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

January 22, 1987

33rd Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L091 - Thu 22 Jan 1987 / Jeu 22 jan 1987

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

ROLE OF PRIVATE MEMBERS

ANIMALS FOR RESEARCH AMENDMENT ACT

ROLE OF PRIVATE MEMBERS

ANIMALS FOR RESEARCH AMENDMENT ACT

AFTERNOON SITTING

UKRAINIAN INDEPENDENCE DAY

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ROBBIE BURNS DAY

NATIVE WOMEN'S RESOURCE CENTRE

HOSPITAL FUNDING

TRIP TO WASHINGTON

GOLF TOURNAMENT

BRAMPTON FESTIVAL

YOUTH EMPLOYMENT

MEMBERS' PRIVILEGES

ORAL QUESTIONS

TAX REVENUES

RADIOACTIVE SOIL

RENT REVIEW

WATER QUALITY

TECHNOLOGY FUND

RENT REVIEW

TRANSIT SERVICES

TECHNOLOGY FUND

FRENCH-LANGUAGE EDUCATION

PROGRAM FUNDING

RENTAL ACCOMMODATION

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

PROTECTION FOR HOME BUYERS

PETITIONS

NATUROPATHY

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ONPUBLIC ACCOUNTS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

RECORD OF DEBATES

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF HOUSING (CONTINUED)

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

ROLE OF PRIVATE MEMBERS

Mr. Henderson moved resolution 76:

That in the opinion of this House,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Intimidation" is a strong word. We can all agree that only parties other than our own would ever resort to anything such as that, but maybe we could also agree that feelings of intimidation are not uncommon. That type of pressure we all know of does not belong in democratic parties in a democratic Legislature. Representative democracy asks for more. All legislators are elected to represent constituents in this assembly. To be sure, we all belong to parties rich and noble in traditions. All of us identify ourselves with important political principles. We are proud of our parties.

No one of us would lightly or carelessly argue or vote in a way that differed from that of the majority of our colleagues. No one wants to cause his friends embarrassment.

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

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

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

I argue for a strengthening, not a relaxation, of the democratic disciplines of responsible representation and rational debate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As an engineer, I learned that the stability in our physical environment results from a series of natural laws. Those laws allow us to live as humans here on earth, but we must be careful not to upset that delicate balance dictated by those natural pushes and pulls that are associated with physical and chemical equations. Parliament is much the same.

Whereas in our physical world survival of the human species is the goal, in parliament our goal is to provide a system of government that is responsible to its citizens, who freely chose their governors.

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

article in the printed press.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am going to suggest some very radical things that I would like to see changed as well as supporting what the member for Humber is putting forward. I would like to remove the Premier's absolute control over the financial wellbeing of every member of this Legislature. I believe that every member of this Legislature, whether he is a cabinet minister, a parliamentary assistant, the head of a committee or a member of the opposition, should be paid the exact same dollars.

Therefore, people seeking to become cabinet ministers, seeking a higher position in their party, seeking to become leader of their party would seek those positions on a matter of principle alone and they would not feel financially compelled to stay in a position if they differed with a policy of the Premier or of the leader of their party.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some people advocate an Americanization to the process, which is almost a total abdication of party identity let alone following along party lines. There is none. When I went to Washington, I asked some Democrats how they caucus on matters and how they meet as Democrats and decide what to do. I was shocked when they said "We do not do that." The Democratic Party never has had a caucus. They never meet. All the Democrats do not go into one room at one time and decide on what to do. However, they have a black caucus.

Republicans and Democrats who happen to be black or are interested in black issues will meet to decide a strategy. People who are farmers will gather together from either party. In fact, they move back and forth from one party to the other with ease, because there is very little ideology involved. It is kind of who is in and who is out.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Virtually every caucus that I have attended has resulted in changes in policy initiatives or in legislation as the result of the views expressed by ordinary members.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interjections.

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

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

I think the member is advocating the elimination of the presence, the hypocrisy, of even having a private members' hour on Thursday morning-in the past we have had it at different times-because there is no private members' hour. To give an example of the time allocation, I remember trying to speak on a nuclear arms free zone; I had barely 60 seconds to express a view that was somehow different from others. This is what we call equal time for democratic views.

I am concerned that the member for Sudbury East, for example, cannot participate equally with the other parties in joining his colleague the member for Oshawa so that we have two speakers from the New Democratic Party, two from the official opposition and two from the Liberal Party.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Henderson: Can I give him a minute?

The Acting Speaker: No, you cannot.

Mr. Henderson: The intent was there.

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

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

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

Mr. Shymko: Agreed.

The Acting Speaker: Is it agreed?

Agreed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not one member, actually, has exploited the opportunity to criticize the government. For that, I commend members and I am very grateful. It shows the democratic process is alive and well in Ontario.

ANIMALS FOR RESEARCH AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Philip moved second reading of Bill 21,

An Act to amend the Animals for Research Act.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

When this happens, municipalities must make provision for official ways of animal control. This merely increases the cost to local taxpayers.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let me give an example of one of the studies that has been done. The University of Oregon, using both purpose-bred dogs and random-source dogs in experimental heart valve replacement, concluded that purpose-bred dogs were cheaper to use, despite the fact that the purchase price of the random-source dogs was lower. The reason for this result was as follows. The survival rate of the purpose-bred dog was much higher than that of the random-source animals. Ninety-three per cent of the purpose-bred dogs survived the experimental surgery,

whereas only 73 per cent of the random-source dogs survived. To end up with 100 animals at the end of surgery, one would have to start with 108 purpose-bred dogs or 137 random-source ones. A second study by the National Institutes of Health confirmed these findings.

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

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

It has been found that the release of unclaimed pets from public shelters for research has several immediate effects on municipal control programs. It causes fewer people to use the shelter services. The majority of animals obtained by municipal animal control centres are actually delivered by the public. The results of opinion polls in Canada and the US suggest that the public will not co-operate when such facilities are subject to pound seizure legislation. This results in greater numbers of lost and homeless animals remaining on the streets or, as we find in Ontario, in the countryside.

As any farmer will tell you, the major problem in rural areas is not wolf packs, but dog packs. There will be an increase in the cat and dog populations, of particular concern to rural areas or in children's public play areas. The cost of animal control escalates as a result of the present legislation. Last, fewer animals will be reunited with their owners.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He supports the view of 21 European countries that have signed a convention that says animals will not be released from pounds to research organizations.

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

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

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

Mr. Polsinelli: Does it talk to the member?

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

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

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

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

I do that perhaps with more enthusiasm than usual because this bill today is somewhat typical of the attitude and the successful endeavours of my colleague the member for Etobicoke on humane matters. Some of the newer members of this House will not know that quite a number of years ago-I am not sure how many; it must have been eight or 10 years ago-my colleague brought in a bill to ban the use of leghold traps, except in very exceptional circumstances. That was passed in this Legislature.

In fact, I think I am correct in saying it was the first private members' bill that received approval and then was incorporated into, I believe it was, the Game and Fish Act of that time by the government of this province. This is sort of typical of the efforts my colleague the member for Etobicoke has put into humane matters.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

section 21 of the act, which says:

"Every person who contravenes any of the provisions of this act...or the regulations, other than a regulation made under clause 23(h), (

j) or (l)...is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable for a first offence to a fine of not more than $500 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than three months, or to both, and for a subsequent offence to a fine of not more than $1,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than six months, or to both."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Second, the state legislature in Massachusetts received several requests from animal rightists for legislation to ban the use of animals of any kind in research.

We can learn from the events in other jurisdictions. We can and should resist the siren call of Bill 21. Bill 21 only opens the door to crippling medical research in Ontario, to slowing down or stopping the advances of our scientists and physicians in enhancing and prolonging human life. As my colleague mentioned, the lengthening of the average life span from 45 years in the 1900s to 70 years today is due in large measure to research carried on with the use of animals.

That research has benefited animals as well as people, thanks to disease prevention techniques that have enhanced the lives of our companion animals and livestock. Bill 21 is a regressive piece of legislation. I will vote against it and urge members of the House to do likewise.

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

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

Mrs. Marland: For two minutes?

Mr. Speaker: Now it is less than that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ROLE OF PRIVATE MEMBERS

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

All those in favour will say "aye."

All those opposed will say "nay."

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Motion agreed to.

ANIMALS FOR RESEARCH AMENDMENT ACT

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

Ayes

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

Nays

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

Ayes 38; nays 21.

The House recessed at 12:09 p.m.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1:30 p.m.

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

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

UKRAINIAN INDEPENDENCE DAY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Permit me to say:

[Remarks in Ukrainian]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ROBBIE BURNS DAY

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

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

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

NATIVE WOMEN'S RESOURCE CENTRE

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

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

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

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

HOSPITAL FUNDING

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

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

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

TRIP TO WASHINGTON

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

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

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

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

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

GOLF TOURNAMENT

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

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

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

BRAMPTON FESTIVAL

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

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

YOUTH EMPLOYMENT

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker: That completes members' statements.

MEMBERS' PRIVILEGES

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

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

First, I would like you to consider

section 38 of the Legislative Assembly Act, which I will read for the edification of the House:

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

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

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

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

This is clearly the grossest intimidation of a member of the assembly attempting to undertake the work that he is here to do that I can recall in my six years in this House. I would say it is contemptuous. I ask you to consider whether it is a breach under

section 38, and I ask you later today to review the report of the public accounts committee that will be brought before this assembly at the end of question period.

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

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

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

By extension, I believe an attempt to harass the public accoun