Sudbury East has to say.

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, I seek unanimous consent that the member for Sudbury East be given one minute.

Mr. Shymko: Agreed.

The Acting Speaker: Is it agreed?

Agreed.

Mr. Martel: I merely rise to say there is more in this House than legislation. The role of a back-bencher in a majority government is out of existence. He might as well go home. In a minority government, he has a little say.

There is more than legislation. Members should take a look at the time there is for legislation, a couple of days a week. Everything else is something different. Estimates time is a waste of time. Let us put something in its place that gives the member the role of doing something useful.

My colleague summed it up well. He said there is a lot of ability here. There is no opportunity for that ability to rise to the surface to make a contribution. If the member for York East does not understand that after a year here, we are in serious trouble, because it means she has been seduced into the system already, having been here a year. If she does not think there is a need for change, I am really concerned.

During a minority government, you can get something to committee to look at it. In a majority government, no, ball game over. Private members are interfered with. My friend the member for Waterloo North (Mr. Epp) was going to support me in a resolution. He was pulled off the committee because he did not have the ear of the government.

1100

Mr. Henderson: There is so much I would like to say and so little time. I do want to respond to the comments of my colleague the member for York East. Of course, I do share her view that we need a compromise. I have argued for a shift in the compromise. I have not, incidentally, argued for the American system, which I think all of us agree puts too much on the individual legislator and leaves him too vulnerable to unhealthy pressures. On the matter of her view of caucus function and democracy, I must say I do have a different view. I think she is being a little idealistic.

It is very difficult for me, because I cannot say more or speak in very much detail, but I want to take a moment to quote a few brief phrases from individuals who have not been seduced into the system. The first is from Pierre Trudeau, who said: "There nowhere exists a power that does not seek to increase itself. That is a universal law." Surely that admonition is something we have to take very seriously and be very careful about.

I want to quote Jean Chrétien, who said: "The power is really with the Prime Minister. There are no votes except on marginal issues." Surely if a man of Jean Chrétien's experience makes that kind of comment, we need to be careful about the potential for concentration of power.

A very senior member of this Legislature, whom I unfortunately do not think I can identify, said: "The whole government process rests on half a dozen people: the Premier, two or three of his most influential ministers and the two opposition leaders. If everybody else went home, it wouldn't matter so very much."

Mr. Martel: It is even worse in a majority.

Mr. Henderson: That, I think, is a truism. I can tell from the member's comments that he agrees, and it does highlight the necessity to be very careful about democratic process.

Finally, I want to quote Eugene Whelan, who observed: "A party caucus is not a democratic institution." Eugene Whelan also has been around a while, and I think he speaks from some experience and wisdom.

In the moments that remain, I want only to thank all members for their very constructive discussion of this issue. I was warned-indeed, I warned myself before I was warned by others-that for a government member to stand up and propose these kinds of reforms would open the door for opposition members to lambaste the government. Members have not done that. I argued that if as a government member I am prepared to cast the searchlight a little bit on us, others will do the same. Indeed, that is exactly what members did. It is what the member for Carleton-Grenville (Mr. Sterling) and others did. Not one member, actually, has exploited the opportunity to criticize the government. For that, I commend members and I am very grateful. It shows the democratic process is alive and well in Ontario.

ANIMALS FOR RESEARCH AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Philip moved second reading of Bill 21, An Act to amend the Animals for Research Act.

Mr. Philip: I appreciate the tremendous support and encouragement that many members of all three parties have shown to this bill. Many members who at first had stated opposition to the bill have in the past few days listened patiently to my explanations and indicated that they would support the bill. I apologize to those few members with whom I have not had an opportunity to sit down personally and explain the contents of the bill.

I also appreciate the great amount of public support I have obtained for the bill. It took a lot of dedication from those volunteers who obtained the 10,291 signatures on a petition I introduced yesterday to the Lieutenant Governor and members of this Legislative Assembly. I appreciate the efforts and interest shown by people who have come to the Legislative Assembly today to show their interest and encouragement and who have telephoned me during the past few days.

I appreciate the endorsements of the 27 humane societies, the Association of Animal Shelter Administrators of Ontario and the municipal councils of the cities of York, Mississauga, Toronto, North Bay, Scarborough and Etobicoke and the borough of East York. Last, I want to thank two people in particular, Ann Doncaster and Robert Nesbitt, who worked tirelessly in educating the public and in talking to members of the Legislature with me.

The fact that an independent poll taken by Angus Reid showed yesterday that an overwhelming number of Ontario residents are in support of this bill can be attributed in many ways to the educational legwork done by so many volunteers.

This bill is a very conservative bill. It does not stop research on animals. It merely gives municipalities the right if they so wish, since they pay 100 per cent of the cost of animal shelters, to refuse the handing over of pets for research.

There are humane, scientific and democratic reasons for supporting the bill. Pounds represent an intent to involve the public in animal care and control. Historically, the need for such control was the reason for their institution. Unclaimed animals roaming the streets starve, are hit by cars, get into garbage, bite children, become rabid, etc. On the other hand, pound seizure negates the social value of the pound, which was instituted to address this problem. If people do not take the animals to pounds because they know such animals may end up in research facilities, pound legislation is subverted and the animal population increases.

The public must have confidence in its pounds, otherwise people would rather let the animal run loose on the street and take its chances there than see it handed over to research facilities. As someone who was an employee for the Ontario Federation of Agriculture before being elected, I know only too well the harm that dogs running in packs create in rural areas, dogs that have been abandoned in these rural areas by people who, for whatever reason, would not take them to the pounds, often the city pounds where they should have been taken in the first place. When this happens, municipalities must make provision for official ways of animal control. This merely increases the cost to local taxpayers.

Moreover, the humane purpose of pounds is also being negated. One of their original purposes was to protect unprotected animals, which would be housed until homes could be found for them or they could be humanely euthanized. The subversion of their purpose also works to destroy the morale of the staff working in animal shelters. People who are there wish to assist animals, and instead they are caught between the public feeling against pound seizure and their responsibility under the law.

Under the present act, any laboratory can request a pet from a pound in this province-and in two other provinces in Canada-and the pound has no right to refuse. Indeed, a jail sentence can occur for such a refusal. Even though pounds are financed entirely from municipal taxes, those municipal councillors and aldermen democratically elected, have no say in this matter. Some faceless bureaucrat, backed by Big Brother at Queen's Park in the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, can impose his or her will on them. Thus, more than 5,000 pets are taken from pounds each year in Ontario for use in laboratories.

Let me deal with some of the scientific arguments in favour of this bill. Those who preach doom and gloom for scientific research if this bill passes are alarmists and need a course in scientific reasoning. These alarmists-indeed, if I might use the word, these extremists-fail to point out that some of the most prestigious institutions conducting biomedical research are found in those US states that have legislation similar to this bill. Examples are the Johns Hopkins University and Harvard University. Other examples are some of the excellent research being conducted in Europe where pound seizure is not allowed.

1110

There is no question that some researchers support the use of pound animals. However, many of the world's most prestigious research agencies and many individual scientists do not. Scientific experiments are designed to eliminate or at the very least to minimize variables. Random-source or pound animals, because of their unknown genetic and medical histories, introduce a variety of uncontrollable factors that many scientists believe make research results highly unreliable.

As early as 1963, the US Food and Drug Administration concluded that the use of these animals often resulted in "a succession of questionable and unintelligible data when an experiment was concluded." The pharmaceutical industry has all but abandoned the use of random-source animals because of their proven unreliability. The National Institutes of Health, which funds over 80 per cent of all biomedical research in the US, uses purpose-bred dogs in its own research.

At a meeting held in December 1983, the International Organizations of Medical Science, established under the auspices of the World Health Organization and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, recommended against the use of stray or ownerless domestic animals for experimental purposes.

In the light of these doubts about the scientific validity of using random-source animals and in the interests of ensuring good science, the world trend today is away from the use of pound animals. Some who oppose the bill use economic arguments as their last resort. There is little doubt that animals obtained from shelters are cheaper to buy initially, but they are more expensive to use. The fact that the death rate is so much higher among pound animals than among purpose-bred animals makes the argument of cost somewhat suspect.

Let me give an example of one of the studies that has been done. The University of Oregon, using both purpose-bred dogs and random-source dogs in experimental heart valve replacement, concluded that purpose-bred dogs were cheaper to use, despite the fact that the purchase price of the random-source dogs was lower. The reason for this result was as follows. The survival rate of the purpose-bred dog was much higher than that of the random-source animals. Ninety-three per cent of the purpose-bred dogs survived the experimental surgery, whereas only 73 per cent of the random-source dogs survived. To end up with 100 animals at the end of surgery, one would have to start with 108 purpose-bred dogs or 137 random-source ones. A second study by the National Institutes of Health confirmed these findings.

These hidden costs are understandable. Psychologists who have studied the situation have concluded beyond doubt that animals that have been free and that have received human affection suffer more stress when research is done on them than purpose-bred animals.

In asking members to support this bill, I am not sabotaging research in this province. I am asking that the members vote to protect the effectiveness of the animal control system in this province. People must have confidence that if they bring a stray animal or pet to the pound, it will either be adopted or euthanized in a humane way.

It has been found that the release of unclaimed pets from public shelters for research has several immediate effects on municipal control programs. It causes fewer people to use the shelter services. The majority of animals obtained by municipal animal control centres are actually delivered by the public. The results of opinion polls in Canada and the US suggest that the public will not co-operate when such facilities are subject to pound seizure legislation. This results in greater numbers of lost and homeless animals remaining on the streets or, as we find in Ontario, in the countryside. As any farmer will tell you, the major problem in rural areas is not wolf packs, but dog packs. There will be an increase in the cat and dog populations, of particular concern to rural areas or in children's public play areas. The cost of animal control escalates as a result of the present legislation. Last, fewer animals will be reunited with their owners.

At the beginning of my speech, I said it was a moderate bill. It is supported by moderate, somewhat conservative organizations. It bases its arguments on the rights of municipal councillors, who are elected locally, to make a decision either for or against the use of animals in research. They have the democratic right to go one way or the other under this bill.

This bill says to a senior in my riding, who is now facing the tremendous need to enter a nursing home, that if she allows her cat to go to the local Etobicoke pound, it will be either adopted or at least humanely destroyed. In the case of that woman-and this is a real and specific case-she will not take the kind of housing she needs because of fear of what may happen to her cat. That is the perceived understanding out there in the community and that is why the pound operators in Ontario are so concerned that this bill pass.

This bill is not based on an antiresearch bias; it is based on a sense that animals can be used in a scientific way, but not pound animals. It goes no further than this, and I ask for the support of all members of the House.

Mr. Polsinelli: Before beginning my remarks, I point out to the member for Etobicoke that I will not support this legislation as I think it has the potential to badly cripple medical research in our province.

One of the initial comments I would like to make is that if an Ontarian brings a pet to a pound, that animal does not necessarily have to go to medical research, because the person bringing in the pet can simply say to the poundkeeper: "Euthanize it; kill it. I do not want it to go to research." In that case, the animal will not go to research.

The proposal made by the member for Etobicoke to amend the Animals for Research Act is disarmingly simple. It would give municipalities the right to pass a bylaw that would allow municipal poundkeepers to kill dogs and cats rather than send them for medical research. This would deny our medical schools and research institutions access to unwanted animals for essential teaching, testing and research work.

This is a controversial enough issue, but it is quite likely that a good number of municipalities, responding to a small group, a vocal minority, will pass such legislation denying our institutions the right to use such animals for medical research. Of course, what the proposed amendment does not do is suggest where the animals for research are to be obtained once this source dries up. That is where this seemingly simple amendment becomes a little more complex.

If researchers could not obtain the dogs and cats they need from municipal pounds, they would then have two choices. They would either buy animals from private sources-that is, people in the business of obtaining animals for research-or have dogs and cats especially bred for that purpose. I would like to look at each solution in turn.

Before the Animals for Research Act was introduced, researchers depended on dogs obtained from uncontrolled sources, supplied by dog dealers. It was suspected at the time that some of these animals were procured illegally. In fact, pets may have been stolen off the street by so-called dognappers. After public hearings, the law was designed to eliminate dog dealers as a source of laboratory animals, and it was successful in so doing.

I am sure all honourable members of this assembly will agree it is not in the best interests of our citizens and their pets to return to a situation where pets are at risk from unscrupulous dog dealers and dognappers. It may prove to be an interesting little sideline for some unscrupulous members of our society to go back into dognapping rather than any other type of napping.

1120

Breeding animals especially for research sounds like a good idea, but it is also a very expensive proposal. The rough estimate to obtain a large, laboratory-reared dog is about $750 each. This would translate into about $2.2 million annually.

It is not only that, but we must also recognize that, whether an animal is reared or whether it is obtained from the pound, it would still be subjected to research and the one in the pound would still be killed. What one is doing is rearing other animals for the same purpose.

Any such change in the current legislation would have a totally unnecessary and negative impact on biomedical research in this province. That would be a tragedy, especially when we consider how vital animals are for research.

It is estimated that about 90 per cent of the medical advances we have benefited from in this country have resulted from research using animals. We must remember that in 1900 the average lifespan was about 45 years. Today we live to an age of about 70. Much of this progress is due to medicines and procedures we now take for granted.

We can talk about things such as organ transplants, cancer therapy, heart bypass surgery and artificial joints, as well as insulin, vaccines against polio, diphtheria, smallpox, measles and mumps, blood transfusions, heart pacemakers and a whole host of other treatments. The use of dogs was essential to developing these types of treatments, particularly in the situation involving heart and organ transplants.

Many of us have recently read about the young Toronto woman, Ann Harrison, who successfully underwent the world's first double lung transplant at the Toronto General Hospital. The development of that procedure required the use of laboratory animals.

Research using animals has also helped other animals live longer and better lives. Some examples are vaccines to inoculate household pets against rabies and for such livestock diseases as tetanus and anthrax and the development of painless embryo transfer techniques widely used in agriculture to improve livestock breeding.

We should put this whole matter of animals for research in perspective. The vast majority of such animals, over 90 per cent of them, are rodents, such as rats and mice. Cats and dogs represent only about one per cent of the animals used, and the balance are fish, guineapigs and other animals. I am sure the member for Etobicoke (Mr. Philip) probably has very little sympathy for those animals.

Under our present legislation, institutions that use animals for research, testing or teaching have to be licensed by the ministry. They must follow rigorous regulations established under the current legislation and monitored by ministry veterinarians. Researchers also operate under the eyes of each institution's animal care committee, which must be established under the act.

Some people claim that alternative methods should replace animals in research, as the member for Etobicoke has pointed out, but the fact is that many critical tests and procedures cannot be carried out except by using animals. For example, you cannot study blindness using bacteria; you cannot examine the effects of high blood pressure by using tissue culture, nor can you examine the results of surgery by using a computer. In each case, you need a complex, living organism.

I am given to understand that research involving animals offers the best hope for developing treatment for and possibly preventing such diseases as cancer, heart disease, multiple sclerosis, cystic fibrosis, muscular dystrophy and diabetes. If a cure for acquired immune deficiency syndrome is to be found, animals must be used for research.

I hope members will agree with me that to vote in favour of this bill would be a major mistake. It would risk a return to the uncontrolled procurement of dogs and cats, a situation that existed prior to the Animals for Research Act. It would not only inhibit medical research in this province but could also seriously endanger the future of this vital, lifegiving work.

To conclude, I will quote briefly from a Toronto Star editorial of last year on animals for research, commenting on the pressure already exerted on municipalities not to provide dogs to research facilities.

"It is time for common sense and the rights of human beings to prevail. As for the guardians of animal rights, wouldn't their efforts and money be better spent trying to instil some responsibility into pet owners, whose neglect leads to overcrowded dog pounds in the first place?"

It seems to me this portion of the editorial was apropos, because if we had responsible pet owners, we would have fewer animals in the pounds.

I remember my experience as an alderman on North York council. The municipalities already have certain rights and there are certain actions they can take. They can establish a dog registry for lost and unwanted animals so that the owners can phone a central clearing house and find out whether a pet is lost. The municipalities can enforce bylaws requiring pet owners to buy licences. Above all, the best protection pet owners can have for their pets is to go to their municipality, their city or town, and buy a licence for their dog. If the dog is carrying a licence and a collar with the name on it, it will be returned if it is picked up by a poundkeeper.

The answer is not in the seemingly simple solution the member for Etobicoke proposes, saying to the poundkeepers, "You can kill the dogs and cats if your municipality allows you to do it." The answer is more public education, telling pet owners that they can do certain things to protect their pets if they truly care for and love them, telling the municipalities they should enforce their bylaws in terms of obtaining licences and having inspectors, and telling pet owners they can buy licences and have certain other things done to protect their pets from going to research.

Above all, if an individual brings an animal to a pound because he does not want it any more for any reason, he does not have to face the risk of sending the animal to research. All he has to do is instruct the poundkeeper that he wants the animal euthanized, that he wants it killed and does not want it to go to research; then the animal will not go to research.

Mr. Gordon: After listening to the member for Yorkview, I am shocked and appalled. If I were a pet owner in Ontario, I would say the message he just sent to the pet owners of Ontario is that the government is going to come and get their pets in the event they happen to stray or end up in a pound, and that the government is in favour of seeing pets given to research organizations if the pound so desires.

I do not think he realizes that pet owners in this province invest a lot of time in their pets and that pets are animals they love and care for. If the member for Yorkview thinks it over, I am sure that if he had a dog or cat and that dog or cat ended up in a pound and then was taken out of the pound for the purposes of research, and he went to the pound and found the dog or cat was gone, he would be horrified. Any feeling human being who realizes we are all part of this animal kingdom will be revolted by the speech the member just made on this topic. I am shocked.

I must say to the member for Yorkview and to the current government that at present there are companies all around the world that breed animals specifically for research. The bill that has been brought forward by the member for Etobicoke recognizes that to advance medicine in the world today and to find ways in which we can battle certain diseases and so forth, it is necessary to do research on animals. The member for Etobicoke is not saying he is against research. He is saying he supports the view of many health organizations in the world today. He supports the view of 21 European countries that have signed a convention that says animals will not be released from pounds to research organizations.

There is a simple reason for this, a reason that has a lot of logic. If you get animals from companies that breed them, you know their genetic background, their medical history and how they have been bred. This is very important when using animals to further the interests of health in the medical-scientific world. That is a very important point, one that has been recognized by the European countries and by the majority of pharmaceutical firms in the world today. They do not want pets from pounds. What are we doing arguing against something such as this?

1130

Municipalities put up the moneys for municipal pounds. Those municipal councillors should have the right to decide what will happen to those pets. One of the reasons it is so difficult for many pounds to sell tags and to do the types of things they want to do in municipalities is this very negative and destructive approach to the animal kingdom. It is time this government woke up and began to see what was really important.

I want to talk for one minute about my pet, my cat. I have to tell members this. That cat is almost human. The cat's name is TJ.

Mr. Polsinelli: Does it talk to the member?

Mr. Gordon: I will bet any money that if that cat belonged to the member for Yorkview and he locked his house, that cat would find a way to get in and the member would still be standing outside. As a matter of fact, not only is that cat resourceful but he is also a true tom-cat. I want to tell Colin Brown, head of the National Citizens Coalition Inc., that my cat TJ would not have voted for Bill 7. At the same time, I want to tell members-and I also want to address this to Colin Brown-that while TJ would not have voted for Bill 7, TJ, being a true tom-cat, would have supported pay equity. I know that is something Colin Brown does not believe in.

What I am trying to tell my fellow members with a little bit of humour is that we do invest and we do see personalities in animals. No one can tell me, any of the members of this House or any of the general public, that animals do not have intelligence. They do. No one can tell us they do not have personalities. Anyone who has owned a pet knows that. How could this House vote against the member for Etobicoke's bill, which is a very enlightened bill? Mind you, as far as some animal lovers are concerned, it does not go far enough, but it is a good halfway measure. It is a measure that thinking people can agree with and believe in.

I urge all the members in this House to recognize that it is very destructive to have a situation in municipalities where research labs can come in, demand the pets, take them away and then do all kinds of research on those animals. I do not think any thinking person could agree with that, particularly when we know there are companies that can provide the animals, where the breed, the medical history and those types of things are all known. I urge members to vote for the member's bill. Speaking for TJ, I think he would vote for it if he could just put up his little paw.

Mr. Swart: I am pleased to rise and speak in support of this bill by my colleague the member for Etobicoke. I want to commend him, as I have often commended my colleagues and members in other parts of this House when they have brought in private members' bills I support. I do that today with a great deal of enthusiasm.

I do that perhaps with more enthusiasm than usual because this bill today is somewhat typical of the attitude and the successful endeavours of my colleague the member for Etobicoke on humane matters. Some of the newer members of this House will not know that quite a number of years ago-I am not sure how many; it must have been eight or 10 years ago-my colleague brought in a bill to ban the use of leghold traps, except in very exceptional circumstances. That was passed in this Legislature. In fact, I think I am correct in saying it was the first private members' bill that received approval and then was incorporated into, I believe it was, the Game and Fish Act of that time by the government of this province. This is sort of typical of the efforts my colleague the member for Etobicoke has put into humane matters.

When I was reading over this bill, making a few notes and reading comments about the bill, the thought went through my mind that it was so sensible that I could not anticipate anyone in this House rising to speak in opposition to it. It makes eminent sense. The issue is not whether animals should be used for research, and the bill does not prohibit that in any sense. In his opening remarks, my colleague made it clear he agrees it is necessary to use animals for research. There is no one in this Legislature, and few people outside this Legislature in this province, who would not agree that is a necessity.

The member for Yorkview talks about the need for that research and says it must continue. They are weighing human life against animal life very often, and nobody disagrees with that philosophy. That does not mean pets and animals in the pound have to be used for research or that the researcher should have the automatic right to demand the use of those animals in the pound.

Perhaps all of us would like to see a situation where the Animals for Research Act was toughened up a bit so there would have to be, as much as possible, humane treatment of the animals being used in research. It bothers us somewhat that there is exemption from the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act in this act. Granted it has other provisions, but some us think they may not be adequate to protect the animals being used.

The issue that is before us is not whether animals should be used for research. The issue is whether pets, strays, animals that for one reason or another come into the pound can automatically be taken by a research facility for use for research. It is very obvious that many of these animals in the pound are someone's pet. Regardless of the way they got there, they are someone's pet, whether they have been lost or whatever the case may be. They are pets that have been loved very deeply by someone.

The member for Sudbury (Mr. Gordon) mentioned his cat and the attachment he had to it. I was thinking when he mentioned it, he did not mention anything about fat cats. There are some of those in this corner of the House we would like to dissect.

Generally, these animals are pets of someone. Any of us who are parents or grandparents know of the attachment that children and adults get to pets and how abhorrent it is to them when they know that under certain circumstances the pet they love, and love dearly, which has become a member of the family, may be used for research. If one asked the families who have pets how many of them would like their pets to end up in research, one would probably get at least a 90 per cent response very strongly in opposition to it.

Apart from that, and that certainly has to be the main issue, my colleague the member for Etobicoke and various other groups have pointed out that pound animals are not the best for research in any event.

1140

I was surprised that the member for Yorkview would point out that it was possible for a person to prevent the animal from being used for research. That is true only in the sense that if you know your animal is in that pound and you do not want it back from the pound, then you can prevent it from being used for research; you can have it put to death. But that does not apply to one per cent of the animals that are in the pound. In the case of all the rest of the animals that are in the pound, to which the research organizations have a right, there is a real penalty for anybody interfering in that. I refer to section 21 of the act, which says:

"Every person who contravenes any of the provisions of this act...or the regulations, other than a regulation made under clause 23(h), (j) or (l)...is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable for a first offence to a fine of not more than $500 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than three months, or to both, and for a subsequent offence to a fine of not more than $1,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than six months, or to both."

That makes it clear, if nothing else does, that the law is solidly behind the research organizations or anyone who wants to use an animal for research from that pound in confiscating it from that pound. The bill that is being introduced by my colleague, as he has already pointed out, goes only part-way from that. It does not make it automatic any more. It leaves it up to the local municipality to make that determination.

As he has already said, it is a very moderate bill. He used the word "conservative." I would not go as far as that, because after 42 years the Conservative government did not have that kind of clause. In fact, they are the ones responsible for the situation that exists today. Of course, I realize they have a much more progressive group here now than when that bill was passed, and all of them today will be supporting this bill, which has been put forward by my colleague the member for Etobicoke.

Mr. McKessock: I rise to speak in opposition to Bill 21. First, I do not want there to be any misunderstanding about the present legislation. The poundkeeper does not have the automatic right to send the animal that is in his keeping to research. If the owner does not want an animal to go to research, the act says it will not. New developments have made it possible for more and more research to be done without using animals. Dogs and cats represent one per cent or less of the animals used in research in Ontario.

However, the fact remains that the animals-and these include unowned and otherwise unwanted dogs and cats-are essential to some kinds of research. Dogs are essential particularly in the research involving heart surgery or organ transplant. As my colleague mentioned, a young woman recently received the world's first double lung transplant in Toronto. The technique was perfected on animals. When it came time to treat a human with badly diseased lungs, the surgeons were pretty sure it would be successful because of the experience gained in carrying out the transplant first on animals.

Honourable members should know that the present Animals for Research Act provides many safeguards for pet owners and for unwanted animals. The legislation prevents those animals that are wanted as pets from being used in research by requiring municipal pounds to keep stray animals a minimum of three days. This does not include the day of pickup, weekends or holidays. Municipalities have the right to extend this period if they wish.

For those who do not know what a municipal pound is, it is a place set up by the municipality to house and care for lost and unwanted animals. Municipal pounds are required as well to take all reasonable steps to find the owner if there is any identification on the animal.

The current law also provides that a person who no longer wants an animal can bring it to the pound and request that the animal be killed or given a new owner. If he or she so requests, the individual giving up the animal can be assured the unwanted cat or dog will not be used in research.

If an animal that is not wanted and is not owned is purchased by a research facility, the act establishes standards of care and treatment that are monitored by inspectors from the Ministry of Agriculture and Food. These veterinarians make unannounced visits to research facilities to ensure that in experimental situations the animal suffers no unnecessary pain. In fact, the legislation requires the animal be given anaesthetics and painkillers as preventives.

Another check on animal welfare is made by an animal care committee. This committee is required under the act to be established in each research facility. It must include at least one veterinarian and is responsible for the standards of animal care in the facility.

However, the bill we are discussing today, Bill 21, would affect only one aspect of the current animals-for-research legislation; that is, the procurement of animals from pounds. Bill 21 would give municipalities the right to pass a bylaw allowing pounds to ignore requests from research facilities for dogs and cats. That does not sound like much of a change, but others whose full-time concern is the welfare of animals do not want to see it passed either.

The Ontario Humane Society, representing some 58 local societies in our province, is opposed to Bill 21. I would like to quote from a letter sent to the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Riddell) last year by Tom Hughes, president of the Ontario Humane Society. Mr. Hughes says, "The Ontario Humane Society has reached the conclusion that this act, Bill 21, no matter how well-meaning, is unfortunate and will actually produce more suffering than less."

He goes on to say that if the member for Etobicoke's bill in its present form is passed, it will result in "every municipality being subjected to the pressure of lobby groups, using modern tactics and, if necessary, extreme tactics such as we have seen demonstrated by animal rights groups in recent months and years."

Mr. Hughes says the result could be that, "After nearly 20 years, we would be regressing to actually the same unfortunate, disgraceful, totally unacceptable situation that existed in the 1960s and which led to the introduction of the Animals for Research Act in the first place, i.e., self-employed dealers in animals for research."

Just before Christmas, Mr. Hughes wrote again to the minister, suggesting some amendments to improve the current legislation. These are now being studied and considered. Right now, we are faced with Bill 21, which represents a form of pressure to tamper with a piece of legislation that works well.

This pressure to change the practice of providing unwanted pound dogs for research is not confined to Ontario. Similar laws have been proposed in many states in the US. One that did make such a change was Massachusetts, home of many of America's great university and research facilities. What happened there? Two things are worth noting. First, researchers were forced to acquire dogs and cats from other jurisdictions, including the nearby province of Quebec. Quebec, by the way, has no legislation comparable to our Animals for Research Act to protect and control the procurement of dogs for research. Second, the state legislature in Massachusetts received several requests from animal rightists for legislation to ban the use of animals of any kind in research.

We can learn from the events in other jurisdictions. We can and should resist the siren call of Bill 21. Bill 21 only opens the door to crippling medical research in Ontario, to slowing down or stopping the advances of our scientists and physicians in enhancing and prolonging human life. As my colleague mentioned, the lengthening of the average life span from 45 years in the 1900s to 70 years today is due in large measure to research carried on with the use of animals. That research has benefited animals as well as people, thanks to disease prevention techniques that have enhanced the lives of our companion animals and livestock. Bill 21 is a regressive piece of legislation. I will vote against it and urge members of the House to do likewise.

1150

I am sure my cat, which can ring the doorbell and is just as smart as the pet belonging to the member for Sudbury, would feel badly if he heard the member say today that he was not good enough for research. I am sure that if my cat could speak, he would much prefer to be used for research than to be put to sleep.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Mississauga South for two minutes.

Mrs. Marland: For two minutes?

Mr. Speaker: Now it is less than that.

Mrs. Marland: Since I have only two minutes left, which disappoints me greatly because I had some valuable arguments to contribute to this debate, I will focus on the one point that those speaking in opposition to this bill seem to have missed totally; that is, the proponents of this bill, in no way or at any time, are opposed to the use of animals for research.

No one recognizes better than I do the need for animals for research, having lost a child to leukaemia, for which at this time there is no known cure. To anyone who quotes examples of heart disease, as has the last speaker for the Liberal Party, I say there is no question that is not the debate. The debate is on letting us have the animals for research that will best perform and facilitate the need. Randomly taken animals, or animals that are strays on the streets and those that are given to a public pound in faith and confidence that if they are not adopted they will be euthanized painlessly, are not the animals to be used for research.

That the Animals for Research Act allows for somebody giving his animal to ask that it not be given for research but that it be destroyed is fine for the animals that are physically taken to those pounds, but I would like to know how the members of the Liberal government, who are obviously against pets and pet owners in Ontario, expect an animal to speak for itself.

Mr. Speaker: The member's time has expired. The member for Etobicoke for about six and a half minutes.

Mr. Philip: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Since I have more than six minutes, may I give another two minutes to the member for Mississauga South (Mrs. Marland), who obviously has some encouraging and interesting things to say. Is that permissible?

Mr. Speaker: It certainly is permissible because the honourable member did have only two minutes.

Mr. Philip: I give her some of my final minutes then, so that she can continue her remarks.

Mrs. Marland: I thank the member for Etobicoke for the additional two minutes.

I want to dissociate the proponents of this bill from groups such as the Animal Liberation Front. The publicity generated and the actions taken by the Animal Liberation Front members are not thrusts that I personally take; neither would the people I know who support this bill wish to be associated with those. I speak very strongly in support of the bill not only on behalf of the animal owners that I represent but also on behalf of the Mississauga city council, which has already passed a resolution in support of the direction of this bill.

Mrs. Ann Doncaster, to whom the member for Etobicoke has already referred this morning, is a constituent of mine. She is the founder of the Mississauga Animal Rights Society, and she too feels that the Animal Liberation Front's tactics are not the kinds of tactics with which her group wishes to be associated.

The fact that purpose-bred animals are free from disease and inherent generic health problems, and have never been subjected to the benefits-I should not say "subjected to"-have never been the beneficiaries of loving care and attention and all the advantages of being a pet, means that those animals do not suffer to the degree that an animal which has received human support does.

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

Mr. Philip: I want to thank all members for their contribution, whether for or against the bill. I appreciate the points they made in this debate. I would like, however, to address some of the comments made by some of the members.

For example, most of the comments made by the member for Yorkview, or a good many of them, were completely irrelevant to the bill. One has to wonder whether he has read the bill. No one in this House is questioning the value that medical research has brought over the years. No one is suggesting that research at this time should somehow be rolled back. There is research going on in all the European countries, despite the fact that pound seizure is illegal in those countries. There is excellent research going on in the US, despite the fact that in many of those states which have some of the largest biological research facilities the use of pound animals is illegal.

He talks about a small, vocal minority, but in fact polls released only yesterday by a reputable polling association showed an overwhelming percentage of the Ontario population in favour of this bill. The fact that a majority of the people in Ontario are in favour of this bill makes those people, I suppose, a small, vocal minority to the member for Yorkview.

He talked about costs, and mentioned $700, but no one has been able to produce any research that showed that kind of figure being paid in a majority or an average number of cases. The research is to the contrary. The use of pound animals often has so many hidden costs that it comes out as expensive as the use of specially bred animals.

He charges that research facilities will buy illegally. I find that to be the most insulting remark to the researchers in this province. To say those people, many of whom are getting provincial funds, are going to purchase animals from illegal sources is insulting to me and, I am sure, to them. Yet if one looks at those jurisdictions where pound seizure is illegal and where research is going on; one does not see that kind of illegal activity. The researchers there behave in a legal manner, they do not buy stolen animals. To suggest that Ontario researchers will somehow be more illegal in their operations than researchers in other countries is an insult to the researchers in this province.

I found it sad to listen to the speech of the member for Grey (Mr. McKessock). There is no doubt that in any of the research being done by any of the psychologists or biologists that pound animals, animals that have experienced human affection, suffer more stress and have a death rate far in excess of specially bred animals. The member for Grey loves to go around this province talking about how Christian he is, yet his actions are going to cause more suffering without any kind of payoff in any way.

The statement by the member for Grey assuming that because the Ontario Humane Society represents 27 societies the 27 societies are in accord with the Ontario Humane Society against the bill is an outright misrepresentation. Each of those 27 societies has written to me and said it is in support of the bill. The fact is that in the Ontario Humane Society Tom Hughes is against the bill, and there is considerable pressure against him within that society for the statements he made without any authorization from anyone.

I know members will have a free vote on this. I am pleased a number of members of the Liberal Party have said to me that they will vote according to their consciences, that they will not let any cabinet minister tell them how to vote.

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

Mr. Philip: I ask for that kind of support and thank the Conservative members and New Democrats who are supporting the bill.

1200

ROLE OF PRIVATE MEMBERS

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Henderson has moved resolution 76.

All those in favour will say "aye."

All those opposed will say "nay."

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Motion agreed to.

1206

ANIMALS FOR RESEARCH AMENDMENT ACT

The House divided on Mr. Philip's motion for second reading of Bill 21, which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes

Allen, Barlow, Breaugh, Bryden, Callahan, Charlton, Cooke, D. S., Cousens, Davis, Dean, Gigantes, Gordon, Grande, Gregory, Grier, Henderson, Jackson, Johnston, R. F., Lane, Marland, Martel, McCague, McClellan, Mitchell, Morin-Strom, Philip, Pollock, Pouliot, Reville, Rowe, Ruprecht, Sheppard, Shymko, Smith, E. J., Sterling, Swart, Treleaven, Warner.

Nays

Andrewes, Bossy, Epp, Ferraro, Foulds, Fulton, Haggerty, Knight, Laughren, Lupusella, Mackenzie, Mancini, McKessock, Miller, G. I., Morin, Newman, Nixon, Polsinelli, Smith, D. W., Taylor, Wildman.

Ayes 38; nays 21.

The House recessed at 12:09 p.m.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1:30 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Ruprecht: I ask for unanimous consent of the House to make a special statement on Ukrainian Independence Day and for the participation of the other parties.

Mr. Speaker: Is there unanimous agreement? Agreed to.

UKRAINIAN INDEPENDENCE DAY

Hon. Mr. Ruprecht: I would like to recognize in the gallery prominent members of the Ukrainian-Canadian community, among whom are Dr. Peter Hlibowych, president of the Ukrainian Canadian Committee of Ontario Council; Right Reverend Peter Bublyk, a representative of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church; Father Dr. Stasiw, vicar-general of the Ukrainian Catholic Church of eastern Canada; and Dr. George Danyliw, president of the Ukrainian People's Home.

On behalf of the Premier (Mr. Peterson), my colleagues and the government of Ontario, I rise for the purpose of recognizing January 22 as an important date in history for freedom-loving peoples everywhere and of special significance to our Canadian citizens of Ukrainian heritage.

Today is the commemoration of the 69th anniversary of January 22, 1918, the proclamation of the Ukraine as a sovereign, democratic nation and of the unification of the eastern and western parts of the Ukraine into a single independent state exactly one year later on January 22, 1919.

We who live in a democratic society do not always appreciate our good fortune. We take for granted our freedom of speech, press, religion, travel and, most important, the right not only to criticize but also to vote openly for the party of our choice. The courageous determination of the Ukrainian people to regain this kind of freedom is a source of inspiration to all mankind. Having tasted liberty, neither the weapon of starvation nor prison walls could extinguish the torch of freedom and hope that has been resolutely passed on from one heroic generation to the next. I am convinced the rich heritage and proud tradition of the Ukrainians will endure for ever.

Those who have come to Canada from the Ukraine in search of freedom and opportunity since 1891 have made important contributions to the development of our province and country and to the enrichment of our culture. With their ethic of hard work and study, they take their rightful role as leaders in the professions and business, in education, in sports and in government.

I recall that after the Chernobyl nuclear disaster last April, when I spoke from the steps of Queen's Park, people of all political parties, races and religions attended to express by their presence the compassion of the Canadian people and to stretch out our hands in friendship to Canadians of Ukrainian heritage in their hour of grief and concern.

I admire the unbreakable spirit of optimism and hope of our Ukrainian friends. In spite of past tragic events, they are already planning for next year the celebration of 1,000 years of Christianity in the Ukraine.

It gives us great pleasure to extend our heartiest congratulations and best wishes to the thriving Canadian-Ukrainian community as we recognize January 22, 1987, as Ukrainian Independence Day and commend its observance to all the people of Ontario.

Permit me to say:

[Remarks in Ukrainian]

Mr. Shymko: I join my colleague the member for Parkdale in the remarks he has made on this very special occasion. None of us, on whatever side of the House we may be sitting, see this as merely an ethnic function. We see it as an historic moment in the history of mankind, at a time when upheavals and changes in the political, social and economic systems gave hope to many nations to declare themselves independent, with the right to live according to the sovereign will of their respective peoples.

What happened 69 years ago on January 22, 1918, with the declaration of the independence of the Ukrainian republic was followed by similar declarations by peoples of the former czarist empire of Russia. It was followed subsequently by the creation of such independent states as Czechoslovakia, under the guidance of Masaryk.

These hopes, although they have been dashed and independence destroyed, live on among the Ukrainian people, who suffered enormously in the so-called civil war that reigned from 1917 to 1921. They also suffered immeasurably through a system that artificially planned a holocaust of their people with the starvation of seven million to eight million following the tragedy of that proclamation at a time when the secretary-general of the Communist Party of the Ukraine, Mr. Skrypnyk, committed suicide in protest.

There followed the annihilation of 5.8 million Ukrainian people by the Nazi regime during the Second World War, 800,000 of whom were Ukrainian Jews. It continues today with the hopes that are cherished by the dissident movement of intellectuals and cultural and religious leaders, in particular the leaders of the Ukrainian Catholic Church and the Ukrainian autocephalous Orthodox Church, which is not recognized legally by the present regime. Six million Catholics do not have the right to worship in their faith in the Soviet Union, a year before the millennium of Christianity in that part of the world.

This is not an occasion for us simply to speak because we may perceive it as the function of some ethnic group so let us do our political thing to make them happy and some votes may result. As members of the Legislature, we have attached a universal importance to such occasions. On November 15, 1984, we supported unanimously a private member's resolution that went beyond the celebration of one ethnic group or one event.

For my honourable colleagues who were here in 1984, and for the sake of those who were absent and those who were welcomed after the election of 1985, I would like to distribute this as a reminder of that resolution:

"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."

1340

This resolution was passed unanimously, and following the resolution of all the members of the Legislature, the first Premier who made an official proclamation from his office was William G. Davis, followed by another former Premier, the member for Muskoka (Mr. F. S. Miller) and by the present Premier.

These proclamations were signed. I would like to read members the text, not because of any ethnic function but because of a binding resolution by the members of this Legislature, whose importance the member for Humber (Mr. Henderson) raised today but which for some reason we ignore and to whom we sometimes hesitate to give support. The Premier, in his wisdom, gave support. This is what these proclamations, signed by all three Premiers up to January 1986, said:

"Whereas Ontario and Canada have developed through the courage and industry of the people of many nationalities who have come to this land;

"Whereas we are grateful for the many important contributions that our citizens of Ukrainian ancestry continue to make to our province and country;

"Whereas the proclamation of the independence of the Ukrainian republic took place in Kiev, Ukraine, 67 years ago;

"Whereas it is imperative for Canadians to remember that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance; and

"Whereas the observance of this anniversary fosters within us all a deep awareness of our fellow man, whose liberty has been violated;

"Therefore, as Premier of the province of Ontario, I am pleased to recognize January 22, 1985"-and it was subsequently said in 1986 by the present Premier-"as Ukrainian Independence Day and commend its observance to the people of our province."

It was signed by the three Premiers. I am shocked that this year, for some unexplained reason, the Premier has decided to make a complete flip on this very important decision and is refusing to sign further proclamations on the independence days of other groups. I would like to say the following-

Mr. Speaker: Order. Could you complete your remarks briefly, please?

Mr. Shymko: I understand I can speak with some self-discipline, there is no time allocation; but I will try to wrap up my comments. The reason I am making this comment is-

Hon. Mr. Ruprecht: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I think the House should be informed, and so should the member for High Park-Swansea (Mr. Shymko), that the Premier did indeed sign it. A copy is in the possession of Dr. Hlibowych, who is the president of the Ontario branch of the Ukrainian Canadian Committee.

Mr. Shymko: Right up to a few minutes ago, I was told there would be no signing of such proclamations any more, and so I am very pleased that the Premier did indeed sign the proclamation and that he will be singing these proclamations for all of these occasions. This information was conveyed to me wrongly by the Minister without Portfolio responsible for multiculturalism (Mr. Ruprecht), who told me there would be no proclamation. I thank you for my remarks, Mr. Speaker, and I support him.

Hon. Mr. Ruprecht: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-

Mr. Speaker: Order. With respect, we had unanimous consent for representatives of all parties to make brief comments. I will recognize whoever wishes to speak for the New Democratic Party.

Mr. Rae: I will try to pour a little oil on these somewhat turbulent waters by being very brief and speaking to two issues today. I want to say as a New Democrat how much we in our party have been enriched, as has the labour movement and the farmers' movement, not for 20 or 30 years, but indeed for nearly 100 years, by the presence of those in Canada who have come from the Ukraine, first, of course, as refugees from the regime of the czar. They came as Catholics; they came as Jews. They came to make Canada their home.

They participated. They built the west. They participated in all our democratic institutions, from our farmers' co-operatives to our labour movement and our political parties. They now take, rightly and proudly, their places and positions of leadership in every walk of life in our country.

We in Ontario have benefited from and been enriched by that immigration. We have been sustained by the more recent-I speak particularly of the past 40 or 50 years-experience of those who came to this country, not as refugees from czarism, but as refugees from totalitarianism.

To those who are here today, I want on behalf of our party to express our solidarity with them and with the Ukrainian people, to say how strongly we feel about the situation as it currently exists in the Ukraine and to say we are witnesses with them to the continuing tragedy of those who are not able to worship or express their political views, those who are in jail, in exile or away from their families.

As we solemnly do that, let us also celebrate, because I think it appropriate that we celebrate. our common heritage as Canadians and our sense of at-oneness on this great occasion. I do so in a spirit of nonpartisanship, in which we can all join, to focus, to keep one's eye on the prize of freedom itself.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ROBBIE BURNS DAY

Mr. Pollock: I ask that all members of this House join me in paying tribute to Robbie Burns. January 25 is Robbie Burns Day. People from all over the province will be celebrating this Scottish poet's birthday as the most important Scottish event in Canada. Immigrants from Scotland and people of Scottish descent will be remembering the land of the heather. Immigrants from Scotland have made a tremendous contribution to this country.

Scotland is a country a lot like Canada, beautiful in many ways but with a harsh climate. Scots, like Canadians, are very proud of their country. I have had the privilege of seeing Edinburgh, driving over the bridge of the Firth of Forth, walking to the top of the Wallace monument and seeing Loch Lomond, Glasgow and the beautiful countryside around Ayr, home of Robbie Burns.

This weekend, when the spirited music of the bagpipes pipes in the haggis and we enjoy some of those traditional Scottish dishes, let us remember the contribution Scottish culture has made to this multicultural province of Ontario.

1350

NATIVE WOMEN'S RESOURCE CENTRE

Mr. Wildman: On this day, when we are talking about our ethnic heritage, I want to bring to the attention of the House the plight of the Native Women's Resource Centre on Gerrard Street in Toronto.

It has been reported, and we have been in touch with the volunteer workers at that centre, that the centre faces imminent closure unless some sort of ongoing funding mechanism is worked out for it. Currently the centre is $15,000 in debt, is in arrears of rent for some five months and has no prospects of future funding.

This centre is doing very important and necessary work. One of the biggest problems facing native women in the urban setting is the feeling of aloneness, of need for assistance to get in touch with social services that will assist them to deal with problems such as family violence, homelessness or alcoholism.

It is imperative that this government respond, and respond immediately, not only to deal with the debt, the problem of utilities and rent and the need for resources for that centre but also to develop an ongoing funding mechanism. I call upon the minister responsible for women's issues and native issues in this province and for the government to respond to the needs of the Native Women's Resource Centre.

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mr. Reycraft: I want to draw to the attention of the Legislature the announcement made in London yesterday by the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston). The minister visited Victoria Hospital and informed Dr. Robert Colcleugh and members of his maxillofacial team that the Ministry of Health would be increasing the program funding of the hospital to allow it to expand its maxillofacial clinic. An additional $219,700 will be provided in annual operating funds. As well, a capital grant of $127,800 will allow the hospital to expand the clinic and to equip an additional operating room.

The maxillofacial clinic treats children and adults with severe facial deformities. Dr. Colcleugh and his very fine team rebuild the damaged faces of accident victims and correct a wide range of congenital conditions, such as malfitting jaws, cleft lips and palates and missing cheekbones and chins.

The new facilities and program funding will allow the clinic team to double its annual case load, which currently consists of about 50 major cases. All of us in southwestern Ontario welcome this very significant expansion to the program at Victoria Hospital. It will allow many more children, such as two-year-old Tracy Metzger, whom the minister and I met yesterday at Vic, to look forward to a far brighter future.

TRIP TO WASHINGTON

Mr. Brandt: According to the media, the Premier (Mr. Peterson) has dismissed as ridiculous the suggestion of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Grossman) that the former Premier, the member for Muskoka (Mr. F. S. Miller), accompany him to Washington.

I point out to the Premier that the member for Muskoka, first as Minister of Industry and Trade and then as Premier, was a strong supporter of Ontario in its negotiations with the United States and is extremely well respected by our neighbours to the south.

No one can deny that the member for Muskoka would lend obvious prestige, knowledge and experience to the Premier's contingent. Therefore, for the Premier to dismiss outright my colleague's participation in the trip to Washington is to demonstrate an incredible contempt and arrogance that has no place in this parliament.

Apparently, when the Premier is not involved in a political manoeuvre, he is happy to take members of the opposition along. For example, the member for Muskoka joined the government's recent mission to China. We can only conclude that the Premier's trip to Washington is politically motivated. It is designed so that only he has whatever information is available and only he speaks to the media on this issue.

In our opinion, this is further proof that the Premier's goal is to manipulate the auto pact, the softwood lumber tariff and pulp and paper discussions for political gain rather than to protect jobs in Ontario. The only job the Premier is trying to protect is his own.

GOLF TOURNAMENT

Mr. Allen: I am sure many members of this Legislature, like me, felt something of a surge of moral outrage this morning, as did I, at reading the Toronto Star report of the Royal Canadian Golf Association's tournament of June 23, 1986, ostensibly to support one of the major charitable drives in the community but which ended in a rather pitiful contribution to that charity, namely, the Oakville-Trafalgar Memorial Hospital.

When all the expenses were tallied, the $62,400, as best one could calculate, could only have been reduced to about $36,000, at which point $6,000 was sent to the hospital, leaving the golf club in possession of something in the order of $30,800 for its own kitty.

One has to say that when an organization like this abuses not only the charitable legislation of Ontario but also the intended charity, the public and all of us not only by profiting but also by intending to profit substantially from a fundraising drive for a public organization that is publicly supported and charitably supported, all of us must hope that someone will come forward and make a formal complaint to the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) so that action may be taken.

BRAMPTON FESTIVAL

Mr. Callahan: Although the snow is on the ground and this event is held in July, I invite all members of the Legislature to attend the Carabram celebrations in Brampton and will continue to make the announcement, "Come and experience the excellent Ukrainian dancing that takes place in the city of Brampton." I believe that for two years in a row the Ukrainian community has been the winner of the trophy for the best pavilion.

Even though the Ukrainian families in Brampton started out as a very small group under the leadership and guidance of Father Galadzo, they have demonstrated initiative that is unsurpassed. They have purchased land and will be erecting a church. I submit that augurs well for the Ukrainian community in Brampton, and I invite members to Carabram on July 1, 2 and 3.

YOUTH EMPLOYMENT

Mr. Jackson: Yesterday the Minister of Skills Development (Mr. Sorbara) announced his summer programs for 1987. They are the same as the summer programs for 1986, which were in turn almost identical to the programs for 1985.

Last February, the minister was chastised for having failed to revise the summer program from the year before, and yesterday this pusillanimous procrastinator struck once again. He says the summer program is a door of opportunity that will help students to further their education, yet all he did was to top up the fund to cover the increased minimum wage. At that rate, a student can work an entire day and still not have enough to buy a single college textbook.

There are many students who need help with the basics, like résumé writing. There is nothing in this program for that. During the election, the Liberal Party promised a job to every young person in Ontario. Once in government, this commitment to summer jobs has been only a 2.5 per cent increase in two years.

Mr. Speaker: That completes members' statements.

MEMBERS' PRIVILEGES

Mr. Gillies: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege: I bring to your attention and that of members of the assembly something that occurred in the standing committee on public accounts this morning.

While the committee was sitting in room 151 on the first floor, an agent representing the law firm of Stikeman, Elliott presented me with some papers. On examination, these papers are a suit of libel in the amount of $2.7 million. I would like to review the circumstances surrounding this, Mr. Speaker, and ask for your guidance.

First, I would like you to consider section 38 of the Legislative Assembly Act, which I will read for the edification of the House:

"Except for a contravention of this act, a member of the assembly is not liable to arrest, detention or molestation for any cause or matter whatever of a civil nature during a session of the Legislature or during the 20 days preceding or the 20 days following a session."

The item of business before the committee this morning was the Ministry of Housing's convert-to-rent program and, in particular, the award by that program of a $3.5-million loan to the Huang and Danczkay project. This is a matter I raised in the House last October.

Mr. Speaker, you will recall that the lobbyist representing Huang and Danczkay at the time was Ivan Fleischmann, and indeed, the writ issued against myself, my executive assistant, Ms. Artmont, the Toronto Sun Publishing Corp. and two reporters for that corporation, Mr. Ganley and Ms. Comeau, is a writ put forward by Mr. Fleischmann.

1400

Mr. Speaker, I think it would be well for you to consider the circumstances. Mr. Fleischmann's lawyers wrote me a letter with intent to sue on the day or around the day that I made it clear that the opposition would be forcing this matter into the public accounts committee for the scrutiny of members of this Legislature. Now, some three months later, on the very day the committee is about to undertake the inquiry into this matter, the writ is issued in the committee room to me and to the other people I have named.

This is clearly the grossest intimidation of a member of the assembly attempting to undertake the work that he is here to do that I can recall in my six years in this House. I would say it is contemptuous. I ask you to consider whether it is a breach under section 38, and I ask you later today to review the report of the public accounts committee that will be brought before this assembly at the end of question period.

The public accounts committee unanimously passed a motion asking that this matter be brought to your attention, expressing the outrage of the committee and asking that the matter be referred to the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly. I am very pleased to be able to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that this matter passed unanimously. I thank my colleagues from all three caucuses in the committee for their support and consideration this morning.

I only add that if this is an attempt to intimidate me as a member of the assembly, I want to inform the members of the House that it will not work. I intend to keep raising matters I consider to be of urgent public importance in this House whether Mr. Fleischmann or anyone else likes it or not.

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, I want to indicate to you the fact that this morning in the public accounts committee we supported the motion because we consider this to be a most outrageous event, not only because it is an apparent attempt to intimidate the member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies) in his work as a representative of the people of Brantford and as a representative of the people of Ontario, but also because it is an attempt to intimidate the whole public accounts committee in carrying out its responsibilities to survey the public purse and ensure that programs such as the convert-to-rent program are carried out properly and that the people of this province obtain value for money.

By extension, I believe an attempt to harass the public accounts committee is an attempt to harass all members of the Legislative Assembly. Any attempt to serve a writ of suit on an MPP during the Legislative session I believe is improper, if not illegal. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to review this matter to determine, first, the legality of the attempt to serve a writ on an MPP, not only in this place but also anywhere at any time while the House is in session; and second, what steps should be taken by the assembly to protect MPPs from this type of harassment.

I commend to you the report of the committee that will be presented by the chairman or the acting chairman subsequent to question period and I ask that the assembly act upon it.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I understand that the report of the committee will be dealt with in the proper order of business, perhaps an hour from now. However, since the matter has been raised, I certainly feel that the honourable member in raising the matter is quite correct in indicating that this is an unacceptable procedure as far as the members of this House or of the committee are concerned.

While there may have been an attempt to intimidate, we all know that the opposition parties, as with opposition parties previously, will certainly be far from intimidated by such a procedure. The thing that concerns me is the procedure that was used. I think the committee has acted properly in bringing a report for the consideration of the House. I think it is agreed that when the report comes forward, rather than have a usual adjournment during which time the matter could be considered privately, we should proceed without delay, as has already been suggested by the House leader for the New Democratic Party and others, and the matter can be debated in the House immediately. Essentially, it will be sent to the Legislative Assembly committee for its consideration and for its recommendation, after due consideration of the whole House with the assistance of Mr. Speaker and his advisers.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Brantford has raised a point of privilege. I thank him for raising it at the earliest convenience, because that is one of the main things that must be done by any member. I understand by the content of his words that he wishes me, as Speaker, to consider the report of the committee, which I understand from all members who have spoken will come before this House so that a decision will be taken. I will accept that request of the honourable member; it will be looked at as soon as the report is brought in by the committee.

ORAL QUESTIONS

TAX REVENUES

Mr. Grossman: I have a question for the Treasurer. I wonder whether the Treasurer can reflect back to the conversation we had last week on the switch-off of the ad valorem tax on gasoline which has caused $500,000 a day more to be taken out of the motorists of Ontario. Can the Treasurer today specifically outline his aversion to ad valorem taxes?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: This is an appropriate time for a philosophical debate about tax measures, if the Leader of the Opposition wants to raise the matter. It was our feeling that the ad valorem tax as it applied to gasoline meant that the revenue earned from the tax was based on something other than the decision of this House and was dependent only on the price of gasoline.

The member will know that after the imposition of the ad valorem tax, at least during a part of the Treasurership of the Leader of the Opposition, that tax more than doubled during that period. It was my feeling at the time as an opposition spokesman, and later as Treasurer, that it would be more appropriate for gasoline taxes if a fixed tax-in this instance 8.3 cents per litre-were attached to the sale of gasoline and the revenue would then be more readily projected and predicted.

Any change in that revenue would be only at the decision of the members of the Legislative Assembly, acting on the recommendation of the government of the day with the resolution and appropriate signature of His Honour the Lieutenant Governor. I do not apologize for that. I believe it is appropriate in the taxation of gasoline.

Mr. Grossman: The key thing the Treasurer indicated as his objection was that the tax was dependent on the price of gasoline and therefore the amount of taxation gathered would catapult up or sometimes drop, depending on the price of gasoline, and that he should come back to the House if he wanted to get more revenue when that happened.

The Treasurer will know he has precisely the same system for the land transfer tax. The land transfer tax is an ad valorem tax just as the gasoline tax used to be, but there is one difference. The price of gasoline dropped this year, as everyone knew it would, and that would have produced lower revenues for the government.

On the other hand, the Treasurer knew and knows today that the single item in society that is skyrocketing the fastest in terms of price is land. When he found an opportunity to keep an ad valorem tax on an item that was increasing dramatically in price, thus increasing revenues, the Treasurer not only endorsed and kept that ad valorem tax but also increased the level of taxation with a 20 per cent increase on the tax itself.

Mr. Speaker: The question, please.

Mr. Grossman: How can the Treasurer reconcile the fact that by dropping the ad valorem tax on gasoline he effectively increased the tax on motorists by $500,000 a day, and that by keeping the ad valorem tax on land he so far has effectively, from his own figures, increased the tax on people who buy land by $1.5 million per week?

1410

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I want to point out something that is obvious. These changes were approved by majority vote of the Legislature so there was nothing undemocratic about the approach. I also want to point out two additional things. It is not our policy, nor was it the policy specifically of the previous administration, to earmark funds. However, we must be aware that the cost of providing adequate transportation facilities has increased since the change in government with the award of more dollars for this purpose. The same is also true of the costs of servicing land and new developments in many communities across Ontario, but I suppose most spectacularly in the greater Metropolitan Toronto area, some of the areas of which are probably the fastest growing areas in North America.

The honourable member, having been Treasurer and being a sensible person in most instances, will know the costs of these services and the planning associated with them, such as the provision of schools, roads and adequate electrical services-the list goes on-is mounting rapidly. The member will also be aware that we have a responsibility to pay for these services and that we have taken some tough and, I suppose, unpopular taxation decisions.

The member has repeatedly put a price tag of an additional $700 million per year on the tax changes this government has brought in. That number, if anything, is conservative; I do not suppose that is a pejorative adjective in this instance. We feel the money is required to fulfil our responsibilities properly.

Mr. Grossman: Let us be serious. Let us not plead poverty as if the Treasurer needs this money. He admitted that after six months he had $400 million in additional revenue. He admitted in this House last week that this was also a conservative estimate and that he will shortly be admitting that he has more than $400 million in additional revenue. He admitted yesterday in the House that the $100-million high-tech fund this year will spend less than $1 million, so he will end up with $99 million in additional money on top of the $400 million and on top of the excess he has indicated is yet to be announced. That is another $99 million. Let us not plead poverty when it comes to his great need to gouge the motorists of this province by $500,000 a day and the people who try to buy houses in this province by $1.5 million a week.

Given the enormous increase in revenues the Treasurer has and given his admitted increase, unexpected he said, of at least $400 million plus more, plus another $99 million, is he prepared to rethink his double standard on ad valorem taxes and get rid of his tax changes on gasoline or perhaps save the home owners of this province $1.5 million a week?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The tax changes the Leader of the Opposition has been criticizing so severely have not impeded the economic development and growth of the province in a most spectacular way. I do not take credit for that. I simply point out that the taxation and economic policies of this government have not hindered this expansion and that the revenue increases are welcome indeed. They mean we are able to finance, in a progressive and useful way, a number of programs that have been seriously underfinanced in the past.

I point to the improved financing for education, at the elementary and secondary levels as well as at the post-secondary level. I am glad to report to the member, if he has not noticed it, that we have received a good many congratulations from the people who have been in receipt of these funds and who perhaps are more objective in assessing these matters than is the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Speaker: New question, the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Grossman: Let it be recorded that the Treasurer thinks that an almost $1-billion tax increase does not adversely affect the growth of the economy.

Mr. Speaker: Is the question to the Treasurer?

Mr. Grossman: We will talk about this some time.

RADIOACTIVE SOIL

Mr. Grossman: My question is for the Minister of Housing, who will recall that when he took office, he immediately announced he was going to look after the houses in Malvern that were located on radioactive soil. I wonder whether the minister can today tell us how he justifies the situation where, instead of buying all 100 homes in that area, he has agreed to buy 40? In some instances, he has decided to buy one half of a townhouse and refused to buy the other townhouse immediately abutting and adjoining it. Does the radioactive soil somehow have such a careful demarcation that he is prepared to buy one home and leave the children and the families next door without the protection he offers?

Hon. Mr. Curling: The honourable member has indicated a situation that was outstanding for years during the time of the previous government. No one addressed that issue, because it was thought to be too controversial. We addressed that and identified the homes that, as indicated by scientists, knowledgeable people, had higher than normal levels of radioactive soil. They identified 40 of those homes. and we went there and bought.

As to the one half of a townhouse the honourable leader mentioned, I would have to look into that. Maybe the other home that was not bought was one that was not identified as being at a level that would be acquired by us.

Mr. Grossman: These are the minister's constituents. He did announce he would solve the problem. I have here the map of the houses he decided to buy and the ones he did not. He will see there are lots of rows of townhouses. In some cases, he just took one and left the other half unpurchased.

The minister has to be taking the position that if one lives on one half of a 40-foot lot, the government ought to buy one's home because the soil is radioactive and children should not be living there but that the adjacent house is safe. To compound the problem, the minister has also put up for rent the house he bought and invited another family to move into it.

The one half of a house he decided was too unsafe to live in, and therefore bought, he is now advertising for rent. He is saying that if people will just drop by and buy one of these radioactive soil houses, which he is happy to sell, a copy of the radiological survey will be available upon request.

Mr. Speaker: Is that your question?

Mr. Grossman: How can the minister justify this double standard in his own constituency, inviting families to move into houses he had to buy because the soil was so radioactive?

Hon. Mr. Curling: There is no double standard at all. The member knows that as a government we still feel that the levels of radioactivity are safe. As I stated to him, that conclusion was given by scientists who are knowledgeable; it was not my conclusion but that of experts. The residents there had no option. We gave them an option. We had nothing to hide. We made available to them the result that was available to us, so they could make that decision. We still maintain it is safe.

The member is using the logic that we should also buy the adjoining lots that have a low reading and are behind the ones with radioactive soil. Is he saying we should buy all those, not 40 but maybe 80? Where do we stop? We identified those that showed a higher reading.

Mr. Grossman: Our position is that the minister bought 40 of the homes in this subdivision. Most of the homes he bought are now empty and most of the other people cannot get any price for their homes, since he has not bought their homes. They are living in the middle of a vacant, deserted subdivision, thanks to his purchase and thanks to what he has done. He has left the other 60 abandoned and without protection.

1420

In response to this ad in the newspaper, we sent someone over to visit the government. We asked for a copy of the radiological survey for houses the ministry is prepared to rent, which it says have no danger. This is what the government officials told our people. They said the reports contained "technical jargon," that we as prospective purchasers "really would not be able to understand it" and that anyway, "you really do not need it."

How can the minister explain leaving 60 home owners living in the middle of an abandoned subdivision, reducing the price of their homes and then telling the people who go in and try to rent the houses the ministry has already declared unsafe that the report is too technical and they would not understand it?

Hon. Mr. Curling: I am happy. It is about time that party decided to send someone over to investigate. For years, the Conservatives sat there and did nothing. We addressed the problem and gave those residents an option on which to move, gave them all those options. The Conservatives sat on it for years and we acted on it.

We still maintain the soil is safe. The reason we gave those individuals the option is we felt they had nowhere to go, because their prices had been depressed. We bought those-

Mr. Grossman: Why do you not listen to the tenants?

Hon. Mr. Curling: That is the same attitude the Conservatives used when they investigated the radioactive soil. They did not listen to the residents there; they listened to no one. They do not even want to hear the answer now. We acted and we will continue to act.

Mr. Rae: We should bring back Tom Wells to mediate this dispute.

RENT REVIEW

Mr. Rae: I also have a question of the Minister of Housing. Can the minister explain why, under Bill 51, John Woodford, a tenant at 1229 Marlborough Court in Oakville, is going to have to pay an 18.1 per cent rent increase beginning March 2, because his rental increase notice was given on December 2, 1986? Can the minister tell Mr. Woodford why he has been told by the ministry that, regardless of what the rental review hearing ultimately finds, legally he has to pay up front an 18.1 per cent increase on March 2?

Hon. Mr. Curling: I presume the member is talking about an individual in a post-1975 building which has never been covered under the rent review process before. The notice that individual got was before December 31, 1986; therefore, he will have to pay that increase. However, as soon as the landlord makes his application for that increase and the case is heard by the Rent Review Hearings Board, the landlord will have to justify that increase.

The other point the member raised was why should the tenant be paying that. With regard to the rate which has been established, the guideline, 5.2 per cent, if the landlord does not get it increased at the Rent Review Hearings Board, then the money paid in excess of that will be refunded to the tenant.

Mr. Rae: Perhaps the minister is happy to justify Mr. Woodford having to make an interest-free loan to his landlord, which is part of the deal the minister and Bill Grenier signed. No wonder Bill Grenier is smiling all the way to the bank: the minister has given it all away to him.

Perhaps the minister can also explain to the 25 tenants, mainly seniors, who live at 82 Millside Drive in Milton, Ontario, who also received notices of an increase in late 1986, with the rent increases taking effect in the first three months of 1987, why they have to make an interest-free loan to their landlord simply because the minister is not prepared to stick up for tenants? Is that the reason they have to pay that interest-free loan to the landlord?

Hon. Mr. Curling: Not at all. We protected the tenants. We have brought about a very fair rent review process. It was agreed by landlords and tenants that this would be the case. There will be other cases where a landlord would apply for an increase and then basically would claim that interest would be due on the money owed to him. It is agreed by the landlord and tenant that this will be the situation.

I think it is on a one-time basis. I do not think this will happen again. It is this new law coming in at this time that will put those tenants in that position.

Mr. Rae: Let us explain to tenants then exactly what is happening, because the Ministry of Housing is so confused that, at one point, one of its officials advised tenants to phone the member for Riverdale (Mr. Reville), our Housing critic, because the official thought he might have a better idea of what the law actually said than they did.

Mr. Foulds: They were right.

Mr. Rae: They were right about that.

Do we understand the minister to be saying that if a landlord in a post-1976 building simply wants to get hold of some cheap, quick, interest-free money, all he has to do with respect to a rental increase is to go to his tenants prior to the increase being set by the rent review hearing and say: "All right, pay 25, 30, 35 or 40 per cent up front. You have to pay it or I will give an eviction notice"? That is what many landlords are saying to their tenants. Does the minister not appreciate the injustice of what is going on? Can he tell us why he will not bring in a speedy amendment to Bill 51, which we will pass in 24 hours, to see that tenants are protected from this type of Liberal ripoff, which he himself responds to?

Hon. Mr. Curling: I hope the honourable member understands this. A notice that is given for an increase does not necessarily say that the tenant has to pay it. The landlord would then have to make representation to the Rent Review Hearings Board for that increase. The member also knows that landlord would have to justify that increase.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Curling: As well, that tenant would have to reside in a post-1975 building. He himself cannot give notice just like that. That increase has to be justified to the Rent Review Hearings Board.

Mr. Rae: To be charitable, the minister is misinformed, but no doubt he will be hearing more about this.

WATER QUALITY

Mr. Rae: I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. The minister will be aware of a spill that took place on the St. Clair River on Monday of 500,000 litres of chemically polluted excess from C-I-L. Can the minister explain why the Ministry of the Environment failed to notify either the public officials or the public in Wallaceburg of the presence of a chemical plume in the river that was passing by their water supply?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I recall seeing a report on that. It was my understanding that there was notification given in that incident. The member seems to have some different information, but that was my understanding. In fact, there was a shutdown of the intake of the plant while the plume went by. This is my understanding of it from a report I have. If the member has other information he would like to share with me, I will be pleased to investigate.

1430

Mr. Rae: So the minister will know exactly what happened, the town engineer and the water commission were informed, which was why, as he stated, the intake was effective. The minister should know that publicly elected councillors and the general public in Wallaceburg were not informed. Those are the facts of the situation. Can the minister tell us why he has yet to reach a decision on a problem that has been on his desk for well over a year, with respect to the construction of a new pipeline so the residents of Wallaceburg will no longer be dependent upon water from the St. Clair River? He uses the excuse of going to the feds when he knows they are not going to kick in the money. When are the citizens of Wallaceburg going to get action from the government of Ontario with respect to their water supply and the building of a new pipeline?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: As the leader of the third party will know, the government has indeed given a commitment to participate financially in this project.

Mr. Rae: You have to get your facts correct.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: No; it has. The leader of the third party has to get his facts right. We have given that commitment. I was in Wallaceburg and announced that particular commitment. I simply indicated that with respect to the portion that would be the responsibility of the municipality, if the municipality wished to have the federal government alleviate part of that portion, it was welcome to discuss this with the federal government. I will certainly support them in that regard. There is a commitment on the part of the provincial government to do so, and I do not know why the member is suggesting that there is not.

Mrs. Grier: What has become of all the minister's grand promises about a drinking water strategy for this province? In November 1985, when I introduced safe drinking water legislation, he indicated he was going to do something to put in place legislation that would require notification of people when their drinking water was being contaminated so citizens could make their own decisions on whether the drinking water was safe and whether they should drink it. Can the minister explain why there has been no action on his part to legislate for safe drinking water in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I guess the member feels-and she is entitled to her opinion-that legislation will necessarily produce safe drinking water for Ontario. The strategy we have adopted is to ensure we get at some of the sources of contamination that exist around Ontario. We are aggressively pursuing those sources of contamination. Relating it specifically to her leader's question, because I know she wants it to be a supplementary, I think the member agrees that is one important component of dealing with those kinds of issues.

In addition, we have promised and delivered a surveillance program which continues to test the water to determine whether there are contaminants, and if there are, to what degree those contaminants would be in the water. In addition, the Ministry of the Environment has initiated a plant optimization program, which calls for an improvement not only in the equipment used in these water treatment plants but also in the training of the staff that operates them so we can get maximum efficiency out of them.

We are doing so right across Ontario. It is the responsibility of the Ministry of the Environment to provide that information. We are always prepared to do so.

TECHNOLOGY FUND

Mr. Gillies: My question is to the Premier. This week, when the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) announced to the House that the Exploracom commitment would not be met by the government, he said the cabinet decision had been based on external reviews. On external review, it was found that even if the private sector did come up with $17.5 million, this would be insufficient and more government funding, in excess of the $17.5 million, would be required. We are mystified about why this was not evident to the Premier when the announcement was made last year. Will he share with the House the nature of the external review, who conducted it and at what cost? Is he prepared to table it before the House?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: We have discussed these matters before and have shared them with the honourable member opposite. There were many external reviews of the situation by lawyers, accountants and others, and we came to the conclusion we did. I am not sure how we could further elucidate the question for the member. Is he in favour of it or against it? Is he in favour of getting into it or getting out of it? What is his position on the matter?

Mr. Gillies: The issue is, because of the Premier's colossal mishandling of this matter, based on the fact that there are now 42 employees of Exploracom talking about lawsuits, this matter could and possibly will end up costing the taxpayers money. We believe the members of this House have a right to know the basis on which the original commitment was made and the basis on which it was reneged. The Premier may not think this is necessary to share with the House; we believe it is. Will he table the external reviews?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: As I recall, the honourable member asked for a lot of information before and it was provided. There has been a great deal of information on this matter and it has been shared with this House. We shared that with the member; there is no particular secret. As the Treasurer said some time ago, the information gathered in the external review led us to the conclusion that it was not forthcoming in the short term. We have run into operating difficulties as well. That is why we made the decision that we did, and we were quite comfortable making it.

RENT REVIEW

Mr. Reville: I have a question for the Minister of Housing to see whether we can deal with the obfuscation here. I want to go back to the four people in Millside Towers in Milton, and I want the minister to understand what he has allowed to have happen to those tenants.

On December 31, 1985, those tenants were paying $500 a month. On January 1, 1987, the minister has required them to pay $632.50 a month. That is a 26.5 per cent increase, in a situation where he said it was going to be four per cent in 1986 and 5.2 per cent in 1987. By the time we have a rent review hearing and perhaps an appeal, those tenants will have given their landlord interest-free for 21 months the sum of $132.50 a month.

Mr. Speaker: Is your question, "Does the minister agree"?

Mr. Reville: Is there any possible way the minister can justify such absurdity, in view of his comment about wanting to protect the tenants of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Curling: When Bill 51 came about, it was to address and include all tenants in private rental units across Ontario. As the honourable member knows, those post-1975 rental units were not in the rent review process. We indicated very clearly that we will include the post-1975 units retroactive to August 1, 1985, and those will be paying four per cent until we get Bill 51 through.

In our democratic way, we went around the province and heard from all sides, and then we said the next rent review guideline would be related to inflation. That was announced previous to 1987 at 5.2 per cent.

As the honourable member said, those tenants would have paid a retroactive increase of whatever percentage rate he indicated. When they go before the Rent Review Hearing Board, it will look at four per cent from August 1, 1985, and at 5.2 per cent. If that landlord can justify an increase over and above that, then that will be done; if not, the money will be refunded.

Mr. Reville: How does the minister imagine he is going to be able to find the people currently living in Millside Towers to tell them he has protected them when they are going to be economically evicted? Does he know a senior citizen who has had a 26.5 per cent increase in his or her income since December 31, 1985? Why is he condoning the economic eviction of tenants in this province?

Hon. Mr. Curling: If I were condoning economic eviction, I would not have made the legislation retroactive at four per cent. It that were the case, we would not have made a guideline that is sensitive to inflation.

Again, the notice those tenants got on December 31 was for 90 days; so no money would have been expended from their pockets until 90 days thereafter. It is a peculiar situation only for those tenants who got notices in December; those tenants who got them after January 1 would not be in that position.

It is not an economic eviction. The third party is behaving in a sensational way to scare those tenants. We have put in a rent review process to protect tenants.

1440

TRANSIT SERVICES

Mr. Callahan: I was speaking with one of the assistants to the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel). It was drawn to my attention that a number of constituents in my riding of Brampton are being ticketed by the police because of a lack of parking facilities for the GO Transit facility in downtown Brampton.

Mr. Speaker: The question is to which minister?

Mr. Callahan: Brampton is probably one of the largest-growing areas in the province. Accordingly, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Transportation and Communications as to what steps, if any, might be anticipated with reference to obtaining further parking spaces for constituents of mine who park at the downtown GO service.

Hon. Mr. Fulton: I appreciate the member for Brampton's ongoing concern for the provision and enhancement of GO service. During the lunch hour, I was apprised by our friend the member for Sudbury East about some tickets to his friends, or probably to staff. The problem is similar at other stations along the GO service from growing use of that service by the public in Ontario. Some of these problems have been rectified. I assure the member for Brampton that I will take it upon myself to deal as quickly as possible with the officials from GO to see whether we can remedy the problem he has raised.

TECHNOLOGY FUND

Mr. Gillies: My question is again for the Premier. We on this side of the House are not at all satisfied with the answer the Premier has given. I am going to ask the same question again. He has staff and resources at the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology totalling about $200 million. Apparently, those resources were not sufficient for his government to come to a decision about the Exploracom project, so he undertook an external review at further public expense and he is not prepared to table that review in the House. Will the Premier live up to his commitment to open government and table that report?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: We share our decisions with the member and we share our thinking with him on these matters. We have done that in the past and we will do it in the future. The member knows and I know that government operates on the basis of advice from a variety of people when it makes its decisions. He is welcome to scrutinize it and look at it in any way he wants to. He can take it to committees or do whatever he likes. There is no particular problem.

We are very mindful of our responsibility to protect the public purse and we are doing that. This government is not afraid to make some of the tough decisions that it has to make. We are not going to get involved in another Minaki Lodge situation. We have spent half our time cleaning up messes they created. Had they used a little more judgement, we would not have had to do it.

Mr. Gillies: In the absence of any better information, which the leader of the open Liberal government of Ontario refuses to share with this House, we are left with the ongoing impression that the Premier, as leader of the government, precipitately made the decision to fund a $17.5-million commitment for a project led by a personal friend of his. He knows how this looks and yet he refuses to share the substantive information with this House. Does the Premier not understand this is unacceptable? It is disgraceful, and he should bring the information before the scrutiny of all the members of this House immediately.

Mr. Speaker: New question.

Mr. Gillies: What about an answer?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: What about a question?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Gillies: You have a question. You throw this money around. You will not account for it. You will not bring it into the House. What is the matter with you?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: There is nothing the matter with me. What is the matter with you?

Mr. Gillies: You are an absolute sleaze.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the member for Brantford take his seat.

Mr. Andrewes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: We did not hear the Premier's answer to the member's question, so I assume we are to assume there is no external review.

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order. There is nothing in the standing orders that says anyone has to answer a question.

Mr. Gillies: That is right; he will not answer.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Would the honourable members allow the member for Hamilton West to ask a question?

FRENCH-LANGUAGE EDUCATION

M. Allen: J'ai une question pour le ministre de l'Éducation. Ce matin, j'ai lu le rapport de la Commission Roy, qui a proposé un conseil scolaire pour la région d'Ottawa-Carleton. Nous, Néo-Démocrates, voulons assurer la communauté franco-ontarienne de notre appui dans ce dossier.

I wonder whether the minister recognizes, as I am sure he must, that this is a major and complex undertaking with many possible consequences, not the least of them financial, for the many boards involved. Will he introduce legislation in the coming spring session that will follow the implementation timetable of the commission? Will he assure us now that he will provide not only the financial necessities to provide equality of education for the French students of the new board but also the special financial assistance that will be necessary to the other boards to enable them to make the transition without loss to their programming for their students?

Hon. Mr. Conway: I thank the member for Hamilton West for his question and for drawing the attention of the House to the release today in Ottawa of the report of the Ottawa-Carleton French-Language Education Advisory Committee, which committee has tabled a series of recommendations representing advice to the government. I can assure the honourable member that I received the report this week and have read it carefully. Over the course of the next while, I will be analysing the several recommendations with officials within my department.

I can assure the member that this government is very serious about its commitment to establish a French-language board in the Ottawa-Carleton area for the fall of 1988. That will obviously require legislation. At a point not too far in the future, I hope to introduce that legislation in this House so that all members and the community will have the opportunity to assess very carefully this very important and historic initiative that this new government is taking with respect to this critical question of French-language education in the national capital area. I am sure the honourable member will want to join me at that time for a full and open discussion of the bill and its many ramifications.

Ms. Gigantes: Given that the committee has underlined the financial problems that will be created for some boards in the area now that the francophone board will be established, I ask again the question asked by the member for Hamilton West. What kind of financial commitment can we look for in the Ottawa-Carleton area that can mean the remaining boards are going to be viable, and how is the minister going to provide information and reassurance to the people of Ottawa-Carleton on the financial question when there does not seem to be a specific recommendation coming out of the advisory committee's report?

1450

Hon. Mr. Conway: The specific how of this matter, how we will create a French-language board in Ottawa-Carleton for the fall of 1988, will be worked out in the coming months, taking into account the advice of the learned committee which has reported today.

We will also take into account the very important, and I expect constructive, advice of the member for Ottawa-Centre (Ms. Gigantes), the member for Hamilton West (Mr. Allen) and all others in this assembly and outside who have an important and significant interest and involvement in this timely matter of public policy.

Mr. Davis: I am glad to see the Minister of Education acknowledged that a major report was issued today. It seems the new tack of a government that has openness and no windows is to announce brand new, major initiatives anywhere but in this House so that questions cannot be asked.

The first recommendation of this committee, which I will read into the record, is "that the Ottawa-Carleton French-language school board have two sections: a Roman Catholic section and a public section." Does the minister support that recommendation?

Hon. Mr. Conway: Let me say at the outset I appreciate the member for Scarborough Centre's recognition that this government is an open government with no walls and no barriers.

That testimony is in sharp contrast with what the Hamilton Spectator reports today about the leader of the Ontario Conservative Party. The Spectator reports today that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Grossman) is prepared to "tell Hamilton doctors how to handle Elston, but only in private with nobody present from the media." That is not the kind of open-door policy this government believes in.

The report today contains some 74 recommendations, all of which are interesting and important and will be carefully assessed by the minister and the government as we go forward in the coming months in a consultative way to put in place a French-language board in the national capital area for 1988.

Mr. Sterling: Although the Minister of Education refused to answer my colleague's question, he managed to put the major recommendation, recommendation 1, in his press release.

According to this report, the number of trustees who will be elected in each of the two sections, the Roman Catholic section and the public section, will be determined by the number of francophone electors who opt for one section or the other. Suffice to say one group will be represented by more trustees than the other.

The report goes on to say the combined group will decide on the jurisdiction of the sections and the whole board. Why would the majority of the board delegate any power to the underling section if it was taking away from what the majority could do to either side of the sections?

Mr. Speaker: Minister.

Mr. Sterling: My question is-

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the member take his seat. The question was asked very clearly.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I say to my friend from Manotick I appreciate his interest in this report. As he is one of the members from the national capital area, I know that he, like all others in the assembly, will want to look very carefully, as I will be looking in the coming weeks, at the report in whole and in specific.

We are going to take into consideration the advice tendered by the commissioners. As we move forward in the coming weeks to prepare the legislation, I can assure the member we will take into account these recommendations and the advice that will be tendered by many others in the community. Not too many weeks or months hence we as a government will be introducing a bill into this assembly. We hope it will address a number of the concerns the member and others have properly raised here today, the day of the tabling of the so-called Roy committee report.

PROGRAM FUNDING

Mr. Allen: I have a question on another subject for the Minister of Education. This morning I received word from his ministry that its learning materials development plan committee had not recommended-had opposed, in fact-the granting of support moneys to the film group that is documenting the travels across this country of the Students Against Global Extermination group, which has been so effective in our high schools.

First, I want to say I regret that. I want to call the minister's attention to a recent study by Dr. Ross Parker of McMaster, which documents that, among students in secondary schools in 20 communities across this country, the only thing they fear more than the threat of nuclear extermination and nuclear war is their own parents' death. Everything else is much subsidiary to that.

In the light of the seriousness of this question in the eyes of young people themselves, can the minister not find in this ministry some other vehicle for providing support for documenting a valuable tool that can be used in the classrooms of this province and this country with those young people and their concerns?

Hon. Mr. Conway: The honourable member has raised this issue with me privately. As Minister of Education and on behalf of the government, I feel very strongly that our school system has a very important role to play in ensuring that our young people are properly schooled in these important matters. A great deal has been done and is currently being done.

I will take the member's suggestion under active consideration and look very seriously at what might be done to respond to his request. I do not have the file with me about the learning materials development plan to which he makes specific reference, but I will look to see whether it might be possible to address this specific matter in some other fashion and report back to him personally in the very near future.

Mr. Allen: I appreciate the minister undertaking that task and I look forward to hearing from him shortly.

It was not long ago-in fact, early last fall-that reports came to us of a third board in the province-only a third-developing a major curriculum unit on the question of nuclear awareness. The Ottawa and Toronto boards have done that, and the Waterloo regional board is the third board to undertake that task.

At that time, the minister indicated he would be monitoring the project carefully and was looking forward to the possibility of recommending that program to other boards in the province. Has he monitored that program and is he actively in the process of seconding it to other boards with his strong recommendation for its use?

Hon. Mr. Conway: We have been monitoring that program. In the here and now, I cannot give an immediate report to the member.

Mr. Laughren: What about the hereafter?

Hon. Mr. Conway: I am glad to see my friend the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren) participating, albeit parenthetically, in this question period. I will, however, undertake to report-

Mr. Laughren: The minister mentioned the hereafter, and I am there.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I do not know why it is that the New Democratic Party in this assembly or elsewhere in this province is worried about the hereafter.

Ms. Gigantes: That is when the government is going to produce all the solutions.

Mr. McClellan: That is when it is going to fulfil its promises.

Hon. Mr. Conway: Are they concerned about the next consultation? I was in Chelmsford and Chapleau recently. I say to the member for Nickel Belt-

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Does the minister have a response?

Hon. Mr. Conway: We will undertake to report back to the member on the particular and current status of our monitoring of that program.

RENTAL ACCOMMODATION

Mr. Rowe: I have a question for the minister for assured housing. According to a recent news report, the 120 units allocated for the city of Barrie under his Renterprise program have been taken off the market, resulting in the loss of 48 low-income housing units in an important community in my riding. With a zero per cent vacancy rate in the city of Barrie, we simply cannot afford to lose any new units. Can the minister confirm or deny the allegations made in the radio report this week?

Hon. Mr. Curling: Barrie is an area that is suffering terribly, and the vacancy rate is extremely low. I know how difficult it is in that area. We are trying our best to address the issue of getting affordable rental units there.

I cannot report to him on the Renterprise program immediately. I am not quite sure whether those that were taken off were able to meet the criteria. I do not know why. If the member wants me to report directly to him, I can look into it and get back to him on those specific programs.

1500

Mr. Rowe: I am sure the residents of Barrie will be completely assured by that response; they will sleep comfortably tonight. However, it does not explain why the real estate agents in Barrie are actively seeking buyers for this new apartment unit. Perhaps the minister should review the status of this project again.

In the meantime, perhaps the minister can tell me how he intends to replace the eight Ontario Housing Corp. units in Barrie that have also been taken off the market because of the complete failure of his assured housing program in my community. The 310 needy families on the waiting list for subsidized housing in Barrie would appreciate knowing the answer.

Hon. Mr. Curling: Again, I can get back to the member about the specific eight cases that have been taken off in Barrie and tell him the reason they were taken off. I do not know.

I would like to tell the member, though, that our assured housing policy has brought much more assured housing for many people who have been in a waiting situation for years and years. For years to come, we will satisfy quite a few of those who will be waiting.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr. Mackenzie: I have a question of the Minister of Health. He will be aware that the steering committee of the Hamilton Regional Occupational Health and Safety Centre, headed by the president of Local 1005, the safety and health committee of the local and the labour council, with the endorsement of the Ontario Federation of Labour, made a detailed submission to this government on July 5, 1985, for funding for such a clinic. There has been no action on this in spite of many letters and phone calls since then to both this ministry and the Ministry of Labour.

I wonder whether the minister can give us and the workers involved some indication of when they will hear further about the funding of that clinic in Hamilton.

Hon. Mr. Elston: The honourable gentleman indicated that a detailed submission was made to our government. I am not sure whether it was directed to me. I can check into what has happened with respect to that.

I cannot tell him the status of that application at this moment, but I will extend every effort to find out where that application is and what its status is within my own ministry and within the ministry of my colleague the Minister of Labour (Mr. Wrye).

Mr. Mackenzie: I do not want to be provocative, but back at the end of August, the minister's colleague the Minister of Labour-and there has been a dispute all along as to whom they should be dealing with-informed the president of Local 1005 that he would arrange a meeting with the two ministries and any other appropriate people within a matter of a short period of time. That was the end of August. There has not been a word since then from the ministry.

That is one of the reasons I am asking whether the minister can be a little more definitive about when they are going to hear something from one of the two ministries.

Hon. Mr. Elston: I can tell the honourable gentleman that my interest is very high in undertakings of this sort, but that under our current legislative framework we have an obligation to share responsibilities with other ministries when there are some rather unusual requests for funding opportunities, such as setting up programs which border on the two ministries.

We can co-ordinate our efforts on these types of matters, and I will extend my efforts to co-ordinate our response. I cannot tell the member what communications there were from another minister at another time, but I can tell him my contact with the Minister of Labour will be done as soon as he returns from his operation. We will communicate jointly and directly with the member for Hamilton East with respect to its status. We will then, I hope, pick up on the communications that occurred in August just past.

PROTECTION FOR HOME BUYERS

Mr. Cousens: I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Why does he not institute a cooling-off period for new home buyers when they buy a new home?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I thank the member for his question. The reason I would not is that I would have a lot of builders who would try to lynch me if I did so. The member is addressing a problem that is happening in only a very few areas. There are other areas in Ontario where builders are trying to sell their homes, trying to pay their mortgages and pay off their loans, and are very anxious to sell those houses. What the member is suggesting is a problem that affects a very small number of people. We are addressing that problem. However, it would be considerable overkill if we took the member's route on a normal house sale.

Mr. Cousens: I do not know where the minister will get lynched, because no one in this fine House would ever even think of being so physical.

Mr. Speaker: I am glad to hear it.

Mr. Cousens: There is a 10-day cooling-off period for condominium buyers. They at least have 10 days to cool off, think about it, consult with their lawyer and work out the process of the decision with other people to make sure the decision is right. If we can do it for a person who is buying a condominium, why can we not have something such as a 10-day cooling-off period for people who make the largest investment of their lifetime when buying a new home?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: It is a different situation when one is purchasing a condominium. One has to wait for registration. There is a possibility the condominium may never be registered, and then one is confronted with a situation where one is renting instead of buying.

We are in a very hot market in certain areas of Ontario-though not all areas-and we are addressing that problem. If the member looks at what has been happening in the past couple of weeks since we made our announcement, with the advent of the new provisions under the Ontario New Home Warranty Program and the initiatives that have been put into effect by the building industry itself, we are resolving most of the problems. I am sure there are still a couple of problems out there. but by and large, we are addressing most of them and it is working quite well.

PETITIONS

NATUROPATHY

Mr. Newman: I have a petition from Alan J. Bell, doctor of chiropractic and naturopathy. It reads as follows:

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

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

"Whereas it is our constitutional right to have available and to choose the health care system of our preference;

"And whereas naturopathy has had self-governing status in Ontario for more than 42 years;

"We petition the Ontario Legislature to call on the government to introduce legislation that would guarantee naturopaths the right to practise their art and science to the fullest without prejudice or harassment."

It is signed by 20 residents.

Mr. Speaker: May I remind many members that the House is in session. It is very difficult to hear what is taking place while we are in place with all the private conversations.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ONPUBLIC ACCOUNTS

Mr. Barlow from the standing committee on public accounts presented the committee's report and moved the adoption of its recommendations:

Your committee begs to report the incident of the attempted serving of the member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies), a member of the standing committee on public accounts, with a writ during the proceedings of the committee this morning.

Your committee recommends the referral of this matter to the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly for investigation and report to the House as soon as possible.

In view of the fact that the standing committee on public accounts feels so strongly that it cannot be interfered with in the conduct of its business, your committee recommends strongly to the committee to which the matter is referred that it consider the engagement of legal counsel to assist Mr. Gillies in defending himself against legal action arising from this matter.

1510

Mr. Barlow: The entire committee this morning felt this was an attempt, via an attempt to serve a writ on one of our members, to intimidate not only that particular-

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I wonder whether the member for High Park-Swansea (Mr. Shymko) could contain himself. This is a committee report we are having.

Mr. Barlow: We felt it was not only an attempt to intimidate the member for Brantford but also an attempt to intimidate the whole of the committee, the whole of the House, and indeed the entire political process, by serving a writ in a committee in the way in which that writ was served. The entire committee felt very strongly about this; thus the report that was presented to the House a few minutes ago.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Barlow has moved the adjournment of the debate.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Under our rules the member has acted precisely correctly. The adjournment presumably would give an opportunity for the House to consider the motion, but since it is a reference of a matter that is very timely, if there are some remarks to be said on the matter, perhaps by unanimous consent it might be appropriate that they be said at this time and that the reference to the committee take place without further delay. We have no objection to that, although I would like to say something on the matter if there is unanimous consent to proceed.

Mr. Speaker: Is there unanimous consent? Agreed to.

Mr. Wildman: I will speak very briefly since I made some comments about this matter earlier. As the mover of the initial motion this morning in the public accounts committee, I think I spoke for all members of the committee-this was demonstrated in that my motion passed unanimously-when I indicated our outrage at the apparent attempt by legal counsel and individuals outside the assembly to influence the activities of a member of the House and of the committee and of the entire committee in carrying out its responsibilities.

The committee believes it is completely unacceptable for this type of intimidation or harassment to be attempted on any member of the Legislature. It believes this is not only an attempt to affect the member for Brantford in his work in this Legislature and its committees but also an attempt to influence the activities of all members of the committee in perhaps making it more difficult for members of the committee to ask legitimate questions about the operation of the convert-to-rent program, a matter that is quite legitimately before the committee.

I also believe, as a member of the public accounts committee, that by extension it is an attempt to harass and intimidate all members of the Legislative Assembly. I think all members of the House will agree that this is completely unacceptable.

I raise the question of the legality of attempting to serve a writ on a member of this House when the House is in session. It is my understanding that this is not acceptable and is not allowed. If possible, Mr. Speaker, I would like you to investigate and to inform the members of the House of your understanding of the rules with regard to whether a member of the House can be served a writ while the House is in session, or for that matter, 30 days prior to a session and 30 days subsequent to a session. I do not believe that can be done.

Whether or not it is legal, we still have to deal with the problem of a situation where individuals outside this House apparently have attempted to intimidate members of the House in their work and to influence the work of a committee of this Legislature. I moved the motion to refer this matter to the House and to recommend that it be referred to the Legislative Assembly committee to investigate and report back to the House as soon as possible. Subsequently, a motion was moved as well that the committee might consider the hiring of legal counsel to assist it in its work and the member who has been most directly affected by the attempt to serve this writ.

I should point out for members of the House who are not members of the committee that the motion is worded in such a way that the committee, if it goes to the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly, should only consider that. It does not in any way attempt to direct that committee to do that or not to do it, one way or the other.

Be that as it may, we view this as a very grave matter, something that we believe all members of the House should take direct interest in and something that should be dealt with by the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly as soon as possible.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The members of the government party certainly support the motion that has been put before the House in these rather unusual circumstances. It is not the first time an honourable member has been served with a writ while the House was in session or in the precincts of the House in those circumstances. The honourable members may be able to cast their minds back to similar circumstances wherein substantial objections were raised in the House and appropriate action was taken. Therefore, we firmly support the reference.

Without being critical in any way of the words as they are drawn here in this motion, I am sure all members would agree that in the recommendation that the committee consider the retention of counsel, and I believe the words are "to assist Mr. Gillies in defending himself against legal action arising from this matter," the matter referred to is the process of serving the writ and not the contents of the writ, should it ever be found to have been properly served or should it be served again in other circumstances, in which case other matters would prevail.

I just want to raise something, however, that is not directly appropriate in this case but that would affect us all. As honourable members, we are in no way immune from criminal action, of course; this is not what we are discussing here. On the other hand, as our sessions grow in length, particularly at the federal level, where the House seems to be in session almost all the time, when you have 20 days before and 20 days after, it is possible in the long run that our sessions would be such that all of us would be immune from the serving of writs entirely. This is not directly applicable to the case involved here, but in general it might be worth while for the committee, when it is taking time to review this specific thing, to give us the benefit of its advice on that more general matter.

Certainly we support the motion as we understand it.

Mr. O'Connor: I welcome this opportunity to provide some comment with respect to the motion before the House and to express my real concern about the activities that, as I understand them, were carried on this morning in a committee of this House, wherein a member of this Legislature was served, or someone attempted to serve him, with what was referred to in the motion as a writ but what I think is now more properly known as a statement of claim in a civil action.

We are elected to this Legislature and are sworn to undertake certain duties and responsibilities on behalf of our constituents and on behalf of the people of Ontario, one of which, particularly for those of us who are honoured to serve currently in Her Majesty's loyal opposition, is very definitely to act as guardians of the public purse, as watchdogs of the activities of the government of the day; to bring to public view its activities and its attempted expenditures and to expose them publicly for debate among the people of this province, among our electors.

That is a right, a duty and a responsibility that has been recognized and undertaken by private members of legislatures and parliaments under the British system for literally hundreds of years. It has been recognized over the centuries that members who are charged with that responsibility ought to be protected and ought to be free from any kind of undue influence, harassment or molestation in the course of carrying out those duties and responsibilities.

To give effect to that common law right which has been established for so long, this Legislature has seen fit to enact the Legislative Assembly Act, section 38 of which reads as follows:

1520

The relevant words of that section are "for any cause or matter whatever of a civil nature." Clearly and unequivocally, the issuance and the service or attempted service of a statement of claim fall within the wording of a "cause or matter or whatever of a civil nature." I do not think there is any other way, with the greatest of respect, Mr. Speaker, that you in your deliberations on the point of privilege raised by the member for Brantford can interpret that set of words.

Quite clearly, the persons or law firm that attempted to serve that documentation in the way it did during the sitting of a committee of this Legislature was in violation of section 38, and some steps pursuant to the point of privilege raised by the member ought to be pursued against it.

The writ of summons or the statement of claim itself purports to sue a number of people for libel. It quotes the alleged libel stated for general damages and for punitive damages. In legal actions and in the jurisprudence of this province, punitive damages can be awarded by the court when it is found that the action or activities of the defendants-provided they are found guilty of the libel, if it is also found that the libel was intentional and particularly malicious and that no remorse or regret whatsoever was expressed, then the court has the right to award what are known as punitive damages.

Mr. Speaker, I ask you to keep in mind the manner in which this process was attempted to be served on the member for Brantford and the timing of it. As was pointed out, there has been no communication whatsoever between the parties for three or four months. Then in the first hour of the committee meeting in which the issues that are of some interest to the plaintiffs in this action were to be heard, they took that opportunity in public view in this building and during the sitting of a committee of this House to launch their process.

If anything deserves punitive damages, that kind of activity does. It is flagrant abuse of section 38 of the act, which is a public statute of which they are deemed to have knowledge. If that kind of activity does not draw some kind of punitive action from you in your chair, Mr. Speaker, I do not know what more they could have done to warrant such action on your part. I ask you to investigate the meaning of section 38. As I have indicated, I feel that section has been violated, with intent to influence and subvert the proceedings of the committee. It is clear that was the intent because of the timing of the service of the documentation.

I want to take issue with one thing the honourable House leader for the government said in the course of his remarks with regard to the wording of the report provided upon which we are now debating. He indicated that the section dealing with the appointing or engaging of legal counsel to assist the member for Brantford in defending himself might be considered only with respect to the question of the service or attempted service of documentation on him during the committee. I do not read that portion of the report that way.

I suggest that what was meant by the committee at that time was, should the matter proceed-for instance, should the plaintiffs somehow remedy the difficulty they have under section 38 of the act by properly serving the member for Brantford at some later time, I read that section to mean that this House is being asked to provide legal counsel to the member at the cost of this House for the duration of that action. It reads, "...legal counsel to assist Mr. Gillies in defending himself against legal action arising from this matter." This matter is the alleged libel he is supposed to have uttered that is set out in the statement of claim.

I ask the members of this House to take this matter very seriously-it is one of considerable concern-and that it be returned to the committee to investigate all aspects of it.

Mr. Speaker, your obligation in the very near future is to consider the point of privilege raised by the member this afternoon, keeping in mind the very clear and direct words of section 38 and keeping in mind your rights and powers with regard to people who have breached the Legislative Assembly Act. That includes requiring the perpetrators of this act, if that is so to be found, to be brought before the bar of this House and dealt with, as has been the case in the past, for the contempt they have shown this Legislature by the actions they carried out this morning.

It is clear that in attempting to intimidate one of the members of this House, those plaintiffs and their counsel have attempted to intimidate all the members of this House who are the persons elected to represent all the people of this province. When one is engaged in a contempt of members of this House, and thus all the people of this province, it is an exceedingly serious matter that ought to be dealt with by Your Honour in a serious way, including the question of bringing contempt proceedings against the perpetrators of that act this morning.

Mr. McClellan: I will be very brief, because I know there are a number of colleagues who want to make some remarks.

I want to support the report of the committee and to add one thing. I have some personal sense of the concern the member is raising. It is ironic he is being sued for remarks that arose out of his criticism of the current convert-to-rent program.

I myself was sued by a member of the executive for criticisms I made of the predecessor of this program, the Ontario rental construction loan program. I was sued for $3.6 million. The intimidation is a very serious part of the concern. It is not just the matter of privilege and the serving of a civil suit and disruption of the committee proceedings; it is also the intimidation of libel and slander suits arising out of criticisms that members of the assembly make.

I hope it is something the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly will look at, because the intimidation takes the form of very substantial legal costs, in the order of $15,000 to $20,000, to defend against these types of suits. The intimidation is not trifling or trivial; it is extremely serious. Most of the members of this assembly would be hard pressed to raise $15,000 to $20,000 to defend against a libel or slander suit.

Leaving that aside, there is obviously a clear case that the members' privileges have been violated under section 38 of the Legislative Assembly Act. But more than that, it has been a matter of corridor gossip around the assembly for a number of days that Mr. Fleischmann intended to serve a summons at the meeting of the standing committee on public accounts. It has been a matter of knowledge to a number of members that this idea was being bruited about. On Monday of this week, one of my colleagues said he had heard that Mr. Fleischmann intended to serve a summons on the member for Brantford at the public accounts committee meeting.

1530

It is clear that not only was this an act of contempt in violation of the Legislative Assembly Act, but it was also a deliberate and premeditated act of contempt on the part of Mr. Fleischmann and his solicitors. It was not something that was done out of carelessness or lack of knowledge. It was done as a deliberate act of contempt against this assembly, that committee and the particular member of the assembly whose rights have been violated. It exceeds in seriousness other matters of privilege that have come to my attention during the time I have served in this House.

I have one final point. It is necessary to stress that, as I understand it, the reference in the report of the public accounts committee does not deal with the legal costs of any civil suit that the member for Brantford may have to incur. It does deal with and is intended to deal with any legal costs he would have to incur in dealing with the violation of privilege brought about by today's incident in the public accounts committee. It is important to make that distinction.

I go back to the first point I made and hope the committee will consider it when it gets the referral. One of the things we have to face up to is that it is now becoming a matter of practice to sue members of the assembly for criticisms they make. Ministers of the crown have taken it upon themselves to sue their critics, and deputy ministers have been known to sue their critics. My colleague the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) will speak a little bit more about that. In these cases, the intimidation amounts to many thousands of dollars in potential legal fees whether or not there are valid grounds for a civil suit. The intimidation comes simply by way of initiating the civil suit, and the legal costs flow from that action.

I hope this report will be unanimously adopted and that the committee will begin to deal with this very difficult matter.

Mr. Epp: I want to speak briefly in support of the reference made by the standing committee on public accounts to this chamber and, in turn, to the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly. As were other members of the committee. I was very surprised this morning when, shortly after 10 o'clock, the member for Brantford raised a point of order, at which time he indicated he had been served with a writ. At that time, he indicated it was for $1 million, but he subsequently indicated it was for $2.7 million. I was totally taken by surprise. I feel it is an affront to the member for Brantford, to all members of the committee and to all members of the Legislature.

The notice could have been served much earlier. I saw the first page of the document, and I think it read January 14, 1987. It could have been served at least seven days ago and maybe as early as eight days ago. I was not aware of the rumour that the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan) was aware of that the member for Brantford was going to be served. Nevertheless, it is my distinct opinion that he could have been served earlier had the person serving the writ wanted to do so.

The matter that has to be raised is that this is a civil suit. The member for Oakville (Mr. O'Connor) read from section 38 of our standing orders. Since this is a civil suit, I do not think we as a committee felt, and I do not think this Legislature feels-there may be members who disagree with me-that the Legislature is responsible for defending individual members when they have civil suits against them. It is only the part whereby his privileges as a member of the Legislature in being served this morning in room 151 have been abridged. That is where I believe some legal support should be extended to him.

Beyond that, I do not think this Legislature or the people of Ontario want in any way to associate themselves with paying legal fees for anyone and everyone who makes statements outside this precinct, for whatever reason that may be. We have to differentiate clearly between those two situations. As the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) indicated earlier, there have been previous occasions when members were served with writs and the Legislature did not pick up those tabs; neither should it on this occasion. We have to make that clear distinction.

As I have indicated, we feel very intimidated. It is a stupid move, to say the least, on behalf of a qualified lawyer of Ontario, and it is one that I am glad the House is going to act upon promptly.

Mr. McFadden: I want to deal with two matters, one a very limited point about the service of process and a second about the more general issues surrounding the action that has been launched by Mr. Fleischmann.

I find it incredible that a major law firm in Canada would be party to what we saw here in this building today. You could understand a process server showing up at a committee meeting of this House on the instruction of a novice lawyer who was perhaps ill informed or inexperienced; but for a major law firm in Canada, Stikeman, Elliott, with offices not only in Ontario but elsewhere, to be party to this outrage is incredible to me as a lawyer.

The fact is that every lawyer in Ontario is an officer of the court. For its process server to show up at a committee of this Legislature in flagrant violation of the Legislative Assembly Act is to do a disservice, in my view, to the legal profession. and certainly to do no good service to or bring no good reputation on that particular law firm. It is disturbing and shocking that an officer of the court of Ontario, or a law firm of which that lawyer is a partner or with which he is associated, could be any part of this kind of process.

Therefore, at the outset I would place on record, as a lawyer and as an officer of the courts of Ontario, my strong objection to the disrepute and contempt that this kind of action evidenced. I believe the law firm itself and the lawyer involved should provide to this House a public and clear apology for having been any part of this action. I hope as well that the committee will pursue my suggestion, or that you, Mr. Speaker, will pursue it.

It could be argued that the law firm involved was not aware the process server was even going to do what he did, but I would suggest that whoever that process server was, he was an agent of that law firm and was acting on instructions of that law firm, and that law firm was responsible for this outrage. As a consequence, they should appear at least before a committee of this Legislature and perhaps even before the bar of this House to apologize and provide same rational explanation for this outrage.

1540

With regard to the action itself and what it represents, there is no way this Legislative Assembly can condone what is very clearly an attempt at intimidation and there is no way this Legislative Assembly should cower by this kind of legal proceeding. I understand a letter was received by my colleague the member for Brantford from this law firm in relation to this matter some months ago. As a consequence, it is clear the launching of this action was not a spur-of-the-moment thing where a lawyer got together with a client, thought, "Boy, this might be a good idea; let us do it," and then rushed out a writ and got a process server up to the Legislature right away.

This was very clearly a premeditated action on the part of Mr. Fleischmann and his legal counsel. For what objective? It is interesting that the process would have been served on the opening day of hearings on a matter in relation to Mr. Fleischmann. As a result, it is very clear that the launch of this legal process was not aimed at securing damages or trying to clear up a reputation, because that process could have been served any day of the week, anywhere in Ontario. To reserve it for this morning in a committee meeting of this House is very clear and virtually irrefutable evidence that the launch of this action was meant to intimidate, not just the member for Brantford but, I suggest, other members of that committee in connection with their investigation of this entire matter.

This is not a partisan matter. I would feel this way if this kind of process were served on a member of the Liberal Party or of the New Democratic Party. All of us in this House, as elected representatives of the people, have to be prepared, ready and able to speak out on matters we feel are of public importance and to have matters investigated that we believe are of urgent attention or need investigation to protect the public interest.

We must not allow ourselves to cower or be intimidated or dissuaded by civil actions brought by individuals who, I suggest, are trying to throw the Legislature off its work and to discourage the Legislature from carrying out a very clearly needed investigation on a matter of urgent public interest. The way in which we handle this matter in committee and the way in which you, Mr. Speaker, choose to handle this matter will be important in the long run in terms of the effectiveness of this House in getting on with its business and in investigating matters of urgent public interest and concern.

I therefore urge the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly to get on with its investigation thoroughly. I urge the standing committee on public accounts to carry on with its investigation with effectiveness and force. Mr. Speaker, I urge you, through your offices, to investigate this matter thoroughly and to see that the privileges of this House, and through them the rights of the people of Ontario, are not being infringed upon or limited in any way.

Mr. Martel: Is it safe now, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: The member for Sudbury East has the floor.

Mr. Martel: On my desk in my office there is a little statue and on the bottom it says something like "sue the dastards." It is not quite that but it is close. I well recall receiving that little statue, because in 1971 I attempted to assist about 26 or 30 families in a little place called Wahnapitae. I went to bat on their behalf. Ultimately, we had house repairs made to their homes to the tune of $500,000.

In the process, however, the sheriff showed up at my home one night-we had broken for the Christmas recess-and the sheriff, whom I knew well, had a paper saying I was going to court, I was being sued. I was frightened. I had four young kids, and you will recall, Mr. Speaker, as you and I came in at roughly the same time, the salary in those days was $12,000, and I was being sued for a fantastic amount of money.

I could not get any help in those days. I am glad to see some of my colleagues in the Tory party somewhat more helpful today, but they were not very forthcoming then, and we had to take on this outfit. I was frightened; I admit that quite candidly, but if I had backed off, those folks, the 26 or 30 families, would not have seen $500,000 in repairs to the homes they had purchased.

It is not just today's incident that happened to my friend the member for Brantford that has bothered me. I recall about 15 months ago raising in this House a matter about a company called Allied Heat Treat Ltd. It involved the Minister of Labour. I got to my riding office on Friday morning, and the solicitor for Allied Heat Treat Ltd. was on the phone threatening me with a lawsuit.

Again, you do not back off, but you become somewhat concerned when you have a family, about how, when you are right, you are going to continue to do the job you are here to do, when some legal firm, some legal beagle, gets on the phone and thinks he is going to frighten the hell out of you so that you will not pursue the matters affecting people in your community.

On the final one, the irony of ironies is that I think the member we are talking about was then parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Labour. The Deputy Minister of Labour hired J. J. Robinette and one Mr. Sopinka, because I had blasted the assistant deputy minister of Labour over the Westinghouse matter. Part of it came out last week, it is interesting, in a report that even my friend the member for Brampton (Mr. Callahan) blasted as being totally anti-labour. That case is in there, and we have never got to the bottom of that matter.

Accustomed as I am to eating crow, I was forced to eat crow that day. The feathers still stick here in my craw. I was confronted with the same dilemma as my friend. You can either go out and find $15,000 or $20,000 or, as in our case, you can apologize. I must say I was a coward and I took the route of least resistance: I ate crow. I did not want to. I still figure I should have been vindicated.

What bothers me in these three instances is that when you do your job here and there are problems and risks, people feel they can intimidate you and force you to back off.

I remind members of this summer when we sat on the inquiry on the former Minister of Northern Development and Mines. This has never been resolved to my satisfaction either. We were sitting there one night waiting for the Premier (Mr. Peterson) to show up, and some joker jumped up and ran and served papers on the Premier at a meeting.

I could not believe what I was witnessing that night. First, there was the question of how this joker got in. I am told they actually practised what they were going to do and that some of the media knew about it. To me, that someone could rush up to the Premier in a committee of this Legislature and attempt to serve papers on him was probably one of the most disturbing things I have seen around here. Today's incident is no less serious.

1550

Somewhere along the line, we have to put an end to this nonsense. People think they can rush around and attempt to intimidate members. I am not saying that allows members to carry on willy-nilly and slander people and hurt their reputations, but I have not found that to be the case in many years in this place.

The actions today, I suppose, are because nothing happened to that bird last summer. Maybe if we had dealt with it in a more forceful and forthright manner last August, today's incident might not have occurred. I suspect that someone should have paid the price at that time for the way they charged at the Premier. I found it offensive then. I raised it immediately in committee.

To this day I am not satisfied with the outcome, because I felt it was totally unacceptable that someone should be in this building and could rush up to the Premier, jab papers at him and scream and yell at him, or do the same thing today to the member for Brantford. People have to realize they cannot do that. Unless we put a stop to it now, it is going to happen again.

We have to deal with it in a most forthright manner and put it to rest once and for all. Otherwise, we will continue to face the threat all of us are faced with that we cannot afford: (a) to hire a lawyer; (b) to have it dragged through the courts for two or three years, and that is what I am told it would take; and (c) to be intimidated into not doing what we are elected to do, which is to come here and do the business of the province. I am glad it is going to the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly-at least, I hope that is where it is going-so we can make recommendations, which this Legislature can adopt, that will put an end once and for all to those sorts of tactics, practised no less by people who are supposed to be trained in the law. I sometimes wonder whether they have the morals of an alley cat.

Mr. Davis: I too, along with my colleagues, am appalled at the action that occurred this morning in the standing committee on public accounts. One becomes much more deeply affected when one is informed about rumours that have been floating around for the past several days that such action by Mr. Fleischmann was going to occur, that he was going to serve notice on my colleague the member for Brantford.

When one looks at the whole issue, one begins to wonder what is indeed the rationale. It was today that the public accounts committee was discussing the Huang and Danczkay transaction, and if one looks at it, one can only make some assumptions. One has to ask whether this was the most appropriate time for the writ to be served. Were there more hidden messages within that kind of action? Was it simply an act of intimidation directed against the member for Brantford to try to prevent him from asking the questions that he thinks need to be answered in the best interests of the public of Ontario?

It was an attempt to intimidate the whole public accounts committee. It was an attempt to say, in an indirect way by serving that writ for $2.5 million, "Listen, this can happen to you too." It was an attempt to make us wary of carrying on the type of investigation that members are called upon to carry on as they try to bring out information that needs to be discussed on the floor of this Legislature. It was an attempt to create within us a sense of fear of what happens when we are served with a writ.

I have never been served with a writ, but I can assure members that my colleague, his executive assistant and the two reporters must have felt some tremendous sense of anxiety and helplessness, and were worried about what it means. "What are the implications down the road? If this transaction comes to fruition, what will happen? Where will I find those kinds of resources?" One begins to reflect upon that kind of thinking process, and it is not long before an individual member says: "I am not going to pursue this course of events. I am going to back off. I will make a public apology or I will just not become involved."

I was most happy this morning to see members from all parties support the resolution that asked you, Mr. Speaker, to investigate the matter and to send off this issue to the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly for investigation and report. I am confident we will also find that kind of support when you make your resolution and send it to the committee; and if it is called for, there will be that kind of support for legal counsel for my colleague the member for Brantford.

I echo the remarks my colleague made this afternoon in the House. There is no individual and no organization big enough in this province, no legal firm, no threat and no act of intimidation that can stop a member of this Legislature from performing his duties properly to ensure that the public interest is protected and that the government enacts good legislation and carries on its practice in accordance with the thrust and honesty expected by the public who elected it.

We must retain our freedom to speak out. That is an issue and a freedom that can never be taken away from members of this Legislature. It is a matter that is imperative to the public of Ontario. I concur with my colleague in the third party who just spoke when he says it is time we put an end to this kind of action. It is not enough just to investigate this matter and make a resolution. We should enact the kind of legislation that is required so that never again can a member of this House stand up and say, as the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) did: "This is how I felt. This is what it means to me." The Legislative Assembly must protect its members.

I have been in this House for about a year and a half, and I do not think the members abuse their rights; they do not deliberately go out of their way to attack individuals, firms or companies so that it affects their ability to carry on business in our society. I do not think that is our intention at all. Our intention is to get to the bottom of issues that have been brought to our attention by our constituents who believe an injustice has occurred. In the sense of duty to which we have been elected, we bring that to the floor for public debate, investigation and resolution.

Such action as occurred this morning in the public accounts committee cannot be condoned by this assembly. We cannot allow it to occur again. The members of the Legislature must vocally repudiate this type of action by both the law firm and the individual who, it seems, deliberately and calculatingly planned this action. I urge you, Mr. Speaker, to move as quickly as possible to arrive at your decision and to expedite the work of the Legislative Assembly committee so it can bring this to a resolution.

1600

Mrs. Marland: This is a very grave day in the history of the Ontario Legislature. My colleagues who have spoken this afternoon have stated very eloquently what each one of us feels as an elected member of this Legislature.

I see the actions of this firm and of this individual, through his lawyer this morning at the standing committee on public accounts, as an affront to the members of this Legislature. They are an affront not only to the members of this Legislature but also to the whole parliamentary system. It is almost unbelievable to sit here and recognize what it is we are discussing this afternoon on January 22, 1987. It is unbelievable. It is almost as though it were a grade B movie. It is almost as though we are looking at something that is perhaps even quite adequately described as a mafioso tactic.

How impossible it would be for us to fulfil our responsibilities to our constituents and to the residents of the province as a whole if we were to spend all our time looking over our shoulders, shaking in our boots, scanning the telephone calls and the correspondence, wondering when and which one would be the next to threaten us, and in a very real sense, to the degree of issuing a writ.

For me personally, my closest involvement with a similar situation to this was when Hazel McCallion, the mayor of Mississauga, was served with a similar writ. The subtlety of the service of that writ to that woman took place at a Christmas reception, with the same lack of taste, I suggest. When we look at someone of the stature of Mayor Hazel McCallion in Mississauga, anyone in the political arena in Ontario for the past 20 years well recognizes the commitment of that individual to the people she serves.

In her case, it was not a mere $15,000 to $20,000 that had to be spent to defend her right to represent the people whom she was elected to serve. Her legal fees to proclaim her innocence in court and finally to confirm her innocence of the charge amounted to in excess of $40,000. Incidentally, her particular charge was one of conflict of interest. It is perfectly true that those of us who are part of this parliamentary system should never be subjected to being silent because we are at risk of having to invest $40,000 to prove our innocence.

The tragedy is that once the writ has been issued, once the threat has been made, we are then thrown headlong with no choice but to defend ourselves. It is the horrible example where even the suggestion that any individual is guilty of any crime or misdemeanour whatsoever is always under doubt, under some shroud of suspicion, unless he is ultimately proven innocent, and in order to be proven innocent, one has to go to the very real and tremendous expense of defence.

Each one of us in the Legislature is elected to exercise a personal, critical judgement. How wonderful it is for those of us who live in the freedom of a country like Canada and, through our hard work and commitment, who are given the honour to work for and to serve the people of this great province. How wonderful it is that as part of that democracy we are also given freedom of speech; and how vile, how shocking and how degrading it is to think that an individual would feel he had the power to make a mockery of that whole system and the power to silence any one member and to deprive the member of the right to freedom of speech within our glorious democracy.

No one of us, as an elected representative in this Legislature, would ever intentionally be slanderous or malicious in any way whatsoever. Why would we want to put at risk our own credibility? Why would we want to use those kinds of tactics and put at risk our ability to do our job and to fulfil our responsibilities?

I have had the privilege of being in this House for only 19 months now, but I say with great pride that in those 19 months I have not heard any member of this Legislature, in any of the three parties that serve as part of the Ontario legislative system, say anything that could be described as malicious or intentionally slanderous.

Indeed, Mr. Speaker, in your important role within this House, you have a very grave responsibility to ensure that nothing we say as members to one another can be registered as falling within the category of slandering or discrediting another member. Therefore, it would follow that we would not have anything to gain by trying to discredit or slander someone outside the membership of this Legislature.

As I hear what took place this morning with the issuance of this writ against the member for Brantford, I share a very real empathy with and concern for him as a colleague and a friend. I know every other member of this Legislature shares these feelings and extends to this member the same support and sympathy that I have.

The public accounts committee acted extremely wisely in the motion that was passed, and I hope the due process of this House will deal with that motion expeditiously and with all due support and cause to which it may address itself.

1610

Mr. Gillies: At the outset, I want to express not only my appreciation to the members who have spoken supportively in the debate this afternoon-and I want to indicate my appreciation for that to all members who have spoken-but also my thanks to members who have made comments or stopped me in the hallways in the past couple of hours or given me notes of encouragement and support. I appreciate it very much, not only for myself but also as a member of the assembly.

I guess some of us are reflecting that what I have been through today and will go through for a while yet, I imagine, can happen to any of us. What we are talking about is not so much an attack on an individual member as an affront to the process and the way we conduct our business in this assembly. I am glad a number of members have raised that in their remarks. It puts some focus on it and perhaps accounts for part of the interest in speaking on this debate. I am not sure my fortunes would necessarily be worth an hour of the Legislature's time if they did not represent something much greater.

I might say parenthetically that when my friend-and I do mean friend-the House leader of the New Democratic Party said in his remarks that the rumour had been going around since Monday that I was going to be served with this writ this morning in the public accounts committee meeting, I wished he had told me that rumour. It has to be the first one in six years that I did not hear, because I went into committee this morning completely oblivious of the fact there was going to be any further action on the letter I had received in the fall. I was taken very much by surprise and was somewhat shocked when the action took place in committee at the time it did.

A number of things bother me about this. I like to think I am not a member who whines when somebody takes a swipe at me. As my friend the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) is often wont to remind me, and I him on occasion, it is a rough business we are in. If one is going to dish it out, occasionally one has to be prepared to take it. I have no problem with that. As we go about our business as members of this assembly, we all recognize that. One has good days and bad days.

But the kind of intimidation that I believe was demonstrated by Mr. Fleischmann's actions, or those of his representatives, this morning I take very seriously because, as I indicated in my point of privilege earlier today, what happened this morning in committee is not isolated. I ask members to consider it in terms of what became a most unfortunate pattern of intimidation.

Members will recall that I raised the question of the $3.5-million loan to Huang and Danczkay for its project at 300 Queen's Quay West in late October during the fall session. My friend the Minister of Housing (Mr. Curling) and I had a number of back-and-forth question-and-answer sessions on that substantive question. At the time I raised that matter, I felt it to be a legitimate part of the questioning, and I continue to feel it to be a legitimate issue to question the role of Ivan Fleischmann in terms of the award of that loan.

Members will recall that the public accounts committee sat for many weeks through the summer of 1986 investigating the alleged conflict of interest against the former Chairman of Management Board of Cabinet, who is the member for Oriole (Ms. Caplan), and Mr. Fleischmann's involvement at that time in that matter came very much to light in the committee.

Members will recall the reports coming out of our committee that this gentleman had received a fee of $30,000, apparently for having lunch with an assistant deputy minister of Industry, Trade and Technology and that this gentleman had made a number of representations to the government at that time. It also came out as part of those committee proceedings that Mr. Fleischmann was also involved, simultaneously with this, in fund-raising activities on behalf of the member for Oriole.

While we could disagree, and we did disagree, in the House and in committee about the propriety of that, I do not speak ex cathreda. I am giving my opinion of that activity. Other members have their opinions, but I am sure they will agree that the point is that it was considered at the time to be a legitimate issue. Mr. Fleischmann's involvement in that matter was a legitimate issue that I believed had to be brought to public attention. When we saw the involvement by the same gentleman in the particular convert-to-rent project, I again believed, then and now, that it was a legitimate question to be brought to the attention of the members of the House.

I have reviewed the comments I made at the time with regard to that involvement and I can tell the members of the assembly that there is nothing I said in October and November in raising that issue, nothing I said at that time about this particular gentleman, that I would not stand behind now. Further, I would like the House to know that anything I say in this assembly I am always prepared to say outside in the hallway. I do not believe that our immunity in terms of what we say in the Legislature and in committee is something we should wrap ourselves in. If I say something in here, I believe I should stand behind it in the public forum.

The timing has been mentioned by a number of members and I believe it to be a serious and troubling question. Mr. Fleischmann's lawyers wrote me a letter at the beginning of November at the very time the opposition parties were indicating they wished this matter of the Huang and Danczkay proposal under convert-to-rent to be investigated by the public accounts committee. I heard not one more word from the law firm of Stikeman, Elliott or from Mr. Fleischmann himself from the day I received that letter until this morning when the writ was served me in the public accounts committee.

It is quite a remarkable coincidence, if it is a coincidence, that at the very time our committee was about to commence the investigation into the matter at hand, the matter in which Mr. Fleischmann's activity was being questioned, was the very morning and the very forum in which the papers were presented to me. I raise that issue as it could be interpreted as a pattern of intimidation and as an attempt to dissuade perhaps just me but perhaps the entire public accounts committee from pursuing a vigorous investigation of this matter.

I also want to say a few words on behalf of the others named in the writ. Obviously, I am very appreciative of the comments made in support of me here in House, but frankly, I am more concerned that the writ-

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the member but we are discussing the committee report that deals with the serving of the writ. I do not know whether the members wish to go into the content of the writ. I suggest we are discussing the manner in which and where it was served.

Mr. Gillies: You are quite right, Mr. Speaker. I will tie back to that and try to be expeditious in doing so. I just wanted to mention to the House my concern that it was not only myself named in the writ served this morning in the public accounts committee, but also my executive assistant, several members of the press gallery and a Toronto newspaper. I see this as being very serious to the assembly. I may have some protection, if the Speaker so rules, under section 38 of the Legislative Assembly Act in terms of being served during a sitting of the House, and we will eagerly await your judgement on that matter. However, the other people named would not have that protection. On behalf of all of us who have assistants helping us prepare for the work we undertake in the House, I have to express that concern.

I will leave it at that. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to offer as expediently as you can your ruling on the point of privilege I raised before question period. At the time, I raised it as a matter of privilege, but we now are debating the committee's report arising out of what happened in public accounts. I will be most eager, at the earlier opportunity, to hear your ruling on whether my privileges have been breached and on what basis you will be making that ruling. I am confident in raising the matter earlier, sir, that in fact my privileges were breached, but I await your ruling in that matter.

1620

It is a most unfortunate incident. The only thing I would say is that anyone who would attempt to sue me for $2.7 million clearly does not know the kind of money we make around here. None the less, it is a matter I take very seriously. I will be retaining legal counsel to advise me in this regard. For all the very supportive words spoken in this debate by members in all three caucuses, I wish to offer once again my sincere thanks.

Mr. Gordon: Let us make no mistake about it: This writ being issued to the member for Brantford is intimidation pure and simple of a member of this Legislature, elected by the people of Ontario to represent them and to speak for them. For one reason or another, many of our citizens today do not feel that they can speak out. They may not feel that they can speak out because of the position they hold, be it in a business, the government or some institution. There are people today who are afraid to speak out because of the general tenor of a group they may belong to. There are all kinds of reasons people do not speak out. People do not speak out sometimes because they are afraid they will lose their job.

The people of Ontario, the people who elect municipal councillors, mayors and members of Parliament look to those members to speak up for them. They look to us to speak up for them in a dedicated, earnest, determined and fearless manner. To say that we never experience any fear when we speak out at times would be false. We are all human and we all have our trepidations. I am sure the member for Brantford, who has been exceptionally diligent in this House, who has tended not only to his constituency but also to the issues that concern the people of this province, I am sure even he at times has felt that cold hand on his heart, that cold hand that comes when it is suggested that somebody might sue one for standing up for the people of Ontario.

Did he back down? He did not. He diligently came into this House. He got up and asked the questions that needed to be asked, and now he has been served with a writ.

Do members know the first advice he is going to receive when he leaves this Legislature, when he leaves this great room where we have so many members sitting around speaking positively at this time and trying to encourage the member for Brantford to be fearless, to carry on for the people of Ontario? The first thing his lawyer is going to tell him is, "Do not say too much because anything can happen." He has also been told quite clearly by the government House leader-he said it, I listened to him-"Member for Brantford, do not expect us to pick up your legal bills." If that does not send a bit of fear into someone's heart, I do not know what would. If there is one thing that sends fear into anyone's heart, be he a family man or an individual, unmarried person, it is court costs and legal costs.

We say today that the only people who can count on getting true justice through the legal system are either those people who can count on legal aid or the very wealthy. But for the broad middle class today-and it is not myself who is saying this-the legal profession, the Law Society of Upper Canada, has made it clear in some of its pronouncements that it is very worried about justice in this province because the average man cannot afford the costs. What about the member for Brantford? Can he afford the costs?

What is even more alarming is the fact that we have been told that the people who assist a member of the provincial parliament to represent the people of Ontario in a fearless, determined, honest, sincere fashion, to take care of their best interests, have no protection. If this House makes a ruling that does not stand by the member for Brantford at this time, I think many of us are going to lose our assistants.

It might be asked what an MPP needs an assistant for. It so happens we need these people because of the multitude of issues and the multitude of responsibilities we have as members. These people have to feel, if they give us advice or do research for us, they are not going to find they are stuck with a legal bill for $10,000, $20,000, $30,000 or $40,000; nor should the member for Brantford have to worry about whether he is going to lose his house or anything else because of the legal bills he is going to incur. As a former mayor of the city of Sudbury, if it were not for the regional council in the municipality of Sudbury, I too would have been stuck with legal bills. I too was sued by a developer and had to hire a lawyer and go through an examination for discovery. If anyone thinks an examination for discovery is a joke, you get in a little room with two lawyers-one being yours and one being the lawyer of the person who is suing you-or they may have two or three on the other side of the table. They start going through every word you have said trying to get you to say things you did not say. Anyone who thinks that is a happy circumstance has another think coming.

This foul writ that was served on the member for Brantford today sends a stench through this House that we can well do without. I say to the legal firm that took that action, "You are trying to undermine the very democracy, the very people who have been elected, who have been given a certain power by the people of Ontario to serve them and to serve them well." The fact that we have some power here is only because of the fact that people elect us democratically. When they give us that power, they expect us to exercise it in a judicious fashion.

There are some people who might say, "If you people have that power and you do not have to worry about being sued, you are going to become completely irresponsible." However, there are many checks and balances in this House and many checks and balances outside this House.

First, there is the balance of our fellow members sitting in this House here today. We all want to be seen to be people of good reputation by our fellow members; we want each other's respect. No man or woman wants to be looked down upon by the colleagues with whom they work in committee and in this House year in and year out.

Second, there is the press. The press will take care of those members who abuse their powers and rights as given by the electorate of this province. They will see to that.

Third, our own constituents are fair-minded people. They do not want a member who will drag them down or who will represent them in a manner that brings disgrace on the riding or the community that member represents. I say to the House today that what happened to the member for Brantford, this odious writ that was served, is a writ not only against him but also against the people who serve in this House.

1630

If we cannot serve our people in a fearless manner, then who will speak for them? Who will speak for the dispossessed and the downtrodden? Who will speak for those who fear to bring up an issue but who would go to their member? We must not allow this writ to strike the kind of fear that lays a cold hand on the heart of the member for Brantford. That is what it is.

After today's debate and after the ruling that will come from the Speaker in this chamber, I hope that member will leave with the confidence and the spring in his step that will say he knows that he can continue to speak out for his riding and the people of Ontario and that he can continue to speak out from his heart using the prudence he has shown today.

Mr. Speaker: Do any other members wish to participate in the debate? If not, I should inform the members that instead of just putting the question, "Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?" I hope all members appreciate what they are voting on.

When a committee report comes to the House, it is the usual procedure that the chairman of the committee makes a brief statement and then a motion for the adjournment of the debate takes place. At the appropriate time today, when that report was presented by the chairman, I actually placed that motion, and at that time the government House leader asked for unanimous consent to proceed to deal with the report. That unanimous consent was given.

There has been considerable discussion on the report. I listened very carefully to the comments and noted that many members expected a response from the Speaker on this matter. I have to inform the members that the member for Brantford raised a point of privilege earlier in the day, and at that time the usual procedure was not followed. As I recall the proceedings, the member informed the House that the committee would come before the House with a committee report.

If a point of privilege is raised at any time, it is up to the Speaker to decide, if requested, whether it is a prima facie case of privilege. If so, any member at that time has the right to place a motion to a committee to make a decision as a recommendation to the House. It is not up to the Speaker to make the decision.

As I understand it, the report that you are going to vote on now does make that decision. I hope you are all aware of the content of the motion. It is what was in the report given by the chairman of the public accounts committee. If that is clearly understood, I will now put the question.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Gillies: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: This morning, when the motion was put before the public accounts committee, it was broken into two parts. I abstained from the vote on the latter with regard to legal counsel because I believed that it could be construed as a matter that would benefit me. With that in mind, I wonder whether the record could show that similarly here in the chamber, I did not voice a vote in favour of the motion because I believe that could be construed as a conflict.

Mr. Speaker: I think that is in order. It is certainly on the record now.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

Mr. Breaugh from the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly reported the following resolution:

That supply in the following supplementary amount and to defray the expenses of the office of the chief election officer be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1987:

Office of the chief election officer program, $22,900.

RECORD OF DEBATES

Mr. Breaugh: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: A document has been distributed in the chamber this afternoon, and I will send you a copy of it. It appears to be a Hansard Official Report of Debates, and in reading through it, I have some reason to believe it is not that document at all, but rather excerpts or an edited version of it.

I am going to send you a copy of this and ask you to take this matter under consideration. I am not quite sure what the violation would be, but I do believe we treasure somewhat the official transcript of the proceedings here and I am not sure we are prepared to be quite so free with letting-I am not sure whether it is a copyright or what it might be.

However, there is this document, which has been circulated in the House this afternoon and may well have been used outside, which purports to be an Official Report of Debates. It is, in my view at least, not that. I ask you to take that matter under consideration. I do not think we need a ruling on it today, but there is a point that should be recognized there.

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the point of order raised by my colleague, it appears, to me at least, that the problem is related to the cover of this document and the way it is bound, which makes it look as if it is a full and complete issue of Hansard. In many cases members may circulate portions of Hansard, but in most cases those are Xerox copies and it is obvious, or it should be made obvious by the member, that it is an edited version or portions of Hansard. In this case, it is done in such a way that it makes it look as if it is a full copy when, in fact, it is not.

Mr. Speaker: I will certainly take a look at it, as I have already. I thank the member for a copy. We are very slow in printing, are we not? This is dated November 15, 1984.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

House in committee of supply.

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF HOUSING (CONTINUED)

On vote 1904, community housing program: item 1, program administration:

Mr. Chairman: When we adjourned the other day, we were in the midst of vote 1904. I believe questions and comments were taking place. Who would like to lead off on that?

Mr. Gordon: The last time we met we were talking about community housing. A number of our members would have been here earlier, but with the debate that has just taken place, they had matters they had to take care of in their constituencies and they asked me to ask the minister whether he would agree to have the final vote on community housing on Monday. This would allow them to discuss a few points with the minister on that matter, the idea being that we would finish our estimates on Monday.

Hon. Mr. Curling: I had hoped the honourable members who had indicated a great interest in this would be here. It is unfortunate, knowing full well that it could have been debated or that questions could have been asked, that they are not here. Being the kind of free individual I am and being so accommodating, I will agree very hesitantly, but I will agree, that we end our estimates on Monday.

1640

Mr. Gordon: I thank the minister. I think that is very admirable. We will see that these members are here on Monday to discuss with the minister the matters about which they are concerned. The member for Mississauga South (Mrs. Marland) wishes to raise a number of points at this time.

Hon. Mr. Curling: To be optimistic, if we exhaust vote 1904 with the members here, we might move to vote 1905. Those members who want to ask questions and give comments can do so on Monday.

Mr. Chairman: Do you, therefore, wish to stand down when you are through with your questions today on vote 1904? Do you wish to defer the vote on that and go to vote 1905 and carry both votes at the end?

Mr. Gordon: I think that is exactly what the minister has just suggested. It is a good compromise.

Mrs. Marland: I do not have vote 1904 in front of me. My questions on behalf of the constituents I represent in Mississauga South are on three different areas. Perhaps they do come within vote 1904. I know the minister is aware of the problems of available housing for many sectors of the community within my constituency. In the past, he has expressed that there has been an ongoing problem in the provision of housing for many sectors of the community for a long time. In some of his responses, he has suggested that the problem predates his domain in this ministry.

I want to ask the minister what, after 18 months, he feels I can give as answers to those people in Mississauga South who today have an even greater need for housing than existed 18 months ago. In particular, I am concerned about young couples who, because of the lack of availability of rental housing, are not able to seek that as an alternative to coming together with the purchase of their first home.

Can the minister tell me what he feels his ministry has done to help these young people who are trying to achieve the purchase of their first house or to be able to access affordable rental housing?

Hon. Mr. Curling: It is very unfortunate that the honourable member was not here at the inception. I thought I had articulated, and some of her colleagues even said how eloquently we had expressed, our assured housing policy and the program we had done. She mentioned that some of the problems, some of the issues addressing housing, predate or are outside of my mandate. I do not hesitate at all in chasing and finding the cause of the problem, the cause of this lack of affordable rental housing, regardless of whether it lies within the ministries of Health, Community and Social Services or wherever. That is what I understood the first part of her question to be.

We can sit around and talk about blame all the time and not do anything. Having said that, I am sure the member is quite familiar with our assured housing policy and the very aggressive way in which I and my staff went about putting together a housing policy and an ambitious program of 6,700 social housing units in the next five years and an ambitious budget of half a billion dollars to do that. We are proud of that program and of 18 months of accomplishment in that respect.

The member asked what we are doing about new home buyers who cannot afford $250,000 homes as starter homes. That is the kind of price being paid for three- and four-bedroom homes, and they cannot afford that. What are we doing about the low-income people who want ownership? I thought I heard that question from the member. If not, I will still address it, so she will not ask it the next time she gets up.

The activity in that ownership market has been very great. When we spoke to builders, they said we should not stimulate that market any more because they are quite busy building at that level. That does not address those who want to own homes in the region of $50,000 to $60,000; however, we feel we should be very aggressive in bringing affordable rental units on the market.

In my opening remarks I explained in detail what we have done. I could send the member the Hansard containing those comments. It might answer any questions that may provoke her into getting up again.

Mrs. Marland: The minister was addressing his comments to rental supply units, and my question was geared to the first purchase of a home by a young couple. With respect to the minister, I would not be addressing the question to a $250,000 home but rather to a home valued at an amount accessible to a young couple within an available mortgage payment.

Although the minister has addressed his program of 6,700 social housing units in the next five years, I want to know how that has changed anything in the past 18 months and how he can tell the people who have the concern I have just expressed what has happened that is different from what existed 18 months ago for young couples in Mississauga South who at this time can never see themselves accessing or having the pleasure of ownership of their first home.

Hon. Mr. Curling: Just so the member does not misunderstand what I am saying, I attempted to address the question of starter homes. I used the term "starter homes," to mean ownership units. In one of our programs, the ministry is offering unconditional grants of about $2,500 for each unit produced and sold. We are asking the municipalities to get involved in this and to assist us to get those starter homes, demonstration projects, in place.

Right now, I cannot assess how successful that has been during the past 18 months. I am giving the municipalities their opportunity to respond. They are quite busy giving out building permits in other areas, and I gather they are backed up with building permits. We hoped they could respond to our starter homes, so people who cannot afford very expensive homes-when I used the figure $250,000 for a home, I was saying that the people the member was speaking about were not able to afford that. We are speaking about someone who would like to buy a home for $80,000 or $90,000 and would not require an extravagant amount for a mortgage, so we had a demonstration program on starter homes.

1650

The member asked what we had seen in 18 months. In 1985, the number of social-housing rental units placed on the market, prior to my coming in, was little more than 6,000. As of today, I have committed 16,000 units. If the member looks at that 18 months, those 16,000 units are a tremendous increase over and above the 6,000. These things take time. When questions are asked in the House, the critic many times asks me, "Where are they?" He has not seen skyscrapers going up. We do not build instant houses. We do not pour water on them and they come up immediately overnight. It takes time. It takes about 18 months or so for the erection of such buildings.

The member, who was an elected municipal politician at one stage of her career, knows the process to get a program in place, to get federal funding and to make the arrangements and changes that go on. We got a tremendous amount of co-operation from the federal government in the initial stage, and then, sad to say, it dragged its feet a little and slowed down the process. We were ready and geared up, mainly because of our very efficient staff. When we cranked up the system, they were ready to go. The problem was that the response by the federal government did not come in. Perhaps it did not anticipate our coming in so fast and its having to respond so quickly.

Previously, we in the province looked only at delivering the municipal nonprofit units. The federal government's offer was that we should deliver the private nonprofit and co-op units. The federal government offered its staff to assist us, realizing that acquiring responsibility for the private nonprofit and co-op units was a great increase in producing social housing over and above what we were used to. We were all geared up with a staff that was excited to proceed in that way.

With that in place, we committed 16,000 units. Comparatively speaking, during the past 18 months, that is quite an achievement since one has to go through all those processes. I did not detail dealing with the process, but 16,000 units are quite an achievement for 18 months.

Mrs. Marland: It is unfortunate that the minister is answering my question about the first-home buyer with figures for rental units. When he talks about 16,000 units being committed, I am sure he is talking about rental units. What is the ministry doing to assist the first-home buyer? He mentioned that he has $2,500, which is for a starter-home demonstration project dependent on the municipalities.

I am a representative of the municipality that has the fastest rate of growth not only in Ontario but also in Canada. We had $1 billion worth of building permits issued in Mississauga in 1986, an incredible record. My municipality is growing. We are processing the building permits. There are no problems with that in Mississauga but there is a problem with the need to help the first-home buyer. That was the thrust of my question on behalf of many, not necessarily just young couples; young couples certainly, but also people who may have lived for a long time in rental housing, rental apartments or rental homes and who wish to achieve the joy and the very major step in their lives of owning their first home. I did not hear that in the answer the minister has given.

Perhaps it would be easier for the minister if I were to go to another subject. We have talked about the need for the supply of rental units to be increased. He has thrown out some figures but I do not know his precise answer on the provision of rent-geared-to-income accommodation for a sector of our community, not only in Mississauga South but throughout Ontario as well. The need is very real.

When the minister became the Minister of Housing he was very critical of the lack of provision of housing in all these areas. Now I hear him say, "You cannot do things overnight." I think he used a rather eloquent description. He said: "It is not like planting seeds and watering them. They do not pop up overnight." Indeed, they do not, but I would like to say that a tremendous number of homes have been built in Mississauga in the past 18 months. I do not know the provision the Liberal government has made in that time to make ownership accessible to the people who need that kind of accommodation.

Another area about which I have a very real concern, and which I mentioned previously, is the need for shelters for battered women and children, abused women and children, young families who live with a very real threat of violence on a minute-by-minute, hour-by-hour basis in their existing homes. These families, again not necessarily young people, need to have shelters to escape to.

In the past few months an additional shelter has been approved for the regional municipality of Peel, but I would like to emphasize that the region of Peel has a population of very close to 600,000 people. With a population of 600,000 people we have one shelter for abused families. That shelter is Interim Place in Mississauga South. The region of Peel stretches all the way up through the north part of the city of Mississauga, through the city of Brampton and through the town of Caledon. We are talking about 500 square miles in the region of Peel. We are talking about one shelter and now, I hope, about a second one.

The existing shelter has only 18 beds. The problem with Interim Place is that those 18 beds are taken by abused young families who have had to escape the threat, indeed the reality, of violence in their homes, but they in turn are not able to exit from Interim Place because there are no affordable rental units for them to move into. Instead of staying there for a short time, they end up staying far too long. Other families that need to escape to a shelter such as Interim Place do not have the opportunity to get in because the people who are in cannot get out.

Another ministry has allotted funds for counselling these victims of violence within the domestic family arena. Although I recognize the need for counselling in these families, the immediate need is not for counselling: it is for the provision of shelter. What is the ministers immediate commitment to the provision of those shelters, not only in the region of Peel but in the province as a whole? What does he see as a priority. and what, in actual dollars, has he been willing to allocate for the provision of those shelters?

Hon. Mr. Curling: The member raises a very good point. She will be aware that battered women were not taken into Ontario Housing Corp. projects before and were not assessed by the point system until recently, when I changed the policy to accommodate them. The member rightly stated that women in emergency shelters have to stay longer because there is no place to go. The change in our policy at the Ontario Housing Corp., to accept battered women, has another psychological support and I will explain that.

Women are placed in an awful situation, knowing that the men who were beating them know they have no other place to go. Having no other place to go, they have actually been trapped within that environment. Even just the declaration that we will accept battered women in our projects will make them think a second time, knowing there is an alternative and a recourse for women and their children.

As the member rightly raised, we were looking at the emergency shelters or facilities that were offered and women were staying much longer than expected because they could not find alternative accommodation. Having taken that first step to accommodate them in Ontario Housing projects, for the 3,000 units announced for hard-to-house individuals in the province, we are looking at any private nonprofit, co-op or even municipal nonprofit projects that would like to come forward to build those projects for battered women. I have not yet committed or approved any of those 3,000 units, but it is near. Within a couple of weeks or a month, I think some approvals will be made and consideration given to battered women.

Mr. Philip: The matter that was raised is welcome. It is something we have been fighting for for a long time, but the problem with the definition is that battering is considered only as physical. This is something on which I have had an extensive conversation with David Greenspan. There is something equally cruel that may not have the physical marks and that may not have the doctors at Etobicoke General Hospital taking pictures and showing bruises. There is such a thing as psychological battering that can be equally cruel. This is a factor that should be considered, particularly when it comes to the transfer of a wife and her children to OHC units when it is fairly clear to social workers, clergymen and other responsible people in the community that the marriage has broken down and the person is suffering such mental cruelty from the spouse that she may end up in need of psychiatric treatment at some point. There are cases of people having been driven to the point of suicide through psychological battering by a spouse.

Will the minister look at that definition of battering? Just as he requires some documentation on physical battering, it is possible to obtain documentation on psychological battering, which can be as abusive and can result in death in the same way as physical battering can.

Hon. Mr. Curling: The point the member raises is very important. I do not think the policy we have in place is a perfect policy, but it is a start in the right direction. It was a long time in coming. This should have been in place for a long time.

I do not want to say whether physical or psychological battering is worse. Both are very severe to the individual. The member is right that we have to look at it and see how we will assess those situations. The member also knows that it will be quite a difficult task. However, it is a human condition and as legislators, we cannot shun it. As a minister, I cannot shun it. It is a real thing and we will address it. I will take up this matter with the chairman to see that we institute that situation and that people are not left out because they are psychologically battered.

Mrs. Marland: The minister has not yet answered my questions, particularly the last one. I will go over it again for him and try to make it a little clearer.

He said he was addressing the problem I identified of the shortage of space in shelters for victims of family violence by making those women and children eligible for Ontario Housing units by opening up access. I think that was his answer. That might be a solution if it did not just result in adding to the lists and lists of names. It is only a function. It adds to the already pre-existing, tremendously long list. I respectfully suggest it is not a solution in the short term. I do not even know what he would consider as a solution in the long term.

The minister talked earlier about the number of units he has planned during the next five years. I suggest that, tragically, many of these families may not survive a five-year wait to escape situations they are in on a daily basis. My question to the minister was, what is the immediate commitment in 1987 to the region of Peel in terms of an additional shelter or additional shelters for families that are in a situation of domestic violence today?

Hon. Mr. Curling: I will try this again for the member. She asked two basic questions. She asked about supply. There is an inadequate supply. Just saying that we will accommodate there are long waiting lists of those who need affordable housing. The other question was about who qualifies. Just saying they are qualified to go into these projects has not done anything. It has not solved the problem.

I do not need to go into battering through neglect; that is a different battering. The previous government created a terrible situation with this backlog. We have had 18 months. The member asks me, "Have we solved this problem in 18 months?" I say: "No, we have not solved the problem." This has taken years of abuse, neglect or whatever term she wants to use of the supply of affordable rental units.

1710

The previous government also neglected to look at the situation of battered women for years, so they were subjected to that for years. I do not want to get into this type of debate. All I want to say to the member is that we have done a tremendous amount. We have increased the supply tremendously for those who cannot afford rental accommodation.

We also went further in looking at a situation where they did not qualify to enter a project under the previous government to enter into a project and made the qualification. We went still further; we directed a special 3,000 units to the hard-to-house, including battered women.

The member asks, what am I doing; what have we done? These are not gestures, these are hard action-not promises, not political promises or anything, but action addressing a horrible neglect in the past.

Mrs. Marland: I did not ask the minister whether he has solved the problem; I asked him what he was doing. I recognize, as does every member of this Legislature, that any problem in any subject area for which we are responsible can never be solved overnight, because problems are always ongoing. I am simply asking him, apart from the paper technicality he just described-these women and children, who at one time were not eligible for these other units, are eligible now that he has opened up the lists; that is marvellous-what has that done for these individuals?

He said he has allocated 3,000 units for the hard-to-house. I would like to ask him where. I have now asked three times what precisely has been done in the region of Peel. The people in the region of Peel, particularly the people in Mississauga South and particularly the people responsible for the young families housed today in Interim Place in Mississauga South, are saying, "When are we ever going to have some kind of solution to our problem today?"

The minister mentions that he inherited a problem. I suggest that is a very unfair comment. He inherited a situation. When we take back the Ministry of Housing from him, we will also inherit something. There are always ongoing lists, and I recognize that. There is always an inheritance from one ministry to another. However, it is time the minister recognized he cannot keep saying, "Well, it was 42 years of nothing." It was not 42 years of nothing. There are many housing programs for which the Progressive Conservative Party was responsible. The Progressive Conservative Party was responsible for the establishment of Interim Place.

I am simply asking what the minister has done in 18 months to improve the situation. I even helped him by saying I understand there has been approval for an additional shelter in Mississauga, I think; it is certainly in the region of Peel. I have asked him to confirm that funds have been approved for an additional shelter and what other funds he is allocating to resolve the problem in 1987.

At this point, let us deal with the one area, that of the families as victims of domestic violence. Please do not answer that the lists have been opened up, that they are now eligible for other rental units. It is no help to them to be in the paper chase unless those units are a reality. If there are 3,000 units for the hard-to-house, will the minister please tell me where they are and particularly where they are in the region of Peel?

Hon. Mr. Curling: The member wants specific figures on what we have done for Peel. There is an application for a project within Peel for battered women. I do not think anything has been approved yet in that specific case.

I have before me some figures I was looking at. In 1985-again, the member asks, "What have we done?" Please be patient and do not get too annoyed. Once the member asks what I have done, it becomes a comparison: What was done before? What have I done now? Are we moving towards a solution? The member provoked me to tell her about their neglect. I am more into solving the problem than finding who was the cause.

In 1985 there were 161 nonprofit allocations. In 1986 I approved 381 in Peel, which the member asked about specifically. In 1987 there will be 247. We have more than doubled the units in 1986 and we are still moving to address the need in Peel. While I am the Minister of Housing, I shall address the need in Peel.

The member asked what we have done in 18 months. I have gone over it a couple of times. The member may not be impressed, but I think the people will be tremendously impressed when they see all these units being built. As I said, there are no instant homes.

The member said earlier I keep avoiding the new home buyers, but she must understand that right now it is the more expensive homes that builders are actively building. We cannot seem to interest the municipalities or the builders in that other area. We are in a unique situation now in the building industry. It may be somewhat unfair to those whom we would like to see building at the lower end but who are not so interested in building there. I am quite prepared to look at any time at any project or proposal that will be able to excite them to build at that level.

I want to make one other point. The solutions we have in place did not come from within the ministry. My staff and I went out and requested the communities to advise us on how to solve their problems. We responded accordingly. Peel has been quite active, as the member knows. It is an area that has been active in social housing, and we will continue to consult the community. The solution does not come from within the ministry; we do not impose solutions. We make sure that a community is involved in regard to its problems.

Mrs. Marland: The Minister of Housing says he does not impose solutions. That is a very interesting statement, which I do not exactly know how to interpret. if he says he does not impose solutions, I hope he will at least encourage solutions and perhaps even use his ministry and its resources to provide solutions. That is all I am asking for. Surely when the minister talks about the kind of housing that is being built within a municipality, he is not really suggesting that municipalities should decide what is built.

Let us talk about the number of units that he mentioned have been allocated in Peel, and let us talk about his statement about Peel having some experience-I do not know what his words were; certainly something like "having experience" or "having knowledge" of nonprofit units. There is no question about which nonprofit housing corporation anywhere in this province has the greatest expertise and has been the leader in the development of nonprofit housing units. It is the Peel Non-Profit Housing Corp., of whose board I was a member when I was a regional councillor.

When the minister lists the number of units that were allocated last year and are being allocated this year, he should know that there pre-existed in excess of 2,000 units in the region of Peel. Fortunately, a very active nonprofit housing program has been thriving under the expert guidance of the commissioner of housing in the region, Peter Smith, whose personal expertise was the great stimulus and thrust for the development for which Peel Nonprofit Housing Corp. was ultimately responsible. Peter Smith's leadership in his position as commissioner of housing for the region of Peel was what convinced the regional councillors who sat on that corporation that there was a solution, a possibility of providing housing units through a nonprofit housing program for housing that otherwise was not available for seniors and families.

1720

When the minister talked about the number of units in Peel, which he just threw back in response to my question, he did not bother to describe how many were seniors' units and how many were family units. The thrust of my questioning has been my concern for families. In particular, I want to come back to families that are victims of domestic violence. I am even more concerned now than I was half an hour ago when I started to ask some questions.

I am very disappointed to hear the minister say that nothing has been approved for Peel in terms of a shelter for battered families. He said he thought something was under consideration, but that nothing had been approved. Perhaps the minister can give me the reason. If it is that he has not had a formal application, I suggest it would be far easier for the people responsible for this in the region of Peel if they had the assurance that there was funding for an additional shelter.

I recognize that recently, with the help of the federal government, we have had an additional facility for seniors' nonprofit housing units, which are finally being built in the area of Malton. However, the focus of my questioning this afternoon has been families. It is to those young families that I wish the minister to address his answers.

Will the minister tell me, of these 3,000 units for the hard-to-house, as he described them, whether any are in Peel, and if so, where? Will the minister tell me whether in his opinion one additional shelter will be funded for battered families? If he had an application for two, would he agree that a total of three shelters for a population of more than 600,000 people in 500 square miles is a reasonable goal for accommodation for these families. I ask him that, recognizing that there is one shelter in Burlington and one in Etobicoke, which I believe is Habitat. They are small in accommodations: there are something like 12 to 18 beds per shelter. I would like to know the answers to these questions.

Hon. Mr. Curling: When I used the words "imposing solutions," I meant we do not go in with a preconceived idea as to how to solve the problem but ask the community how we can best go about solving its problems. Imposing solutions means they come from within the ministry rather than consulting with the community to find a solution to the various problems. I wanted to clear up that point.

The member talked about municipal nonprofit. The figures I quoted were for municipal nonprofit in Peel region. In addition to that, in 1986 we had another 258-unit facility for family housing under private nonprofit. All but 70 of the units I have named are family units. We are addressing the need raised by the member.

The other question the member raised was whether any of the 3,000 units were targeted for or would be responding to Peel. I gather there are no applications before us now on behalf of battered women. If they are before us, none of those 3,000 units has been approved yet; so I hope they will give consideration to bringing in applications. I hope they will do so. The 3,000 units are to house hard-to-house people.

I am also working very closely with the Association of Municipalities of Ontario and each mayor. I spoke to the mayor there in regard to how best we can use some of those units in addressing some of our concerns. We have a day-to-day consultation going on, if that is needed, to address that problem.

Again, I emphasize that no applications have been received from the Peel region in regard to battered women. I gather now one may have been received. Nothing has been approved yet across the province. I am sure that will be considered when the time comes to approve those.

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Polsinelli): The member for Etobicoke (Mr. Philip) would like to participate in this debate. I leave it to you whether you would like to continue or give him an opportunity to participate in the debate.

Mrs. Marland: I need to continue only until I get the answer to the first question I asked this afternoon, and that will probably be up to the minister. I do not plan to exclude the member for Etobicoke. I allowed him a supplementary earlier. I recognize he has some of the same concerns I do.

I just heard the minister say they had not received an application for a shelter for battered families. Then he said, "I think perhaps there is one." I do not know what the answer is, whether there is an application or not. I do not know how the reference to AMO and talking to the mayor was meant.

Hon. Mr. Curling: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: The member is asking me some specific questions. She said she does not know where she is at. I told her that there may be one and that I had not approved any yet.

The Acting Chairman: Order. The member's failure to understand the response, or the minister's failure perhaps to understand the question, is not a point of order. The member for Mississauga South will please continue.

Mrs. Marland: I shall certainly look forward to the written Hansard, and then perhaps we will understand the answer the minister is attempting to give. He seemed to suggest there had been no application from Peel for the 3,000 hard-to-house units. Then he seemed to suggest the solution for the families of domestic violence shelter came out of those 3,000 hard-to-house units. Is he saying the battered wives and children who need the interim shelters-I am not talking about permanent accommodation for these families; I am talking about interval housing. That is why in Mississauga the house is called Interim Place; it is temporary, emergency shelter. I suggest that if the minister understands his own program, the 3,000 hard-to-house units he is talking about are indeed permanent rental housing.

My question has been very simple. What is the provision within the ministry for emergency shelter needs, particularly in the region of Peel? Does the minister agree that one or two shelters with an upward limit of perhaps 18 beds is sufficient to address the emergency of that crisis problem?

1730

Hon. Mr. Curling: If so many beds will address those needs in that specific area, each application will be assessed. I tried to express to the member that when we have a project in place, there is a process. The basic process is that they must apply for that program. If there is no application, we cannot assess it. If there is an application, we will assess it.

The 3,000 units have not yet been assessed. I do not know whether Peel has one, two or three; it does not come to me at that stage. The 3,000 units are for those who are hard to house. We are asking all regions, if they have a program such that they can target and if they have a program that will fit within the 3,000, to please apply.

I said we have been very proactive. I have been speaking to the mayors, and the member asks what that has done. I spoke to the mayors personally to say, "I encourage you to participate in that project of 3,000 units."

Again, if there are three before us, we will assess them all, and when they come before me, the approval will be given if they meet the criteria.

I want to make another point there. I would like to impress upon the member that of the 6,700 units I speak of quite often, 10 per cent are for special needs or special purposes, and within that, the applications of battered women are accommodated.

Mrs. Marland: I will put my final question as simply and as directly as I can and see whether I can end up with an answer. The minister again answers my question on emergency shelter for battered families with a reference to the 3,000 units for the hard-to-house. I understand perfectly well that the 3,000 units for the hard-to-house are permanent rental housing; they are units for families to move into and rent permanently.

My question is about emergency shelter, which at the utmost would be a two-week to three-week interim placement; emergency shelter placement. Will the minister tell me whether his ministry has allocated any funds for either one or two interim emergency shelters for battered families in the region of Peel?

Hon. Mr. Curling: We do have a project that accommodates battered women, but the member talks about emergency shelters, and the Ministry of Community and Social Services funds and administers emergency shelters. In the situation of battered women, the Ministry of Housing project, the 3,000 units, will accommodate battered women. I do not know whether I can make it much plainer.

Mr. Philip: The member is clearly asking, are there any, not in Etobicoke North, but in the Peel area? Does the minister have any west of Etobicoke to which people in that region can go? It is a fairly clear question, and the answer should be yes; if it is yes, where are they? Or what are his plans for them? The member has asked the question two or three times. I cannot see why it is so hard for the minister to answer it.

Hon. Mr. Curling: We need an interpreter here. If the member is asking whether there is any emergency shelter for battered women in Peel, I can get back to her and tell her the addresses if there are any there. If she is asking again whether there are any applications, I can get back to her and say, "Yes, there are applications." If she is asking whether any have been approved, I am saying I have not yet approved any of those projects for battered women in the 3,000 units. I hope I have addressed that question.

Mrs. Marland: The Minister of Housing does not have to tell me where in the region of Peel the shelters are or how many there are today, January 22, 1987; I know. Three quarters of an hour ago I told him we had one. My question has been, when can we expect the second and third, since we have one with 18 beds for a population of 600,000? His reference to the provision of emergency housing by the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney) amounts to dollars, because these people have to be housed in hotels and motels, anywhere they can find somewhere for these families to escape to, because Interim Place with its 18 beds is constantly full and has a waiting list.

My questions have been very simple. I will yield the floor to the member for Etobicoke because I am experiencing such a high level of frustration in trying to obtain a very simple answer to a very simple question. I do not need the addresses of where they are in Peel. Furthermore, the addresses of where these homes are located is highly confidential for obvious reasons.

However, I suggest that the solution of the Minister of Community and Social Services of providing interim shelter in a hotel or motel for families who are trying to escape family violence is hardly the kind of alternative we should be looking at. Years ago, that was the solution. Years ago, people with tremendously regressive thinking thought it was okay to pop these families into a motel or hotel room as an escape from where they were. Fortunately, under the Progressive Conservative government of Ontario, we progressed to recognizing the very real need to give these families, even on an interim shelter basis of two or three weeks, something a little better than a motel room.

I want the minister to recognize from the thrust of my questions this afternoon that I look forward very eagerly to a reply from him about where in his plans for 1987 he has provision for a solution for housing for victims of domestic violence within families, both in an interim shelter or emergency shelter setting and through an exit from that interim shelter into a rent-geared-to-income unit.

Hon. Mr. Curling: I want to impress on the member that when her colleague in the third party tried to explain the question to me, I was trying to answer his question, his interpretation. With my having done that, the member is saying that I did not answer her question.

Maybe the difficulty is with the English language and not with me at all. I feel the member will better understand the written word when she sees it in Hansard, as she said, where I stated and will state again that in 1987, this International Year of Shelter for the Homeless, we have 3,000 units. The reason those 3,000 units came about was strong lobbying by members around the province, saying we needed more for the hard-to-house, especially battered women.

What are we doing for 1987? Those 3,000 are there for those regions and areas. Those individuals facing domestic violence can apply. We look forward to those applications. I do not look forward in the sense that I am happy these things are happening-it is sad in a society such as this that women have to be subjected to that-but I am happy to know there is a ministry that can respond to situations such we are having now.

The honourable member articulated her concerns very well. I am sure her constituents are mighty proud that she brought them forth to the minister and that he will address them accordingly. As I said, she is welcome to the 3,000 units. She can come personally to the ministry, put the applications on my desk, say, "Here they are," and my willing staff will run with energy and enthusiasm, as they have done in the past 18 months, to make sure we address those needs if they meet those criteria.

1740

Mr. Philip: Why do I always feel that when this minister answers a question I am getting a poor imitation of Jascha Heifetz?

Interjection.

Mr. Philip: They are very long anyway. He reminds me a little of the old videotapes of Mackenzie King. One was never sure when his answer started or when it began or what happened in between or indeed what would happen when and if he ever finished.

The question I would like to ask the minister is fairly simple. One of the major problems that exists-

Mr. Haggerty: He was around for a long time, was he not?

Mr. Philip: I am sorry; if the member would like to ask a question he is free to do so.

Mr. Offer: We would like to hear you ask one.

Mr. Philip: It is very hard to ask one when the member is so rudely interrupting.

Mr. Offer: Oh, please.

Mr. Philip: I am sorry; I happen to be interested in the problems of the poor people who are trying to get housing. If the member is not, then he should go out and have a smoke and smoke whatever he wants out there. He obviously has been into something already.

Is the minister aware that it is not uncommon for people who make application to the Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority to wait as long as three months to get a home visit? Does he realize the level of frustration that creates? What can he and the Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority do to speed up the home visits so that people's applications can at least be in the process? The frustration people have of not hearing from Ontario Housing and of not knowing whether an application has been accepted is almost as bad as the long wait they have after that.

Hon. Mr. Curling: The member expressed the frustration that thousands of people are facing. I have the honour to represent a riding with 220,000 people in it. A considerable number of those people are waiting to live in rent-geared-to-income units. The member has expressed what has been raised many times, the frustration at the long wait for those home visits and at the long wait to get into one of those units after an application has been approved.

It is obvious that what is causing the problem is the lack of available units for these people. As I said to the member who made her point and then left, the problem cannot be resolved overnight. However, the member might be aware of the appointment of John Sewell as the chairman of the Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority, an individual with full-time responsibility to look into those concerns. It is quite applauded because of the respect John Sewell commands in the community for his sensitivity to tenants and for his sensitivity to those people in our projects when he was mayor. While we are increasing our supply we are looking at ways to speed up the process and at whether the process requires more staff or better assessment. I am looking forward to receiving his report very soon. He was just appointed a couple of months ago. He is one of the hardest-working individuals I know. I am looking forward to his recommendations on how we can address that concern.

Mr. Philip: Surely there is a difference between the waiting list, once somebody is on the list, and the problem he or she has of waiting for the home visit. Surely there are enough capable social workers, or people in other ministries, who can be co-opted for a time to reduce that waiting list. It is the anxiety of not knowing what is happening and of feeling nobody cares that creates a kind of psychological problem for people that is often as bad as the physical need for housing.

I do not understand why it takes a report from John Sewell, who does know the problem-and I have had some conversations with him about it-but surely the minister can add some extra staff and at least get someone out there so the people who have made applications can be visited within a couple of weeks. It may not shorten the time in which they get housing, but at least it gives them some mental comfort that their application is being dealt with.

I want to talk about another subject, the abominable condition of a number of those buildings. All the research I have seen on housing suggests that once buildings start to deteriorate, they have a momentum on their own. If because the building is sloppy, because it has graffiti on the walls, people do not feel any sense of pride, then they in turn end up treating it that way.

What does the minister intend to do in terms of funding an upgrading program so existing housing stock can be cleaned up, screen doors can be put on units and walls that have writing on them and are deteriorating can be corrected, so people can have pride in their buildings and not feel they are living in dumps?

Hon. Mr. Curling: Let me comment quickly. The member asked why one needs John Sewell. All that should be done is to add extra staff and resolve that problem. Once we add staff members, they must know what they are about and what they are going to do. Hence, we had John Sewell look into the problem and point the staff in the right direction.

The member raises a very important point, because the condition of many of those buildings is atrocious. I visited some of them, and I personally would have to be very desperate before I would live in some of those units. That is why I assigned $110 million to maintenance and repairs in 1987, to address those problems.

One of the first buildings I visited was in Sudbury. What was the name of that unit in Sudbury? Rumble Terrace. I had a tour around there. I am quite impressed with the improvements made since the year I visited there.

I have also been around to a couple of others. There is one at Birchmount and Finch in my riding. The chairman himself was so concerned about the conditions in the region of Jane-Finch that he invited me on a number of occasions. I know many of them are not in good condition. The Attorney General (Mr. Scott) has had me around Regent Park a couple of times, and there has been good work done in improving the conditions of those buildings.

The $110 million that will be directed towards maintenance and repairs will give the place a better look, a homey look. Being the largest landlord, so to speak, in Canada, having 80,000 tenants under our jurisdiction and having brought in Bill 51 and said to the private sector, "You had better make sure you have properly maintained buildings," we have to look at ourselves to make sure our buildings are in the same condition or even better.

That is something I take a personal interest in. I take an interest in all the programs within my jurisdiction, but I am extremely concerned about maintenance and repairs. The amount of money that was budgeted for that area will make a tremendous amount of difference.

1750

Mr. Philip: I recognize that the minister did not create the problem, that he has come on it. Part of the problem was created by the minister's predecessor, the member for Ottawa South (Mr. Bennett), who could be called Scrooge times three when it came to putting any kind of money into the projects.

The minister mentions $110 million that has been allocated. Has Ontario Housing Corp. not done a reconstruction study and put a figure on that? If I am not mistaken, the figure came out at about seven to eight times the amount he has just said he is allocating. I am wondering what his staff is projecting, so that regardless of which government may be in, we can have a 10-year or 5-year program to bring the buildings up to the standards that were suggested in that study that was done not so long ago.

Hon. Mr. Curling: I am quite sure the $100 million will not address the condition we have. In the 10 years the member asks about, I gather we are projecting to spend $1 billion to address repairs and maintenance in those buildings. It has reached the stage that some of the buildings are more than 10 or 15 years old, and some extensive repairs have to be done. After the first year, the $100 million may not show a dramatic change, but in the 10 years, I am convinced the $1 billion will definitely make an improvement.

Mr. Philip: One of the things I have been concerned about is that, when I look at Ontario Housing projects, I see spinning within wheels and some moneys being wasted.

When I talk to the staff, some of them tell me they spend a great deal of time inspecting the private tenders or the private construction that could have been done just as easily by the ministry's staff people. Some of the ministry's maintenance people and carpenters tell me they have to go around after the contractors have come in and do repair work on the work that was done. It would be easier for them to do it properly in the first place than to act as spies and whip boys against contractors who are doing sloppy jobs.

Is that a common phenomenon, or am I getting some of the ministry staff who are tooting their own horn and feel that their workmanship is better than someone else's? Is this a commonly reported problem? I believe the ministry's union has made that comment, but I have also heard it from some of the people working in OHC projects in my area.

Hon. Mr. Curling: That is not a common phenomenon, as the member puts it. There are some concerns about how tenders are handled. Again, Mr. Sewell and the board will be looking into all that. We are aware that there are some concerns, but I do not think it is a common situation.

Mr. Philip: Let me make a plea to the minister before he spends the $110 million or the $1 billion over a period of 10 years, or whatever it is he is going to spend. One of the problems Ontario Housing has at the local level is that money is spent without any kind of consultation of the tenants. They do not feel part of the process. I am not suggesting the tenants should make a management decision, but often the tenants can have at least some input into what the priorities should be in a given year, and they should have an understanding of how much money is being spent on their project, what decisions are being made and where the tradeoffs are. If there are going to be improvements in the playground this year, if X dollars are going to be spent, it means we will do something else next year. We have to look at that.

It would be very useful if, once a year, every project were costed individually-that would give some comparison between managers and the efficiency of projects-and if there were a general meeting at which members of the community, such as myself, aldermen or anybody else who may be interested, and tenants could come in and the manager could say: "I have X dollars. Here are some priorities."

When one looks at condominiums where this happens, often the people living there have insights into what can be done and how money can be saved and can influence the priorities or the ranking of the work that has to be done. I wonder whether the minister will consider that a reasonable model to follow before he starts going out and hiring contractors to do a bunch of things that perhaps the tenants will think are irrelevant or rank 10th when numbers one to nine are not being handled.

Hon. Mr. Curling: The member definitely knows the type of approach I use in everything when it comes to the democratic process-consultation. I do not come with any answers. Many times, when we are looking for answers, the answers are right within the people. The member is right; that is one of the things I am looking at. I am doing a tremendous amount of consultation.

I think the member will be happy to know that in Regent Park, where there were some concerns about private space, we went to the people with a group, and they made their recommendations. They were surprised-I was not-that we acted upon their recommendations. The member is right: doing it that way, where people are involved, makes them feel very proud of their contribution in their project.

I have a bit of concern when we make an approach in regards to treating our tenants, that sometimes we have so many layers of bureaucracy going in and so many suggestions. Mr. Chairman, I think it was in your riding that the remark was made that if you walked through one of the Jane-Finch projects, any five-year-old could answer all the sociology research that has been done without being asked. They have been researched to death; they have been asked to death.

If you look at all the private market rental units, there is not so much bureaucracy, people stumbling over each other, too much policing, too much social work. We have to be very careful, even as we move towards that consultative process, that we do not encroach upon these people's privacy, their ability to do for themselves and, if one wants to put it that way, to make their own mistakes and correct them. Too often, when this is done, we have more problems.

The policing in some of those units is of great concern to me. Policing, meaning overpolicing, is causing all these problems. Those are things we are looking at. Therefore, when the member requests consultation, we must be aware that we do not encroach upon those individuals' rights.

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

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

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

On Monday, January 26, we will continue with the estimates of the Ministry of Housing, followed by the following legislation: Bill 186, election finances; Bill 163, repeal of inflation restraint; Bill 164, repeal of farm loans; Bill 156, securities legislation; Bill 74, operating engineers; Bill 63, travel industry; Bill 127, surveyors, and Bill 166, game and fish.

On Tuesday, January 27, we will continue with legislation not considered on Monday.

On Wednesday, January 28, we will deal with Bill 161, courts of justice, and Bill 154, pay equity.

On Thursday morning. January 29, we will consider private members' public business standing in the names of the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Grossman) and of the member for Ottawa Centre (Ms. Gigantes). On Thursday afternoon, we will complete the estimates of the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs, the Office of the Lieutenant Governor, the Office of the Premier and the Cabinet Office.

The House adjourned at 6:01 p.m.

22 janvier 1987