role="main" class="main-container container js-quickedit-main-content" id="main-content">

October 25, 1984

32nd Parliament, 4th Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Hansard Transcripts

ADJOURNMENT DEBATE

RELEASE OF INFORMATION

UNITED WAY CAMPAIGN

EMPLOYMENT OF FAMILY MEMBERS

MINISTER'S COMMENTS

VISITORS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

TAX GRANTS FOR SENIORS

AUTOMOTIVE PARTS INVESTMENT FUND

ORAL QUESTIONS

CREDIT RATING

CROWN CORPORATIONS

CREDIT RATING

PART-TIME EMPLOYMENT

WATER QUALITY

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION

PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY

HOSPITAL BEDS

ADHERENCE TO MANUAL OF ADMINISTRATION

USE OF LANDFILL SITE

USE OF TIME IN QUESTION PERIOD

REPORTS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND OTHER STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

REPRESENTATION AT FUNERAL

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

REMEMBRANCE DAY

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

POLITICAL TORTURE

ELECTRONIC ACCIDENT PREVENTION SYSTEMS

POLITICAL TORTURE

ELECTRONIC ACCIDENT PREVENTION SYSTEMS

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

ADJOURNMENT DEBATE

Mr. Speaker: Before proceeding with the business of the House, I would like to read this ruling.

On Tuesday evening, October 23, 1984, at the normal adjournment hour of 10:30 p.m., the adjournment debate for which the member for Windsor-Sandwich (Mr. Wrye) had given notice under standing order 28 took place, following which the members for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway) and Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) rose to criticize the fact that no members were present on the government side of the House for the debate, asked me to take some action and made reference to the quorum rule.

There is nothing in the standing orders which requires the minister to reply unless he so wishes, or even to be present. It was earlier established in the House of Commons of Canada that the time provided for these adjournment debates was strictly limited to the members concerned and that no points of order, matters of privilege or quorum calls could be raised during that time. If the full allotted time is not taken up, the remainder lapses and does not permit the raising of points of order or other matters.

This practice was reinforced by the ruling of the Speaker on April 30, 1964, when he stated, "There can be no point of order or question of privilege raised at this time under the terms of the standing order governing this debate," and by a further ruling on May 15 of the same year, in which the Speaker stated: "I think at this stage I might clear up the point which has just been raised by saying that the period allotted between 10 p.m. and 10:30 p.m. is for the purpose of dealing with three questions raised by three honourable members.

If those honourable members do not utilize the full time of 30 minutes, the remaining time lapses. The 30-minute period does not allow for the raising of other points."

Even if the alleged point of order had been a valid one, the precedents make it clear that no point of order is permitted with relation to these adjournment debates.

Consultation has revealed that in the House of Commons of Canada, the maximum attendance during adjournment debates is almost always six: the three members who have given notice and the ministers or their parliamentary assistants, if they wish to respond. In this House, since this procedure was introduced there never has been a quorum.

The member for Sudbury East raised a hypothetical question of what I would do if no opposition members were present in the House on Thursday. Investigation and consultation has indicated that, as in the House of Commons of Canada, as long as there was a quorum the business of the House would proceed. The members are required to attend the service of the House and if they do not do so, it is their responsibility. The Speaker has no authority to adjourn the House as long as there is a quorum.

If one member whose ballot item is to be considered is present, that ballot item would be proceeded with for up to half the available time before six o'clock, after which the House would revert to such other business as the House ordered. If both members whose ballot items are scheduled are absent, then the House would immediately proceed to other business as ordered.

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I am sure I speak for my friend the member for Sudbury East in thanking you for your diligence in this matter.

Do I take it that where the late show is concerned, it is a kind of parliamentary no man's land where none of the standing orders applies? Perhaps I will have to read your statement. It is not clear to me.

Hon. Mr. Wells: That is right.

Mr. Conway: The government House leader opines, "That is right." I think the standing committee on procedural affairs or the all-powerful panel of House leaders might in the near future want to consider clarifying that situation because I, like my friend the member for Sudbury East, can imagine that kind of situation might get us all into some difficulty.

Mr. Speaker: Not to prolong the matter but perhaps to clarify it, if my memory serves me correctly the standing order says the House is deemed to have adjourned at 10:30 p.m. and then carries on with the debate that has been announced previously.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my friend referring to the all-powerful committee of House leaders. We are anything but that. We sit here merely as servants of the House.

For the information of the members of the House, we discussed this matter today and concluded that, more than anything else, there was a communications breakdown concerned with the matter that occurred and over which this point arose. If the communication as to when the late show was going to occur was transmitted to everyone, I think that what was a problem at that time could be avoided.

Mr. Conway: On that point, if I might finish, could we at least agree publicly now or at a later time that, as a matter of elementary parliamentary courtesy, there will be, if not the minister in question, at least his or her parliamentary assistant so that the debate and the late show --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member may address this at the appropriate time, if he so desires.

RELEASE OF INFORMATION

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege with respect to the release of some of the contents of the report of the Commission of Inquiry into Residential Tenancies in today's Toronto Star prior to the report of the commission of inquiry being tabled in the Legislative Assembly.

First, I raise this because we again have a document being released to the public prior to its release to members of the Legislative Assembly, which I understand is required in this case. This makes it very difficult for us to perform our responsibilities.

Second, according to the

article in the Toronto Star, the report was released by senior government officials, which leaves one to infer that the release was deliberate.

Third, the senior government officials said the ministry has had a copy of the draft of the report of the commission of inquiry since April 1984. In the House, in response to my question last week, the minister said he had had the report since August 1984. Some clarification is required with respect to that contribution.

Finally, the story in the Toronto Star indicates that the draft report that was shared with the media was 400 pages long, but the report that will be released -- I presume that means the report that will be tabled in this assembly -- will be much shorter. In other words, some process of revision is taking place to a commission of inquiry document after it is received by the ministry but before it is tabled in the assembly.

2:10 p.m.

I am afraid these are the conclusions that have to be drawn from the material in the media. It puts us at a terrific disadvantage. We are already receiving inquiries about the contents of a commission of inquiry report that we have not seen. The report deals with very important public policy issues with respect to the future of rent controls: whether exemptions on rent control will continue, whether rent control will continue or whether it will be changed. These are important questions that affect many thousands of people in Ontario.

I would hope the Speaker would inquire as to how and why this happened and invite the minister to clear up some of the contradictions to which I have alluded.

Mr. Speaker: I thank the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan) for raising this matter. As I have ruled before, it is not a matter of privilege, but I suppose it may be construed as a matter of courtesy. I allowed the honourable member to make his point because I think it is something that has been drawn to the attention of various ministers in the past and should be drawn again.

Again I must say the Speaker does not have any jurisdiction or authority to do anything in this matter other than to let the member make his point and perhaps raise the question, if he so desires, during the oral question period.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the member wishes to raise it during oral questions, the minister may respond.

UNITED WAY CAMPAIGN

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, I will try to make my point despite my hoarseness, incurred as a result of the auction at noon hour which was sponsored by your staff. It is unfortunate that only a handful of the members of this Legislature saw fit to come to support us at this auction.

I want to thank those who did come for the bidding on the items. I think we will hear a little later how much money was actually raised. Some members on all sides of the House came out. They were excellent bidders and we certainly want to thank them.

[Later]

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, I am sure you and the members of this House will be interested to know that the proceeds from the Legislative Frolic amounted to approximately $3,000 or, in more specific terms, $2,902.50, with $1,902.50 being raised from the auction, $800 from the raffle and $200 from the food.

This is about $1,000 more than was raised last year. I have to thank your staff, the sponsors of this function and all those people who participated and gave very generously of their money to support the United Way.

Mr. Speaker: I would also like to take this opportunity to thank all those who participated to make this event so successful. Thank you very much.

EMPLOYMENT OF FAMILY MEMBERS

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: last week I rose in this House to make some comments about patronage in Ontario. Included in my remarks was a specific reference to the Westcott family.

As a result of those remarks, Mr. Clare Westcott, executive director, Office of the Premier, and executive assistant to the Premier (Mr. Davis), wrote an open letter to the Treasurer (Mr. Grossman), to certain members of the press and to the leader of the official opposition. He drew attention to what he believed were errors in my comments. It appears that in some part, Mr. Westcott may be correct and I would like to take this opportunity to correct the record.

I mentioned his son, Chris, as being special assistant to the deputy minister. What I meant to say was that Chris was the special assistant to the Deputy Premier (Mr. Welch), somewhat closer to the office that consumes much of Clare Westcott's time.

In addition, I said his daughter, Diane Westcott, was given a position with the Ministry of Citizenship and Culture. Mr. Westcott has quite rightly pointed out that Diane Westcott is not his daughter, but rather his daughter-in-law. Therefore, I was in error and I offer my humble apologies for any embarrassment this may have caused Clare Westcott. I cannot believe, however, that Mr. Westcott would take serious offence to my reference to his daughter-in-law being somewhat closer related.

Most important, Mr. Westcott has pointed out that I did not mention his daughter Kathleen, who, as he graciously informed me through his letter to the Treasurer, is employed with the Ontario Lottery Corp. The fact that I did not include another member of the Westcott family on my list of those who were and are lucky enough to be holding comfortable positions of employment in the Ontario government causes me very great concern. Again, I apologize for this error of omission.

My apologies also go out to the many families in Ontario who tried unsuccessfully for one job with the Ontario government.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you very much for rising to correct the record. On a more personal note, I would like to take this opportunity of thanking the member for the very valuable contribution he made to the success of the auction, as he always does.

MINISTER'S COMMENTS

Mr. Allen: Mr. Speaker, on a point of personal privilege arising out of the debate on Bill 119 the other night, I want to correct the record. The Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson) declared with respect to consultations with the Association of Large School Boards in Ontario that there had been a very full response to their communications to her with respect to that bill.

She said: "There was a very full response to it. It was not on paper; it was on the basis of eyeball-to-eyeball discussion between the minister and the president of ALSBO, between the deputy minister and the executive director, or whatever they call her."

I have in my hand a letter from "whatever they call her."

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I think in actual fact you are not correcting the record; you are raising a point of argument.

Mr. Allen: The record says one thing and the facts of the matter say something else. I am trying to correct the record.

Mr. Speaker: Yes, but you are not correcting your own statement. You are correcting somebody else's.

Mr. Allen: I am correcting the minister's statement.

Mr. Speaker: You are not allowed to do that. Would the member please resume his seat.

VISITORS

Mr. Speaker: I would ask all honourable members to join with me in welcoming in the Speaker's gallery the mayors, reeves and administrators of northern Ontario who are here today as guests of the member for Cochrane North (Mr. Piché).

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

TAX GRANTS FOR SENIORS

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the honourable members that tomorrow the Ministry of Revenue will commence mailing the second instalment of the 1984 Ontario property tax grant cheques to eligible senior citizens throughout the province.

On August 31, my ministry mailed out some 612,000 application forms for this instalment and by the end of last week this total had risen to 626,000 applications. As of October 23, 563,000, or 90 per cent, of these applications had been returned, of which some 549,000, or 97.5 per cent, have now been fully processed and are ready for payment.

As members will recall, the first instalment of up to $250 of the property tax grant was received by seniors in May of this year, along with the final $20 payment of the temporary home heating grant. Altogether, some 577,000 seniors received a total of $143 million. These recent applications, therefore, determine the amount of the second and final payment owed to each applicant during 1984, which in turn will be the basis for the 1985 interim payments.

As this matter will be of great interest to their constituency offices and to the senior citizens in their ridings, may I remind the members that for seniors who turned 65 in the first half of the year and who did not, therefore, receive the first instalment of the grant, the full year's entitlement to a maximum of $500 will be issued to them in the form of one cheque. Seniors who have turned 65 in the second half of 1984 will receive an application by January 1985.

I am pleased to report that tomorrow's mailing comprises some 548,000 cheques totalling some $134 million and that the average value of each cheque is $244.50. Mailouts will continue on a regular basis until all applications are processed.

As well, my ministry will shortly be sending out the annual sales tax grant to seniors who turned 65 by September. Altogether, $46 million will be paid in $50 grants to 920,000 seniors on November 30. Ontario residents turning 65 in October, November and December of 1984 will receive their sales tax grant in January 1985.

2:20 p.m.

As the honourable members are aware, my ministry established a special unit to deal with constituency inquiries about these tax grants. Since the mailout of the applications, this unit has received 551 inquiries, of which only 18 have not been finally resolved. Members will undoubtedly be pleased to learn that these totals are significantly lower than those of last year. In fact, I believe the delivery of the Ontario property and sales tax grants has now been refined to the point where both members and their constituents alike agree that there are virtually no problems.

May I again thank the members for the able assistance and co-operation of their constituency offices in the successful administration of this program.

AUTOMOTIVE PARTS INVESTMENT FUND

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, as the honourable members know, the auto parts industry is vital to the economy of Ontario. It employs 58,000 of our citizens, many of them in small and medium-sized firms.

Mr. Bradley: And donates a lot to the campaign.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Your campaigns.

Mr. Speaker: Never mind the interjections.

Hon. F. S. Miller: It is a very important industry in your home town.

At the present time some of these companies are being severely tested by rapid changes in consumer preference, new technologies and increased competition. They are faced with the need to boost their productivity, increase quality and reduce production costs. To do so, they need the resources to develop new products, modernize their plants and train their people.

In response I would like to announce today the launching of a $30-million, three-year program to sharpen the competitive edge of Ontario's auto parts industry. This program, known as the automotive parts investment fund, was first mentioned in the provincial budget of last May. Since then my ministry has worked out the details in consultation with the industry, and the funds have been committed by the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development. The new fund will help finance product development, plant modernization and manpower training in firms that are themselves prepared to commit resources to becoming more competitive.

While all auto parts manufacturers will be eligible, the focus of the program will be oriented towards small and mid-sized firms. Assistance will be in the form of repayable five-year term loans covering as much as half the cost of an eligible project to a limit of $750,000 per company over three years.

Projects that bring innovative products and production technologies to Ontario could be eligible for performance incentives through deferral of principal and waiving of interest up to a maximum of three years. Borrowers may also earn a principal reduction of as much as 15 per cent to offset their costs of manpower retraining associated with the project. A simple and speedy approval and disbursement procedure has been established by my ministry. Applications will be available at our regional offices early in November.

We see this fund as a partnership with the auto parts industry in which public funds will be used as an incentive to obtain commitments from private business. I believe the result will be a series of successful demonstrations of how to modernize this vital sector to face a more competitive environment.

ORAL QUESTIONS

CREDIT RATING

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Treasurer.

An hon. member: But Andy has not declared yet.

Mr. Peterson: Have you sewn him up or not? Do you need a little more time with him?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Yes. Wait a minute.

Mr. Peterson: Go ahead.

Mr. Speaker: Now for the question, please.

Mr. Peterson: The Treasurer will be aware that in this House over the past little while we have had many discussions with his colleagues, with the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson) with regard to educational funding and the Minister of Health (Mr. Norton) about hospital beds and the funding thereof, and on problems with public housing in this province and lack of affordable housing. Municipalities, as I am sure the colleagues of the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Pope) in the gallery will attest, have been under very severe pressure because of the funding levels.

Now we read in this morning's Toronto Star that our triple-A credit rating may be in some jeopardy and that the Treasurer and the Premier (Mr. Davis) were obliged to go to New York to try to salvage that situation. We read about new directives being issued by the Premier to the cabinet about spending programs.

Does it mean that in this province we do not have enough money to address the very critical problems the Treasurer's colleagues are charged with responsibility for?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: No, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Peterson: It is obvious from the minister's response that there is a great deal of embarrassment. I quote his colleague, the former Treasurer, who said, "You are a very smart operator, but your first budget was slanted at an election." That is his quote, not mine.

Now, under the former Treasurer's stewardship, the minister is heading supplicant to New York to try to salvage our credit rating, according to the press report and according to the words of the Premier quoted this morning.

Is the Treasurer going to cut back on programs? Is he not going to go ahead with existing programs? Is he going to sacrifice these programs on the altars of Standard and Poor's, and Moody's of New York? Is that the minister's intention?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: No.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, in the report in the Toronto Star today, there is a clear indication that a meeting was held in New York between the Treasurer and the Premier and officials of Standard and Poor's. I would like to ask the Treasurer if that meeting took place?

Directly supplementary to that, can he tell us if this quotation is correct, "as part of the understanding" that Ontario's recovery is well under way, now that the triple-A rating is confirmed, did the Premier give assurances in New York "that the province will reduce its yearly deficit sharply"? If that is so, since when does the budget of Ontario get made on Wall Street in response to demands from Standard and Poor's, rather than announced and debated in the Legislature? What kind of a hidden agenda is going here?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, the answers are very straightforward. Yes, a meeting occurred in New York, as has been the case in previous years when the Ministry of Treasury and Economics, as a matter of good government, goes to New York to meet with the rating agencies to assure them with regard to our policies.

Other jurisdictions may not take the triple-A credit rating as seriously as we do, but we care a lot about it. Treasurers for as long back as I can remember have gone to New York, usually in the summertime, to meet with the rating agencies. This year I did the same, and because Standard and Poor's had chosen this year to do a review of Canada in total, we thought it was appropriate that we take the extra time, not only to have that meeting which has occurred many times during the summer, but also to review our current plans, our future plans and exactly where we were at coming out of the recession.

I asked the Premier to join me at that time, simply because I thought it was a matter of good government while they are completing their Canada-wide review.

Secondly, there were no assurances taken to bring the budget down to any numbers such as were suggested in what the member said.

Mr. Rae: I did not suggest any numbers.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: There were some numbers in the article.

Mr. Rae: It does not answer my question.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I am answering the question.

I indicated to the agencies something I have indicated in my budget, in my prebudget statement and in other public statements. I believe it is a mistake for governments to continue to build up their public debt interest year after year. Because of the recession, our public debt interest increased and because interest rates are now higher than they used to be, our public debt increase has been larger than we would have wanted it.

2:30 p.m.

Our public debt interest is now about 12 per cent of our revenues. I indicated to the rating agencies, as I have indicated to the public, that I think we have to stabilize the growth of public debt interest. We indicated quite clearly to the rating agencies, as we indicated in this House -- and the member disagreed -- that public debt interest growth has to be stabilized and that a lower deficit next year would be appropriate, given the need to stabilize PDI.

That is a government-based decision made long before the last budget and articulated publicly by me many times this year. The visit to New York had nothing whatever to do with any of that.

Mr. Peterson: If what the Treasurer is saying in this House today is true, why is it that a spokesperson in the Ministry of Industry and Trade told us on Tuesday that it is her understanding two programs announced in the budget may not go ahead now because of constraints? Why are we getting different messages from the ministries than we are from the Treasurer in this House?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Talking about being embarrassed, the last time the Leader of the Opposition chose to venture into the field of youth employment he announced, if not in this House at least to the media that our part-time employment program had been cancelled. He may have been told by now, perhaps by the same researcher who got that information for him from the Ministry of Industry and Trade, that the information was totally wrong. Not only has the part-time employment program not been cancelled, but it has been enriched from $1.25 an hour to $4 an hour.

Given the confusion and embarrassment rolling around in the mind of the Leader of the Opposition over his outstanding performance in the polls, which of course he is not at all worried about, perhaps he is concerned and confused about all the information he is getting.

Mr. O'Neil: Your turn may come.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The member's information is once again wrong. I say to the member for Quinte (Mr. O'Neil) that the correct information was contained in the Gallup poll printed last Tuesday. That was correct.

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: The Treasurer is giving us a snow job. He does not tell us that we have a total debt of $50 billion with Ontario Hydro.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Would the honourable member please resume his seat? That was not a point of order. The Leader of the Opposition with a new question.

Mr. Peterson: The minister's advisers told him not to behave like that. Why is the Minister of Industry and Trade (F. S. Miller) smiling so much when the Treasurer talks like that? The Treasurer was supposed to be statesmanlike.

Mr. Speaker: Order. A new question, please.

CROWN CORPORATIONS

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, we understand. He is under a lot of pressure.

I have a question for the Deputy Premier as the senior minister on the benches today and obviously the most influential. He will be aware that the federal Prime Minister, Mr. Mulroney, and his cabinet have taken it upon themselves in the spirit of freedom of information to reveal the salaries of a number of high-paid officials, directors or presidents of crown corporations, because he believes the public has a right to know the amounts paid to public officials, no matter how exalted.

This government has been notoriously parsimonious in the information it has shared with the taxpayers of this province, having for years rejected freedom of information out of hand in any meaningful form. In fact, it vetoed a resolution of ours on control of crown corporations that would have given this information.

In the new spirit brought forward by its federal leader, will the government now make public the salaries of the presidents, directors and chief operators of Ontario's crown corporations? Why should that not be public knowledge?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, we have not waited for anyone else to approach this problem. As the Leader of the Opposition knows, in this province we publish in Public Accounts the salaries of all provincial civil servants earning $40,000 or more per year. It is also my understanding that this does include the salaries of executives in what are referred to as

schedule I crown agencies.

There are, of course, a number of crown agencies that are not

schedule 1. The crown agencies review task force, at present charged with all its other responsibilities, has been asked to include this as part of its review. It will review this whole question of whether it is justified because of previous policy, that is, the arm's length relationship, and whether we can still support that particular approach. Once the Treasurer has the report of the crown agencies review task force, we will be able to respond to this whole question.

Mr. Peterson: Does the minister not personally believe the people have the right to know? Is he not offended that it has to sneak out in a Toronto Star story a week or so ago that the president of the Innovation Development for Employment Advancement Corp. was making $115,000 when we could not obtain that information? Does it not offend him that his colleagues are not prepared to tell the people of this province, the taxpayers who are hiring him, how much Kirk Foley, the president of the Urban Transportation Development Corp., makes? Does that not offend his own basic sense of justice? Why would he not automatically make that public?

Hon. Mr. Snow: The member cannot even read, for Christ's sake.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: I am sure the honourable minister was a little carried away there and wants to withdraw that remark.

Hon. Mr. Snow: What remark?

Mr. Speaker: I am not going to repeat it.

Mr. Conway: It was bad enough for the late show, but the question period is supposed to be a family show.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I do not know what the member for Renfrew North would know about families, but in any case I withdraw whatever was offensive.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope the member for Renfrew North has not been offended. I ask him just to contain himself.

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: We are so often reminded by our friend the member for Brampton (Mr. Davis) in a handwringing way not to set a bad example to the young people of this building and this province.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Conway: With due respect to you and the Clerk, you will see that the language of the executive council in public places sets a very poor example to the young people of Ontario.

Mr. Speaker: Now the Deputy Premier.

Hon. Mr. Welch: In replying to the supplementary question of the Leader of the Opposition, I have no difficulty with the whole concept of disclosure. That is not in debate now. I think for the very reason the Leader of the Opposition pointed out, sensitivity to understandings, traditionally in the province it has been the case, against the background of the arm's-length relationships of these other agencies not included in Public Accounts, that is not done. I think the time has come for that to be reviewed. I certainly support this whole concept of disclosure --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. That was a very full answer.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, does the Deputy Premier not agree with Prime Minister Mulroney that the amount of money spent on the salaries and other benefits of chairpersons, presidents and other executive officers of the over 300 crown agencies, boards, commissions and crown corporations of this province is, in his words, "a handsome chunk of money"? Does he not think it is about time the minister made a commitment not merely to review the situation but to publish the salaries and extras all those people receive in those positions before Christmas of this year?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I underline what I have said. The matter is currently under review and will be dealt with as part of the overall agencies review.

I welcome references to my national leader because I am an enthusiastic supporter of the Prime Minister of Canada, who will be leading this country into a new era of optimism and opportunity. I am glad the member provided me with the opportunity to say so.

2:40 p.m.

Mr. Peterson: The Deputy Premier should get into the race. Anyone who can talk out of both sides of the mouth like that is better than all of them put together.

I say with great respect to my friend the Deputy Premier that we have heard his reassuring words and his smooth tones on many other occasions, evincing sympathy with points put forward but with absolutely no action coming forward. Therefore, I am not reassured by what he has to say.

Why will he not agree with his federal leader, whom he esteems and believes is going to lead us forward into a new era of optimism? He said access to information and openness means the public having the right to know. He made the point that Conservatives believe one has every right to know. Is it going to take a change of government in this province before the taxpayers are entitled to know what they are paying for?

Hon. Mr. Welch: No.

CREDIT RATING

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I would like to follow the same line of questioning with the Treasurer that we started with, about this meeting that took place in New York with Standard and Poor's and the subsequent document to the cabinet that was released today in the Toronto Star.

I wonder whether the Treasurer is aware of the fact, and I am sure he is, that since 1975 Ontario has added $800 million to its net public debt. At the same time and during the same years, Ontario Hydro has added $10 billion to its net public debt; that is $10 billion, compared with $800 million.

Given that publicly held debt as a percentage of gross provincial product is lower in 1984-85 than it was in 1975-76, 1976-77, 1977-78 and so on, why it is that the missives and orders going to cabinet are focusing on social services, hospitals and education, leaving out the major villain of the piece in terms of the problem in New York and elsewhere with Ontario's credit rating and debt?

The Treasurer knows -- everybody knows, it is an open secret -- that Ontario Hydro's borrowing is out of control and that is the problem. Why is there no mention of the real problem in this secret cabinet document, which has now emerged in the papers? Why is he focusing on those who have little means to defend themselves and why is he not going after a powerful institution like Ontario Hydro?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, perhaps one of the reasons the cabinet document that went to ministers on the question of allocations for this year did not refer to Ontario Hydro's borrowing is that our allocations have nothing whatever to do with Hydro's borrowing. That is surely self-evident. If the honourable member wishes to read carefully all the Standard and Poor's documents over the years. he will find that they are concerned with both Hydro's borrowing and the province's net deficit.

He will also find, as he himself has pointed out, that in terms of our debt financing and our deficits, we are in a much stronger position than we have been for a number of years. That is a great credit to those of us on this side who have handled the affairs of this province for some time. We have done that, I might add, in spite of constantly growing pressures from the member and his colleagues to run up the deficit year after year and to increase expenditures.

If the member believes Hydro's spending and borrowing are a problem, the best thing I can do, rather than give him words which he will presume to be self-serving, is to say that he should simply spend some time reading Standard and Poor's reports and Moody's reports and their analysis of Hydro's borrowing and spending patterns. He will find that they have not expressed concern with Hydro's borrowing or spending. They maintain that triple-A credit rating and have not questioned it.

Mr. Rae: If the Treasurer is saying that Ontario Hydro's debt and control of the rest of the public debt in Ontario are not a problem, then he is really saying the trip to New York was purely ceremonial and that using the credit rating is a kind of empty threat to the cabinet and to the public of Ontario. Which is it? He should make up his mind. Is there or is there not a problem? If there is a problem, why does he not deal with the source of the problem, which is Ontario Hydro?

Look back at what Darcy McKeough said in 1975 and in 1976. Look back at what the Treasurer himself said in 1983. It is the total provincial borrowing requirement that has to be taken into account. When one looks at the increase in net public debt, Ontario Hydro at $10 billion and the rest of public borrowing at $800 million, what is he talking about? Why does he not deal with the real problem instead of kicking poor people around?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Let me say quite clearly that we went to New York because we go there every year to keep in touch with the rating agencies so they will understand that while deficit levels appear to be higher in Canada and Ontario than in American states and municipalities, which they also rate, there is a reason our deficits are higher.

I want the member opposite to hear why the deficits are higher. They are higher because we look after the very people the member is standing up and pretending to protect. It is because of the commitment of this government to those people that we do go to those rating agencies, and it is only this government in Canada, outside of Alberta, that has been able to meet those responsibilities without losing its credit rating.

The member opposite would have us do nothing but shovel money out, forget about the credit rating and spend more than $3 billion in interest. We do not do it that way. He should ask his friends who ran Saskatchewan and those who run Manitoba. They have double-A and double-A-plus credit ratings and they have social services that do not measure anywhere close to Ontario's. We have Canada's leading credit rating; we have Canada's leading social services.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, let me tell the Treasurer, whether he knows it or not, that the credit rating is in some jeopardy, just as he is in a considerable amount of jeopardy.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Peterson: I am amazed at that explanation of how he borrows, because it is absolutely wrong. If one looks at the reality of Ontario Hydro, which is being looked at, the debt-to-equity ratio is off target, the interest coverage is off target and the cash flow is off target. All that is off target, and I will give the Treasurer the facts if he wants them.

The Treasurer personally is putting this province in a serious problem, and now he is saying: 'We are going to cut programs. We are going to be very mean-spirited and tough-minded on the social programs that are necessary. Surely he has a responsibility to face up to the realities of this situation and to cut where it is necessary the waste in Suncor, Ontario Hydro, his advertising programs, the Fahlgren commission, the Minaki Lodges -- all the waste of money that is now putting social programs in jeopardy.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Peterson: That is the issue.

Hon. Mr. Snow: There was no question.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: What was the question?

Mr. Speaker: He did not put a question that I heard.

Mr. Bradley: You are being prompted by the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Snow).

Mr. Speaker: I am not being prompted by anyone.

Mr. Conway: Remember what he did to the Queen, Mr. Speaker. I warned you about that man.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

2:50 p.m.

Mr. Rae: I think I will leave well enough alone on that. I will keep my back to the wall on that one.

The credit rating is obviously something that mesmerizes the Premier (Mr. Davis), although he has been away for such a long time that it is hard to ask him. It also mesmerizes the Treasurer.

Does the Treasurer believe that, this province being as mature as it is and presumably growing up in the financial world, it is appropriate in 1984 for the Premier, according to this

article -- and the Treasurer did not deny the quotation when I read it to him and asked him; in fact, he did not deal with the question -- to let the priorities for our overall social policy, the future of funding for education, social services, housing and the environment be set on Wall Street by Standard and Poor's in a private meeting of the Treasurer, the Premier and whoever the other parties were on the other side, with no public documentation, no public debate and no public recognition of the event that is taking place? Does he really think this is appropriate in 1984?

Will the Treasurer please deal with the problem? One side of government spending, Ontario Hydro, has gone out of control and has simply gone bananas, while the other side has been constantly held back, hindered, cut back and restricted, at least since 1975-76, at the cost of jobs, work and opportunity in Ontario. That is the price we paid for the Treasurer going down on his hands and knees in New York and saying, "Look how great we are, please give us a triple-A rating." We have been crucified on that triple-A rating for 10 years.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: That is as uneducated and as uninformed a question as I have ever heard put by the member. Every April or May a budget comes down in Ontario; it is set in the Ministry of Treasury and Economics and in the cabinet room of this province.

Mr. Foulds: They know more about the Treasurer's next budget than the Treasurer does.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: They know more about everything than my friend does.

Mr. Rae: Is this the Premier talking?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Rae: Is this the old Larry or the new Larry, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Foulds: It is the real Larry.

Mr. Rae: There is no real Larry.

PART-TIME EMPLOYMENT

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, my second question is addressed to the Deputy Premier and Minister responsible for Women's Issues. It has to do with the tremendous problem facing men and women, but particularly women, who work part-time.

The Deputy Premier will know that, according to the latest surveys, there are more than 479,000 women who work part-time. He will also know that his government extended prorated benefits to about 8,000 of its employees, of whom about 6,000 are women. That is less than two per cent of the women who are working part-time.

When is he going to take some specific, practical steps to provide insurance benefits, pension benefits and real job security and dignity to those hundreds of thousands of people, especially women, who are working part-time in Ontario's economy? The Deputy Premier knows they have very little protection today. When is he going to move for that 98 per cent that he has done nothing about?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker. in responding to what I think is a reasonable and legitimate question about part-time employees in the work force, I have to say that the honourable member knows there was a helpful federal study on the whole area of part-time employment issued several months ago. Indeed, he has been kind enough in his

preamble to point out that the government as an employer is itself moving in this area. We have to move to put our own house in order as employers before we start giving consideration to the wider applications.

I think the work place of the future will have increasing opportunities for men and women on a part-time basis, and we are going to have to face up to the rate by which we can make those adjustments. I think we are providing some leadership ourselves. In comparison with other jurisdictions. I would suggest we are providing some very important leadership. Once we have had some experience with it and have taken some further steps within our own operations, that might be the time to consider its application to the wider community.

Mr. Rae: It is my understanding the bill passed in this House in June dealing with those 8,000 workers in the public sector has yet to be proclaimed. If that is the Deputy Premier's definition of leadership, it is leadership that has yet to be proclaimed and announced.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Rae: Specifically dealing with pensions, since that is such an important issue and one that touches so many workers, half the workers in Ontario do not have a private pension at all. How can the Deputy Premier tolerate that kind of situation? In particular, will he bring in a simple amendment to the Employment Standards Act requiring that private pension plans be made available to part-time workers and that all part-time workers be covered in Ontario's economy so far as pensions are concerned? I am sure such an amendment would be passed very quickly.

Hon. Mr. Welch: I cannot add very much to what I have already given in response to the main question. I do not think anyone is arguing with the general principles in terms of the direction that will have to be taken to meet the realities of the work place. We have the benefit of some studies. As members know, Ontario has taken the leadership position in the whole area of pension reform, and I expect there will be even more steps taken. We are quite prepared to be judged on our record as employers and on the leadership which we will continue to provide.

I believe the legislation to which the member made reference is Bill 54. It is my understanding that it will be proclaimed within the next two or three months.

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Premier in his answer has just mentioned that the bill will not be proclaimed for two or three months. In his original answer he said that after it has been proclaimed and after we have looked at how it is working for a while, then perhaps we will get on with the job of trying to expand the benefits to other part-time workers in the province.

Considering that we are talking about 98 per cent who remain without those part-time benefits, let me ask the Deputy Premier whether he would be kind enough to offer those part-time workers his timetable. How much longer after the proclamation of the new benefits arrived at under Bill 54 will it be before this government is prepared to move ahead on those other benefits for those thousands and thousands of other workers, mainly women, in the province?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, by the terms of Bill 54, once it is proclaimed there will be a degree of retroactivity; they can go back and pick up those particular benefits. That has to be taken into account in a new taxation year.

Second, I made reference to the Wallace commission report to the federal government. It is being very actively reviewed in government as to implications for amendments to the Employment Standards Act. Once that investigation is completed, the government will respond about its intentions in what I consider to be a very important area of employment opportunities for many people, mainly part-time workers.

Mr. Rae: I would like to ask the Deputy Premier whether he is aware that the more than 1,000 Simpsons workers who got their layoff notices in the summer are going to be laid off next week. Some of them who are going to be coming back part-time will have no benefits and will have no access to pension plans. All those things have been terminated and cut off.

Would the minister care to comment briefly on a letter that was sent to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay) by a woman from Brampton, saying:

"Dear Sir: I am a widow." She goes on to describe her situation at Simpsons, and then says: "In past provincial elections, my late husband and I worked for Mr. Davis and his PC party, putting up signs, distributing literature, etc. I did this because I thought his government was decent and compassionate. I thought we had labour laws to protect ordinary working people like myself. I thought that if I worked hard I would be all right. I have been very disillusioned."

Is the Deputy Premier aware what the nonsense of committees and delays in reviews really means to people in their 50s who are trying to work for a living in Ontario? This is the kind of injustice they are facing today.

Hon. Mr. Welch: I know the member would not want to leave the impression of a lack of sensitivity on this side of the House with respect to those situations. The work place as we know it now and as we will continue to know it is going to provide more opportunities for part-time employment. I understand from my colleague the Minister of Labour that the management of the company to which the member made reference has indicated to him that it is seriously considering a plan for the introduction of benefits for its part-time employees.

WATER QUALITY

Mr. Van Horne: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Minister of Health. I am sure the minister is aware of the polychlorinated biphenyls scare in east London, stemming from the Westinghouse Canada plant and concentrated in Pottersburg Creek and lands adjoining that creek.

Many of my constituents are concerned about the potential danger to their health from the PCBs that have been discovered. To date, the Ministry of the Environment and health consultants of the Ministry of Labour have done very little to allay my constituents' fear for their health. Is the minister prepared to take any action to involve his ministry to allay my constituents' fears for potential health problems?

3 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the problem. I would not necessarily accept the suggestion of the honourable member that the efforts of the Ministry of the Environment and the Ministry of Labour have been ineffective. They may not have allayed all the fears, but there certainly has been a monitoring of the levels of polychlorinated biphenyls in that area. I have had discussions with the public health officials within my ministry, who are of the view that the levels detected are not a threat to human health.

I have also asked these public health officials to be in contact with the local medical officer of health. If in his opinion it is a situation in which there is some justification for a public health study, we would then, on his advice, give some consideration to it. There does not seem to be any reason for us to take that initiative at this time, given the work that is ongoing.

Mr. Van Horne: I am not expressing my own view; I am expressing the views of my constituents and those of many other people, including our local media, who are confused. The Ministry of the Environment has attempted to accommodate the situation, but it has presented a lot of technical jargon that people simply do not understand.

Beyond that, it is my understanding the local medical officer of health will act only on direction from the Minister of Health. Further to that, there has been some indication the medical officer of health should not get involved at this point.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Van Horne: There is a public liaison committee established to try to resolve some of these problems. The main concern the people have is for their health. Will the minister direct his officials to liaise with that committee to see whether anything can be done to allay that concern about their health?

Hon. Mr. Norton: I have proposed that my staff remain in contact with the local medical officer of health. I do not accept the suggestion, wherever it originated, that the medical officer of health can act in this kind of situation only on direction from me. That clearly is not the case. The medical officer of health has a responsibility to discharge to the community that he or she serves, wherever that may be in Ontario. I will make sure there is communication with the medical officer of health.

It is always possible for confusion to occur, especially with testing of a technical nature, whether it is done by us, the Ministry of the Environment or any other body. Sometimes in this kind of situation it is necessarily technical and can be confusing, especially when there is a particular resident in the community who seems to enjoy adding to the confusion.

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister responsible for Women's Issues. Is he aware that, this morning, representatives of the Ontario Federation of Labour came back to Queen's Park to tell a press conference there had been absolutely no response, written or verbal, from the government to the brief on affirmative action submitted six months ago by the OFL and a large coalition of women, teachers and community groups?

In the light of the government's commitment in the throne speech last March to push municipalities, school boards and crown agencies to set up affirmative action programs, how can the minister justify a total allocation of the ridiculous sum of $260,000 for all public sector affirmative action programs? That amount was referred to by the president of the OFL, Cliff Pilkey, in his remarks at today's press conference. He said this figure was confirmed by the chief statistician for the women's directorate, Mr. Lou Masurier.

Is the minister aware Mr. Pilkey pointed out that this sum, divided among 838 municipalities, 186 school boards and 229 hospitals. works out to only $207 each, or roughly 85 cents a worker?

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Ms. Bryden: Does the minister think an effective program of affirmative action can be set up with this kind of money?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, there are three or four questions there. I will try to answer them in order.

First, I am aware there was a press conference this morning and I am aware that during that conference some concern was expressed about the fact there was no response to the original meeting that this group had with members of the cabinet, including the Premier (Mr. Davis), some months ago.

I understand from the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay) that response is just about completed. In fact, we have here, with one exception, all the details by way of response. I think it should be clearly understood that because of the nature of all the points that had been raised during that discussion, the people who made those representations were entitled to a very detailed response. I think the member will find, once this is sent to the Ontario Federation of Labour, there is a lot of information that will go a long way to satisfying that group with respect to its concerns.

Second, if memory serves me correctly, the member raised some question about the affirmative action program. I should point out that the official of the Ontario women's directorate who is quoted in Mr. Pilkey's statement denies having told either Mr. Pilkey or his advisers that the $260,000 will be divided among school boards, municipalities and hospitals. That is just not the case.

Third, the incentive fund that was announced in those dollars was the one I announced before the municipalities.

Fourth, one has to be very fair. There is a very solid commitment to affirmative action. I invite the member to tell me about a political jurisdiction anywhere in North America that can match this government's affirmative action program. What we have done to the municipalities and the school boards, and soon will do to other public bodies, is say, "How about emulating what we are doing and we will make some resources available?" Many of these bodies are quite able to do without any incentive funding at all because they are large enough and have personnel people in place.

This province is dedicated and committed to the principle of positive affirmative action and our record shouts results in that connection.

Ms. Bryden: Even if the $260,000 is for the municipalities only, as the minister led them to believe in his speech last August, it works out to about only $310 per municipality. Will the minister tell us exactly how many affirmative action programs are now in place in each of the public sectors mentioned in the throne speech, and in hospitals and in the private sector? Will he table a list of them so we can check to see if they are really effective programs and assess what progress is actually being made by the voluntary approach, instead of saying we have the best program in Canada?

We have to see the figures and the lists of programs now in effect, and I think that may convince the minister that his voluntary approach is simply not working. The recent statistical reports from Statistics Canada and the federal women's bureau indicate there is very little progress being made in closing the wage gap or in overcoming the underrepresentation of women in the work force.

Hon. Mr. Welch: I do not want to be misunderstood. There is a lot more to do. As Minister responsible for Women's Issues, I am not satisfied with the present situation. When we examine the situation though -- and I have spent all summer meeting with presidents and chief executive officers in the private sector -- one of the problems is we do not have all the information that would show the level of commitment out there.

I was encouraged by an

article in this morning's Globe and Mail about a speech by the president of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce on this subject. I was impressed by what the Canadian Construction Association and other associations are doing with respect to their manuals and the commitment there is to the full concept of equity in the work place. I do not think anybody argues with that, but people can say, as the member has done, and I would join her, it would be better if it were being done a little more quickly.

3:10 p.m.

We have municipalities with formal affirmative action programs and others who have expressed some interest in these programs and in the funds. We have school boards that are doing it, but not enough. The challenge has now been issued. We do not want to inherit in this jurisdiction the negative impact from the United States with compulsory quotas and reverse discrimination.

This is a positive program of equality of access to the work place and advancement within the work place. I am quite satisfied that nobody has a monopoly on equity and fairness in this regard and that we will see progress being made at a rate that will satisfy us that people are really trying now to implement these programs in a fair way in their places of employment.

PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY

Mr. Kennedy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health, if I can get his attention. It is with respect to the recently announced federal inquiry into the pharmaceutical industry. I understand this is an argument between multinationals and the generic drug companies, and it is claimed it will have an adverse effect and place research and development in jeopardy.

Would the minister comment on that? Is the province proposing to put forward representations to this inquiry?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, the issue the honourable member is referring to relates to the question of compulsory licensing, and we are very much aware of that issue at present. In fact, we have set up an interministerial committee to look at the issue from a provincial perspective, including representatives from my ministry and the Ministry of Industry and Trade.

There has been some communication with the federal government. To the best of my knowledge, it would be our intention not to make any formal submission to the inquiry at this point but rather to make our views known at the appropriate time on a government-to-government basis in direct communication with the federal government as opposed to the inquiry officer.

Mr. Kennedy: Does the minister have some concern that there is merit in the claim that this will jeopardize research and development? Generic drugs are a great saving in costs to users.

Hon. Mr. Norton: It certainly is a double-edged sword. I am very much aware of and concerned about the argument that is being made with respect to the impact this is having on research and development. At the same time, I am acutely aware of the impact that the elimination of generic drugs competing in the market could have in drug costs on the consumer in this province, and perhaps even more particularly on our own provincial drug benefit program, which this year alone costs $280 million within the budget of my ministry. The elimination of competition could escalate those costs quite dramatically.

If I were to accept the argument with respect to research and development, one of the things I would want to have assurances about from the internationals, if I were in the decision-making position -- which I am not, of course, because it is ultimately a question to be resolved federally -- would be a guarantee from the internationals that the research and development would be done in this country and not out of this country or offshore.

HOSPITAL BEDS

Mr. Eakins: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health. In view of the letters and petitions he has received from citizens organizations and municipal councils, can the minister indicate when the green light will be given to open the 21-bed unit so urgently needed at the Ross Memorial Hospital in Lindsay?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I do not have any date to give the honourable member. The question of allocation with respect to acute, chronic and extended care beds is still very much under consideration by the government. I hope to have an answer to that question in the very near future.

I would hasten to add to the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway) that the memo to which he refers has absolutely nothing to do with the issue of allocation.

Mr. Eakins: The minister knows the situation has now reached crisis proportions in many areas of the province, whether it is Metro Toronto, Windsor, Kitchener-Waterloo or Lindsay, and the list goes on. In some areas of the province it takes months to get a chronic care bed, and this is clearly unacceptable. The minister cannot delay presenting some solutions to this problem. We are not talking about a Thom commission or a Fahlgren royal commission, where time does not seem to be the least concern; we are talking about health care and people's lives.

Will the minister tell us he views the situation as an urgent priority? And when -- this week, next week, when? -- will he present those additional allocations to the House?

An hon. member: Including Georgetown.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Of course.

I am aware there is some backing-up in the acute care system at the present time in the province. There will always be some of that. One can never build perfectly to the optimum level so that there is never a waiting period. There will always be some waiting period with respect to long-term-care accommodation.

I am aware that in some communities the waiting period is becoming unacceptably long. A very high priority on my agenda is to try to address first, at the earliest opportunity, those communities where the waiting period is becoming unacceptably long. Ultimately, I would like to reduce them all to an acceptable level.

ADHERENCE TO MANUAL OF ADMINISTRATION

Mr. Samis: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transportation and Communications regarding the situation involving Mr. Parsons and the leadership campaign of the member for Muskoka (Mr. F. S. Miller). Can the minister inform the House what his policy is and whether he intends to allow or tolerate Mr. Parsons continuing as chairman of GO Transit while managing the member's campaign?

If he does, does he not think that compromises the independence and integrity of GO Transit and of the position? Why does he not do what the minister himself has done, advise him that if he wants to work on the campaign he should take a leave of absence for the duration of the campaign?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, the question was to me regarding my colleague's future as Premier of this province.

I have no concerns whatsoever that for Mr. Parsons to work for my colleague compromises his position in any way.

Mr. Rae: Is there one law for the rich and one for everybody else in the province?

Hon. Mr. Snow: I wish there was one for the leader of the third party.

Mr. Rae: No other public servant can do that.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I would like to point out that Mr. Parsons is not a public servant. It is an order in council appointment. He works one or two days per week as chairman of the board. He is not a full-time chairman. He is not a public servant.

Mr. Foulds: You are right. He is not a public servant.

Hon. Mr. Snow: He is a lot more public than the member.

Mr. Speaker: I think the minister has answered the question.

Hon. Mr. Snow: My advice is that he is not in any way outside the guidelines.

Mr. Samis: It is obvious that Mr. Parsons is paid out of the public purse and is the head of a public agency or corporation. Does the minister not think, and will he not suggest to the Premier (Mr. Davis), that a set of guidelines should be introduced for all cabinet ministers re the use of their staff in an election campaign of this sort? Does he not think that would allay any public fears about partisanship and using a public post for a partisan objective?

Hon. Mr. Snow: I am sure the Premier is reading Hansard in great detail these days and will get the honourable member's suggestion. I point out that Mr. Parsons is not a member of my staff. His is an order in council appointment to head a public agency.

Mr. Martel: Why would you fire St. Onge from the Ministry of Northern Affairs? Is he not high enough?

Mr. Speaker: Final supplementary, the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway).

Mr. Martel: He is not high enough in the civil service. You fired St. Onge.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Under pressure from you guys.

Mr. Martel: You lied to me. You area bloody liar.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: We never did.

Mr. Martel: I would not mind getting thrown out over this one. He is lying.

Mr. Speaker: Please, the Minister of Northern Affairs.

Mr. Conway: Excuse me, Mr. Speaker, I have a final supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: I have recognized you already.

Mr. Martel: We never said a word. Why do you not stand up and make that accusation?

Mr. Speaker: Will the member for Sudbury East --

Mr. Martel: He made an accusation.

Mr. Speaker: You do not have the floor. I have recognized the member for Renfrew North.

3:20 p.m.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: the Minister of Northern Affairs has suggested that we in this party made some representation that led to his dismissing a civil servant in Sudbury. I tell the minister that is totally unfounded.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the honourable member please resume his seat.

Mr. Martel: Are you prepared to make him withdraw that accusation?

Mr. Speaker: I have not heard anything.

Mr. Martel: I heard it.

Mr. Speaker: I have not.

Mr. Martel: So have all his colleagues.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the member please resume his seat. I have not heard it.

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, as I read the Ontario Manual of Administration, Mr. Parsons would be a crown employee under the definition as set out in the manual. Can the minister explain how Mr. Parsons is not a crown employee and therefore can participate so obviously and so blatantly in the partisan affairs of the Progressive Conservative organization?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, the whole reason I say he can participate and is only a part-time employee is based on a ruling we have received through the Chairman of Management Board of Cabinet (Mr. McCague), the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry), the Deputy Attorney General and the Civil Service Commission. If the member does not believe any of those, then --

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: There has been a ruling with respect to part-time employees. I think there is a basic rule in the House that if it is referred to by a minister of the crown, that document has to be tabled and we have to see it. Does it apply to every part-time employee in the public service? If it does, that will be of great interest to a great many people in Ontario.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

USE OF LANDFILL SITE

Mr. Elston: Mr. Speaker, there have been a number of aspirants to the Conservative leadership speaking this afternoon. In the spirit of fairness, I would like to address a question to the Minister of the Environment, so he might present a little bit of profile for the people of Ontario.

Mr. Speaker: Please place your question quickly.

Mr. Elston: I have a question that we have asked on two other occasions pertaining to Victoria Crossing dump. A shopping centre and an apartment complex are to be established there and we have been given assurances before by the Minister of the Environment that there was no need for public meetings because there was no indication of the presence of toxics on that site.

I understand that this morning while they were constructing part of the underground services for that complex, they ran across 16 barrels of unidentified material that could easily be toxic.

Would the minister now provide us with an undertaking to hold a public meeting and a commitment to review completely the ministry's position with respect to this whole development?

Hon. Mr. Brandt: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to thank the honourable member opposite for his public display of support and confidence. I appreciate that deeply. Any thoughts I might have had with respect to some future activity are completely behind me now as a result of that support. I want him to know that as well.

Let me just clarify for the member for Huron-Bruce that the substances found on the site under excavation consisted of 16 barrels, eight of which were entirely empty. There was nothing whatever in those barrels.

We are now concerning ourselves with a problem that should occupy the intelligence of the second party for a long time to come, I am sure. The other eight barrels contain some sludge-like material that is being analysed by my laboratories at present. Upon finding out what the detail and content of those barrels are, I would be most happy to share that with the members. We simply do not know at this time what it is.

Briefly, with respect to the request for a hearing on the matter, I have not changed my position. I do not feel a hearing is necessary, justified or warranted at this time.

USE OF TIME IN QUESTION PERIOD

Mr. Elston: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: As members probably know, we have languished through a series of interjections by the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Bernier). I think it only appropriate that since we used up two or three minutes of our question period time as a result of the exchanges between him and the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel), we should have that time added to the question period.

Mr. Speaker: I totally agree with you, but I do not have the authority to do it.

REPORTS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

Mr. Kolyn from the standing committee on the administration of justice reported the following resolution:

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

Law officer of the crown program, $5,055,000; administrative services program, $73,877,000; guardian and trustee services program, $10,860,000; crown legal services program, $29,566,000; legislative counsel services program, $1,721,000; courts administration program, $130,407,000; administrative tribunals program, $14,191,000.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND OTHER STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS

Mr. Sheppard from the standing committee on regulations and other statutory instruments presented the committee's second report for 1984.

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

Your committee begs to report the following bill without amendments:

Bill Pr25,

An Act respecting the Oshawa Young Women's Christian Association.

Your committee begs to report the following bill with a certain amendment:

Bill Pr2,

An Act to revive Marquis Video Corporation.

Your committee recommends that the fees, less the actual cost of printing, be remitted on Bill Pr25,

An Act respecting the Oshawa Young Women's Christian Association.

Motion agreed to.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

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

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

Ministry administration program, $12,506,600; environmental planning program, $42,359,300; environmental control program, $37,065,900; utility planning and operations program, $217,958,700.

3:30 p.m.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Kerr from the standing committee on social development presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bill with certain amendments:

Bill 77,

An Act respecting the Protection and Well-being of Children and their Families.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: Shall the bill be ordered for third reading? Agreed.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, that bill is going to committee next week, is it not?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I thought I heard you say the bill was ordered for third reading.

An hon. member: He did.

Hon. Mr. Wells: It did. It went to third reading.

Mr. Speaker: I put the question.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, on a point on order: I was under that assumption, because we had a House leaders' meeting not more than three hours ago -- I believe we are talking about the children's legislation -- and the agreement was that this was going to be sent to committee and would be debated next Tuesday evening.

Hon. Mr. Wells: My friend is correct. It should really go to committee of the whole House.

Mr. Speaker: I just want to make the point that I am not aware of any agreements between any of the parties.

Mr. Martel: I should have stood up but I did not catch it. I just assumed it was going there because we agreed on that. I understand the dilemma for you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: What do we do? Back up now?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, with your indulgence, maybe we could back up. That bill should be ordered to committee of the whole House.

Bill ordered for committee of the whole House.

REPRESENTATION AT FUNERAL

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: I just wanted to express my appreciation to the Legislative Assembly for sending one representative from each party to the funeral of Grant Notley, the leader of the Alberta NDP, who was killed in a plane crash last Friday.

The gesture was very much appreciated by myself, my caucus, my party and by many people in the province of Alberta. I did want to pass on my appreciation to the Legislative Assembly.

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon Mr. Wells moved that Mr. Hodgson and Mr. MacQuarrie exchange position in the order of precedence for private members' public business.

Motion agreed to.

REMEMBRANCE DAY

Hon Mr. Wells moved that when the House adjourns on Friday, November 9, it stand adjourned until Tuesday, November 13, at 2 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, it is a holiday in the public service on November 12 for the November 11 holiday, so this will mean the House will not meet on Monday, November 12.

Mr. Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House the motion carry?

Mr. Nixon: No.

Mr. Speaker: No?

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I am standing up and I would like to speak on it if I may. I think it is too late for us to do anything about the motion now, but I think it is entirely inappropriate for the government of Ontario to close down on November 12 for, let us say, an exercise of remembrance.

There will be no ceremonies of any kind. It will just be a day when nobody, including ourselves, will be called upon to perform our duties here. All of the other employees of the government will have the day off with pay, which I guess is all right, but I think it is inappropriate in my mind to attach that with a day of remembrance because there will be no association whatsoever.

It is my own feeling that since we have moved in this jurisdiction away from making November 11 a holiday, but stressing in the schools and the community that time be made available for the people to go and undertake some acts of remembrance, the emphasis ought to be that way. In the future, if we have an agreement with our public servants for so many paid holidays per year, then we should associate it with something else. I have no objection to that.

I do not intend to vote against the resolution. I just think it is time we got our business together here. It should not happen again in my view.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I just want clarification. Is the member suggesting that they should not have the holiday in future? As I understand it, they have that by collective agreement.

Mr. Nixon: It should be some other time, such as their birthdays or something else.

Mr. Martel: It should be staggered then. You are saying you can have a staggered vacation --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Nixon: Just before my friend makes this into some sort of a labour dispute, I made it quite clear that in my view these people have the right to so many paid holidays, including this one. In my view, it should not be associated with November 11 -- anything else, but not November 11.

Mr. Speaker: I thought that was made very clear.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I appreciate the logic of my friend the House leader for the Liberal Party. I think if he makes the point that he wishes the collective agreement to be changed so that the November holiday that is guaranteed in the collective agreement be attached to some other day, that is all right.

Mr. Nixon: Why should we close down?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Wells: But there was a suggestion that somehow the government was doing something immoral because it was having a holiday on November 11. This is part of the collective agreement, and if the --

Mr. Haggerty: It falls on Sunday, though.

Hon. Mr. Wells: My friend knows that if Christmas falls on a Sunday, Monday is the holiday; there is a holiday in lieu.

Mr. Haggerty: That is by statute.

Hon. Mr. Wells: So is this. This is part of a collective agreement with our employees. If members would like to come here and force the staff of this Legislature and this building to come here so we can meet on that day, I would be happy to consider that. But that was the position we put to the House leaders, and we all agreed it was not a practical position.

I have no quarrel with suggesting that those people who negotiate with the civil servants of this province look at November 11 as a holiday and at whether some other day should be declared a holiday and should be the day they get, or whatever the agreement says. But we do have it now, and the public service of Ontario has a holiday on November 12. Therefore, it is appropriate that we not meet on November 12 rather than bring them all in and force them to work on that day.

Motion agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

POLITICAL TORTURE

Mr. Renwick moved, seconded by Mr. Di Santo, resolution 37:

That the select committee on the Ombudsman shall, when it considers it necessary, consider, review, report and recommend to the Legislature on ways in which the assembly can act to oppose and condemn acts of political killings, imprisonment, terror and torture and any other acts which may be included in any covenant or document to which Canada is or may become a signatory; and, in particular, the committee shall have the power to consult with and, if deemed appropriate, establish formal relationships with and provide actual support to government and nongovernmental organizations whose aims and objectives are dedicated to the elimination of the kinds of acts mentioned above.

The committee shall further have the power to receive, consider and review specific examples of the kinds of actions herein mentioned and, if deemed advisable, to report thereon to the Legislature with any recommendations for actions which the Legislature might take; and pursuant to the above, the committee shall have the power to sit concurrently with the House at such times as it considers necessary and appropriate.

Mr. Speaker: I would point out to all honourable members that the mover of the motion has up to 20 minutes to make his presentation; other members who wish to participate may have up to 10 minutes. I would also point out that the member may reserve any portion of his time for his windup if he so desires.

3:40 p.m.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this motion, which stands in my name but which I believe represents the considered view of all the members of the assembly, as reflected in the special report of the select committee on the Ombudsman.

I placed this resolution in Orders and Notices out of a sense of urgency and a sense of concern that this parliament must deal with the matter that is referred to in the resolution in the way in which the select committee on the Ombudsman has recommended to the assembly.

Members may well recall that on May 29, 1980, in the immediately preceding parliament, with my colleague the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Stokes) then in the chair, I moved in this assembly:

"That this assembly request the select committee on the Ombudsman to consult with the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, Amnesty International and the International Commission of Jurists and others, if advisable, with a view to reporting to this assembly on ways in which this assembly may act to make its voice heard against political killings, imprisonment, terror and torture."

You will recall, Mr. Speaker, there was the intervention of an election and a new parliament, and the select committee on the Ombudsman was concerned whether the matters that had been referred to it in the previous parliament could he continued by the select committee appointed in this parliament. That took place by action of this Legislature on October 31, 1981, when the select committee was authorized to complete the work of the predecessor committee. The committee then advised the assembly that it intended to complete the matter and report to the Legislature before the end of the spring sitting.

The committee did report and every member of the assembly did receive the special report of the select committee on the Ombudsman, which was dated April 1, 1983, as the transmittal date to the Speaker of the assembly. On May 17, 1983, the then chairman of the select committee, in introducing the report, moved that it be considered by the assembly and the debate was adjourned, as is the custom of the House, on that date.

At the end of that session, as will be reflected in the journals of the assembly, on December 16, 1983, the matter was ordered to be brought forward on the second sessional day of the fourth session of the 32nd Parliament, which is the session in which we are currently engaged. For reasons I do not understand, the matter was ordered for debate on the evening of April 12, 1984. It was so ordered by the government House leader at that time. On the evening of April 12, again for reasons I do not understand, it was not called for debate, and the House adjourned that evening at 8:49 p.m.

Since that date, the matter has continued in Orders and Notices on each occasion under the heading of "Government Bills and Orders...Committee of the Whole House." In today's Orders and Notices, as has been the case since April 12, 1984, under the item "Committee of the Whole House," there appears, "Motion for adoption of the recommendation contained in the special report of the select committee on the Ombudsman."

Since it did not appear to me that motion was going to be called in the assembly at any time, I thought it was advisable, because of my concern, that the assembly deal with this resolution during this parliament and I specifically placed the recommendation contained in the special report of the select committee on the Ombudsman in Orders and Notices under the ballot item of private members' business today.

I appreciate the courtesy of my colleagues in allowing this debate to continue this afternoon, because I am of the opinion that this matter is one which, as reflected in the report of the committee, is of immense concern to all of us. It has taken a considerable amount of time, with the other duties of the select committee on the Ombudsman, for the matter to be thoroughly reviewed and considered.

I am afraid that if this resolution is not dealt with by the House this afternoon, unanimously, it may well be that during this parliament there will be no other occasion when there will be an opportunity, either during this session or in a subsequent session, if there is one, for us to deal with a matter of immense and continuing importance.

Let me first express my appreciation for the excellent and very fine work accomplished by the select committee of the assembly mirrored in the special report on the resolution I originally introduced. It involved in its deliberations 15 members of the previous parliament and 12 members of this parliament; so we can be certain that 27 of our colleagues, either in this parliament or in the preceding parliament, participated in the discussions that led up to the special report, which as I have said was tabled in this assembly in April 1984.

I want to compliment that committee. I want to express very deep concern and appreciation for the work it did in providing us in such a short compass with a very positively worded report on what this assembly can and should do.

Honourable members may recall that a number of organizations were referred to in my original resolution and that a number of organizations were called by the select committee and invited to attend before the committee and did, in fact, attend and make submissions. The organizations that made submissions to the committee are set forth in the report, and they are as follows:

As members will note from reading the report, without a single exception each of the bodies that appeared before the committee complimented the committee on the task with which it was dealing and the questions each group was being asked to consider. The committee was urged to carry on with its work and to make its recommendations, and no questions were raised with respect to the capacity of this assembly at this time to take the actions that were reflected in the original motion.

The original motion was quite simple: to take whatever action was necessary to make the voice of this assembly heard against those indignities to individuals in the political sense of the term throughout the world. The work of the committee therefore was simply to find the mechanism and the way in which that could be done.

After very careful consideration, the select committee in its report made the recommendation mirrored in the resolution before us today. The language is precisely the same as in the special report, and the action to be taken is set forth in the resolution I have read. I believe the resolution does not need any elaboration by me. It is clear, it is precise and it has the advantage of the explanations that are given in the special report of why that particular recommendation was made by the select committee.

3:50 p.m.

It is my view that if this resolution is passed today by this assembly, as I trust it will be, we will have available to us, as is emphasized throughout the report, under the control of this assembly, a body, the select committee on the Ombudsman, that will be able to make the kinds of connections and communications with other organizations and bodies that are interested in the same areas.

Then we can be seen to stand and to participate in the expression of concern which from time to time, unfortunately, we must make on a concerted basis to make certain that whatever we can do, little as it may be, will be an opportunity for us to express our concern about the kind of evils to which the resolution directs its attention.

Nothing can be more eloquent than the actual explanatory information set forth following the recommendation in the select committee:

"The committee was concerned that the recommendations it proposed to the assembly be more than hollow posturing and pious but ineffective words. For if the resolution of the assembly specifically enjoined the committee to advise it on ways 'to make its voice heard,' the implication was clear that the ultimate objective was not merely the expression of the Legislature's opinion but tangible improvement in the lot of persons whose human and political rights are being involved. In short, the committee seeks results, not gestures.

"After reviewing the evidence presented by individuals and groups with a great deal of experience in cases of political imprisonment, torture and killing, the committee has concluded that the Legislative Assembly of Ontario can indeed be an effective force against these evils."

Then further on:

"Clearly, the passage of a resolution in the Ontario Legislature condemning human rights violations in certain countries will not magically result in the cessation of torture and the release of political prisoners. The evidence is clear, however, that such action is an important element in eventually improving general conditions or righting individual wrongs. Formal steps by the assembly in these matters are particularly significant; the expression of opinion by freely elected and democratically responsive members of the Legislative Assembly is an especially clear and powerful signal of popular concern over human rights violations."

It ended with this ringing declaration:

"The assembly cannot turn its back on the limited yet very real potential to help those suffering from political torture and imprisonment. Truly, in the words of Edmund Burke, 'The only way evil will ever dominate is if good men do nothing."

We have the very clear words expressed by the Premier in this assembly on the questions relating to nuclear disarmament and how he saw the importance to the members of this assembly of having an opportunity to express ourselves on matters of universal human concern. On June 10, 1982, he had an opportunity to say, "As human beings and as citizens of the world, we have a responsibility to search our conscience and share with ourselves the things we care about most." On that occasion, he was speaking about nuclear disarmament.

Later, on the occasion of Human Rights Week, the 35th anniversary of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, in 1983, when he was speaking in the House, the Premier had this to say, "Since then, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights has inspired a number of specific international human rights agreements by which Ontario has consented to be bound, thus demonstrating our province's commitment to strengthening support for equality and fairness at home and abroad." I emphasize the word "abroad."

The Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry), as reported in the special report, gave the address in the second annual Anatoly Shcharansky lecture in Toronto, when he reaffirmed the government of Ontario's commitment that "we will continue to promote international human rights and at every opportunity we will reaffirm our commitment to individual justice and the rule of law."

Those are very positive commitments on behalf of the government. This is the opportunity for this assembly to make such a commitment as an assembly of elected individuals in our own right, as the body of a democratically elected parliament, on the recommendation of a committee that has thoroughly canvassed and reviewed the concerns that were originally expressed in the resolution in 1980 referring the matter to it in the last parliament.

I urge every one of my colleagues in the assembly to support the resolution today, during this parliament, and something more than four years after the original resolution was unanimously passed, after the work has been done and after a clear-cut recommendation of our own committee has responded to that resolution and reported to the assembly. I look forward to the participation of colleagues from all sides of the House on this question in the remaining minutes of this debate.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Robinson): I note that the honourable member has reserved just over two minutes for a wrapup at the end of the debate.

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) has brought this resolution forward for debate. Certainly every member of this assembly is against acts of political terror, political killings, torture, etc. We as a Legislature have in the past unanimously condemned some of these acts when the violations of human rights and the violations of political rights were clear. I hope we continue to do so. We should continue to support the United Nations, other international bodies and the various international agreements on human rights.

I do not differ with the honourable member on the principle of what he is bringing forward or on the principle of endorsing human rights and condemning acts of terror wherever they turn up. Where I do differ with him, with respect, is on the methodology he suggests for this assembly in dealing with these matters.

There are many cases today in the world where the situation is not clear. After all, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter; one man's prisoner of conscience is another man's criminal; one man's political killing is another man's legitimate execution. There are many allegations around the world concerning many things that are happening today. There are many partisans on both sides of these issues, and many of them live in Ontario.

There is no question that we as individuals should get involved in these matters. Frankly, I take a back seat to no one in this assembly in my personal condemnation of acts of terror and so on. But are we, as the Legislature of Ontario, qualified to get all the evidence on these controversial matters and to sit in judgement?

As an example, we all know about the recent problems in northern India surrounding the Sikh Golden Temple. The Indian government alleges the Sikhs are a bunch of terrorists; the Sikhs allege the Indian government has been engaging in political killings and political murder.

If this is brought to us and we review the matters at Amritsar -- if we consider this specific example -- we will have many citizens of Ontario, as we have seen in the street demonstrations on both sides, coming before the committee of this assembly. We will, of course, have mass demonstrations in front of our Legislative Building.

But that committee does not have the power to subpoena those who can give us the facts. Can the committee in that situation get at the truth? Can it sit as a court and make the proper judgement in matters as controversial as those?

4 p.m.

We all know about the Aquino killing in the Philippines. Was it a political killing or was it a murder? Can we sit in judgement on that? What if someone brings to the committee the situation in Northern Ireland? The Irish Republican Army, the British army, the Protestant militants -- which are the terrorists and which are acting legally and properly? There are the five or six factions in Lebanon. Who are to be supported and who condemned?

In short, in these controversial areas of alleged terrorism, who are the good guys and who are the bad guys? Are we, an assembly in Ontario, qualified in many cases to make the decisions? The members opposite will say: "We will not get into those matters. We will deal only with those matters where the situation is clear."

The report from the Ombudsman's committee, which in many ways was a good one, on page 10 says, "The committee foresees its role consisting of the following: notification from any source, including a member of the Legislative Assembly, of circumstances in the world where it is alleged that human rights and political rights are violated." In that term of reference, in that role of the committee, how can the committee turn down any group of citizens of Ontario that wants to come before that committee and make its allegations?

If allegations of terror were made somewhere else in the world, the committee would have to hear those people because the terms of reference say it must hear every group of citizens. Even if the committee felt the allegation made was not legitimate, it would have to hear it. For instance, if a group came before us to condemn the Afghan guerrillas in that country as terrorists because they are not supporting the Russian invasion, would we hear a group like that condemning the Afghan guerrillas and praising the Soviet occupiers of Afghanistan? That is an extreme example, but it could happen.

Suppose we had a group here discussing El Salvador and Nicaragua. That is a dog's breakfast. How could we get into that? On day one, let us say, when we would deal with Nicaragua, group A would come before us, praise the Sandinista government as a legitimate one to be supported, as it has the popular support of the people, and condemn the Contadora of Nicaragua as a Central Intelligence Agency-Yankee-Imperialist-Fascist terrorist group who should be condemned. Group B would come before the same committee and condemn the government as being a revolutionary one holding power by the gun, by terror and murder, and praising the Contadora as a legitimate government of Nicaragua.

On day two, we might look at El Salvador and group A would condemn the government of El Salvador in exactly the same terms as group B condemned the Sandinistas. They will praise the rebels as legitimate representatives of the people,

whereas they condemn the rebels in the other government. Group B, on the other hand, would praise the Duarte government as legitimately elected and condemn the rebels as Russian-Cuban-Communist terrorists. To those people the situation is simply all black and white -- maybe in that situation red and white.

Can we, without the power of subpoena -- I am sure no one would suggest the committee go and visit those two countries -- as a committee of the Legislature sit in judgement? Can we judge who in El Salvador and who in Nicaragua are the terrorists, who is committing political murder, who is to be condemned and who is to be praised?

That is the problem we have before us. I suggest to the member of Riverdale and other members that any action this Legislature takes has moral suasion only. We certainly do not have any power to affect the actions of any government. We have moral suasion, and moral suasion is valid only when we have the unanimous support of all members of this assembly. There have been times in the past and I hope in the future, when we had the unanimous support of all members of this assembly.

I and every other member would support a motion to support the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights which supported the Geneva Convention, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the UN declaration condemning torture and a resolution endorsing the Final Act of Helsinki. That kind of motion would get unanimous support from this assembly. That would be helpful, in line with some of those people who came before the committee.

I suggest we continue, as we have done in the past, to bring forward those motions condemning international terrorism, political murder, etc., where we can all agree, as we have done in the past, for example, with the committee we set up on Soviet Jewry. Those things happen, not by a committee of the assembly holding public hearings from partisans on both sides; they happen by quiet consultation, either among the House leaders or members of the assembly of each party who, by consensus, agree that certain acts in the world should be condemned, and by consensus bring a motion to this Legislature. There is unanimous consent to bring the motion and the motion has a lot of suasion.

As an example, last week on an entirely different topic this assembly endorsed the use of heroin for cancer patients. Because it was unanimous, and only because it was unanimous, we hope that will have some suasion on the federal government.

That is what I suggest, rather than have the committee or members of it, because it is an all-party committee, bring in witnesses, hear all these controversial matters and find the items -- there are certainly enough of them in the world -- where this assembly can agree. I think this assembly should agree, but without hearing all the partisan representations and without having all the people come before us and, in effect, use our assembly or our select committee on the Ombudsman as a forum to bring forward various grievances from other parts of the world, some of which are legitimate and some of which are not legitimate.

I support the process of expanding that kind of informal consultation process in this assembly, but I cannot support opening up this Legislature as a forum for all the controversial political groups that reside in Ontario and represent so many people around the world to put forward their political views. In those situations, we are not able to get all the facts, we are not able to subpoena and I suggest, with respect, in many of those situations we are not qualified to make proper judgements either pro or con any group that comes before us.

It is valuable that we talk about this in this assembly. I am pleased the member for Riverdale brought it up. The other side of the coin, as I mentioned, shows that there are some serious problems in the methodology the honourable member has suggested and the select committee on the Ombudsman has suggested. I feel we should not adopt that methodology, but should continue to condemn human rights violations in the way we have been doing it, by consent of the members of the assembly.

Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Speaker, I recall that as part of his opening remarks the member for Riverdale, who has moved this motion, made the observation that this issue -- I believe I am quoting him correctly -- is of "immense concern" to all members of this Legislature. I wish it were so. Let us take a look around. Is it really of immense concern?

I would not suggest that there are members of this Legislature who do not have some concern about this, but I would like to suggest that it is so far beyond our experience in most cases and is so far beyond our borders in most cases that we feel it is really not our problem. That is the real concern.

The Canadian Indians had a saying that one cannot understand another man or another woman, one cannot really know what he or she feels, until one walks in his or her shoes. Maybe that is what we need to do. Maybe we need to try to walk in the victim's shoes.

What would it be like if any one of us were in a prison in South America today? Remember that what we are talking about is happening right now. It has happened in the past, but it is happening right now and it will happen tomorrow as well.

What if we were in a prison in South America today and we were asked to swallow some wires with little metal balls on the ends of them -- different sizes and different lengths of wires? Even though we were gagging, we would be forced to swallow them and after we finally got them down our captors would turn on the power.

4:10 p.m.

I read an account of that. I read an account of a prisoner who came up from Chile and is living in Toronto today and had had that happen to him. He said, "Your whole body feels as if it is exploding, as if it is literally being torn apart." We have to walk in somebody else's shoes.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to put yourself in a peasant's hut in the Ukraine in 1933. Put yourself in the place of a mother or father in that hut, watching his or her children slowly starve to death, not because of environmental conditions or the famine that was sweeping the country, but because of a deliberate political act of the government of that jurisdiction to starve into submission by forced and deliberate famine the people of the Ukraine. How many died? Three million? Four million? Will we ever know?

I would ask that we put ourselves in a line of women, children and men, young and old, in the death camp of Auschwitz as we march towards the ovens not knowing what is before us. When we get inside those ovens, the doors are clanged shut and the gas comes hissing out. Can we really imagine the terror, the helplessness? Can we really walk in their shoes?

We will put ourselves into an open boat tossing in the South China Sea, packed with 50 or 60 men, women and children -- it was intended to hold only eight, nine or 10 -- forced to flee their homeland of Vietnam because of a political decision of their government. They are passed by, they are raided by pirates, the women are raped, the men are thrown overboard, the children are beaten. Can we walk in their shoes?

We will put ourselves on Korean Airlines flight 007 as it passes over a Russian peninsula and a thud is heard. As the plane starts to break up and decompress, the passengers' bodies are literally torn apart -- because of a political decision made in a political jurisdiction.

We will put ourselves in Argentina and try to understand the feelings and walk in the shoes of the mothers, sisters and sweethearts of the men who are known only as the missing, who have been tortured, killed and buried in some mass grave.

It is all very well for us in this Legislature to talk about jurisdictional rights, the rights of the members of this Legislature; to talk about what we can do and what we cannot do, what we should do and what we should not do. Is that really the issue?

I must admit I am not overly concerned about the mechanics contained in this resolution. I know there has to be a way to do it and I am quite prepared to see the discussion continue if someone can come up with a better way of doing it. I am quite prepared to admit the member for Wilson Heights (Mr. Rotenberg) presented some very valid objections that I can agree with and understand, but that does not really solve the problem.

It does not solve the problem of hundreds, thousands and millions of individual human beings in this century who have been tortured, maimed and killed because of a political decision. That is the issue. It is the issue of the sanctity, the sacredness and the integrity of human life, wherever we find it, under whatever jurisdiction.

As members of this Legislature, we do not have the right to go into those other countries and order them to stop, but there is something we can do. We can raise our voices and our objections. With so many others, such as Amnesty International, we can help to put the spotlight on the hellholes, the viciousness, the destructiveness and the callousness towards human life. We can do that.

Whether it is through a committee of the Ombudsman or some other committee of this Legislature is not the real issue or concern. The concern is that we do take opportunities like this to speak out, to say exactly how we feel and what we believe, to speak out in the name of our own people. Can any of us say that in any of our constituencies the people who elected us and whom we represent would not wish us to speak out in this way, to find some way to highlight and put a focus on these atrocities and to join with others who share our revulsion about what is happening? I think not.

I think those who elected us and whom we represent would want us in their names to support the principle behind this resolution and search further, if necessary, for different ways to implement it, to find a way to say that in this jurisdiction human life is sacred and we will speak out when it is being threatened.

Mr. Di Santo: Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution introduced by the member for Riverdale and I wholeheartedly second it.

I would like to express my views on this subject very briefly. I am glad the member for Kitchener-Wilmot (Mr. Sweeney) expressed his feelings in a very emotional way about the subject matter of this resolution. As he said, and as a matter of fact the member for Riverdale also said it in the debate that took place in the Legislature on May 29, 1980, the fact that the select committee on the Ombudsman is the mechanism suggested does not mean this has to be the only mechanism.

It may or may not be the best way to handle this very serious problem, but certainly there must be a mechanism available to this assembly to express its concern, repugnance and disgust about torture, imprisonment and deprivation of life all over the world.

4:20 p.m.

From that perspective, I think we should see that this is a valid resolution. As the member for Riverdale pointed out, the first resolution was debated on May 29, 1980. The select committee on the Ombudsman has been involved at quite some length in discussing this problem, has received a number of delegations and has invited a number of people who have been involved in the human rights field.

The select committee came to the resolution that is reflected verbatim in the motion we are discussing today. There has been a thorough examination of the issue. There is no doubt in my mind it is the right, indeed the responsibility, of this assembly to be involved in this very serious issue. It is our responsibility not only as individuals but also as members of this assembly, as representatives of the people of Ontario.

It has been pointed out before that in the debate that took place on May 29 the present Treasurer (Mr. Grossman) expressed his support for the resolution. The Premier (Mr. Davis), speaking to the House on December 5, 1983, expressed the support of Ontario for equality and fairness at home and abroad. The member for Riverdale underlined the word "abroad." The Attorney General also supported the idea of promoting international human rights at every opportunity when he spoke to the second annual Anatoly Shcharansky lecture in Toronto in 1982.

It has been a tradition in this assembly to pass resolutions dealing with issues that are not strictly within the provincial jurisdiction. You will remember, Mr. Speaker, the Ontario Legislature Committee for Soviet Jewry, co-chaired by the member for Kitchener (Mr. Breithaupt) and made up of myself and other members. You will remember that this assembly approved a telegram sent in 1982 on behalf of the committee.

I would like to bring to your attention that this assembly has been involved very recently with issues outside the jurisdiction of this province. On June 5, 1984, the leader of my party moved a motion, seconded by the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel), that the government of Ontario express to the authorities of the Soviet Union, on behalf of the people of this province, its profound concern for the health and safety of Andrei Sakharov. On June 13, 1984, the member for High Park-Swansea (Mr. Shymko) moved a motion to the effect that the government express its concern to the Polish government on behalf of Polish hunger strikers.

On June 22, 1984, government the House leader moved resolution 7, seconded by the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) and the member for York South (Mr Rae), dealing with the health and safety of Yuri Orlov and Anatoly Shcharansky. These resolutions were passed unanimously by this assembly.

There is no doubt in my mind that we have an obligation as parliamentarians to take a very active role in dealing with the problems of human rights, even if they take place abroad or outside the jurisdiction of Ontario. If this assembly takes the attitude that we all agree on the principle that human rights must be respected in South America, China, Africa or anywhere else, but that we cannot open a process with which we do not have a concern, that is an opinion I cannot share, because I think it is part of the democratic process that in our committees we hear opinions that sometimes are opposite.

Nevertheless, it is up to this assembly and the committees of this assembly to come up with resolutions that are the result of that process. I think it would be very negative if we chose to eliminate areas of contention only because we would see people expressing opposite views coming before the select committee on the Ombudsman or whatever other committee deals with the issue of human rights.

The consensus in a democracy is more valid when it is a learned and informed consensus. We have to go through that process and we go through that process every day. In all our committees we have testimony to this reality when we have an opposing point of view on many important issues, even issues about which we feel very emotional, such as child abuse, the Workers' Compensation Board, tenants' rights or social assistance programs.

The people who come before the committees do not always express the same points of view. It is up to the legislators in their wisdom to express collectively a consensus that is the result of the information they get through that process.

For that reason, it is important that we as legislators have a mechanism that is not available to us right now. Once in a while we pass resolutions. The member for Riverdale wants us to have a permanent mechanism.

We know very well, and the report was tabled just yesterday by Amnesty International, that this is an ongoing problem, as the member for Kitchener-Wilmot has mentioned. There is torture. Human rights are curbed all over the world. I think we have that responsibility in this assembly, if we agree with the principle, to pass this resolution. We will have rendered better service to ourselves, to the province and to the people with whose problems we are dealing.

Mr. Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I think quite honestly the issue the member for Riverdale has put before us today is one that expresses the concerns each and every one of us as members of a democratic society, and more particularly as members of this Legislature, should be concerned about. It is fair to say the principles of equality and freedom must be ones that are of concern to all of us in this chamber. As the member for Downsview (Mr. Di Santo) said, it was just a few days ago that Amnesty International released its report on its investigations into human rights violations that occurred in 1983.

Further, it was reported in the press that Amnesty International investigated violations in some 118 countries, including cases of systematic torture, unlawful imprisonment, disappearances and ill treatment of prisoners. Its report serves to remind us that all too often those rights and freedoms which we cherish and which we take for granted are routinely ignored and violated in the name of political expediency, repression and tyranny in other parts of the world.

I am sure some members of this House have had the opportunity to review another publication called Torture in the Eighties, which Amnesty International released in the spring of this year. In that report, Amnesty International estimated that fully one third of the world's governments have used or tolerated torture or the ill treatment of prisoners. Any member who has read that report will tell other members that it is nothing less than a litany of horrors, an encyclopaedia of man's inhumanity to man.

4:30 p.m.

There can be no justification for Iran's Evin prison where mothers have been tortured in front of their children, where those who have been tortured have been put on display in front of their families in an effort to have those families persuade the one who has been tortured to confess. There is simply no justification for this practice or for the practices in the Soviet Union of putting prisoners of conscience in psychiatric hospitals and subjecting them to torment caused by the injection of pain-inducing and disorienting drugs.

There is simply no excuse for the systematic use by governments of torture and degradation as a means of maintaining civil order. All the apologies and rationales mustered by those who endorse or tolerate such practices should be and must be dismissed out of hand.

This resolution also calls our attention to another of the evils that has plagued our world of late, namely, political terrorism. It is a sad fact that the level of terrorist violence in the international community is on the rise. Last year, if my figures are correct, 10,159 people were killed as a result of terrorist attacks around the world, more than in any other year since governments began keeping records.

No one in this House or any member of any party would deny that we have a responsibility to oppose these evils, to condemn them and to support, as best we may, efforts to eliminate them. The issue before us is not a question of whether this House has a moral obligation to express its abhorrence of terror and torture, but a question of whether or not the mechanism recommended by our honourable friend is a necessary and appropriate means of making known the views of this assembly on the matters before us.

While I think we all have sympathy for the arguments made by some of our colleagues in support of this resolution, I have some very grave concerns about it. In debating this ballot item, it is important that the two issues of the moral duty and the legality and appropriateness of the measures recommended by the resolution be carefully delineated.

On the one hand, one can accept that members of the Legislature, as citizens of this democratic society I talked about, when committed to the enhancement of and respect for human rights, do have a positive moral duty as individuals to speak out against any kind of repression or violation of human rights wherever. On the other hand, it may be legitimately argued that the mechanism and procedures urged by the resolution do not provide the most appropriate means for exercising that positive moral duty.

In assessing the resolution, I think the following points have to be considered.

Second, however, other sections of this resolution really concern me more. The resolution would permit the select committee on the Ombudsman to operate independently of this Legislature, in that it would leave it to the discretion of the committee to determine what specific examples of terror, torture and so on it would review and report on, and which governmental and nongovernmental organizations it would establish formal relations with and, in some cases, provide support to.

The resolution reads, "...the committee shall have the power to...provide actual support to government and nongovernmental organizations...." This support would extend to assisting nongovernmental organizations financially or through the secondment of legislative staff.

One might ask whether it is appropriate that a provincial government committee direct limited provincial resources to matters that are primarily a federal responsibility when the Ontario taxpayer is already supporting federal initiatives in this area.

Third, many of the proposals for action made by the select committe