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

November 13, 1986

33rd Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L063 - Thu 13 Nov 1986 / Jeu 13 nov 1986

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

REMUNERATION OF RETIRED EMPLOYEES

NUCLEAR ARMS FREE ZONE

REMUNERATION OF RETIRED EMPLOYEES

NUCLEAR ARMS

AFTERNOON SITTING

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

CONSERVATION AUTHORITY

PROFESSIONAL CERTIFICATION

SCHOOL FUNDING

CREAM PRODUCERS

LAYOFFS IN SUDBURY

HERITAGE ISLAM SOCIETY

ONTARIO WINES

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

COURTHOUSES

FUNERAL SERVICES LEGISLATION

INSURANCE RATES

REPORT, ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON MUNICIPAL LIABILITY INSURANCE

VISITORS

RESIGNATION OF MEMBER

ORAL QUESTIONS

NORTHERN HEALTH SERVICES

HIGH TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

NURSING HOMES

TARIFFS ON SOFTWOOD LUMBER

RENTAL HOUSING PROTECTION LEGISLATION

PAY EQUITY LEGISLATION

WOMEN EMPLOYEES

PAY EQUITY LEGISLATION

WASTE DISPOSAL

ASSOCIATION FOR THE MENTALLY RETARDED LABOUR DISPUTE

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

RENTAL HOUSING

HOSPITAL FUNDING

GOVERNMENT CONTRACT

WEILER REPORT

COURTHOUSE

REPORT, STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE OMBUDSMAN

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS

MOTION

COMMITTEE MEETING

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

546672 ONTARIO LIMITED ACT

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS IN ORDERS AND NOTICES AND RESPONSE TO PETITION

ORDERS OF THE DAY

LOAN AND TRUST CORPORATIONS ACT / LOI DE 1986 SUR LES COMPAGNIES DE PRÊT ET DE FIDUCIE

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITIES AMENDMENT ACT

MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO AMENDMENT ACT

LINE FENCES AMENDMENT ACT

LINE FENCES AMENDMENT ACT

DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY OF MUSKOKA AMENDMENT ACT

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

REMUNERATION OF RETIRED EMPLOYEES

Mr. McLean moved resolution 64:

That in the opinion of this House, the practice that retired members of the Legislature or senior civil servants while receiving retirement allowances may also receive remuneration as a member of a board, commission or other body holding office at the nomination of the Lieutenant Governor in Council is improper and fiscally irresponsible; therefore, this House, recognizing the inequity of the present policy and the need for fiscal integrity relating to taxpayers' moneys, recommends that this practice be ended, while at the same time the retirement contributions made by those affected should be protected.

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

Mr. McLean: In this resolution, I want to bring my considerations and concerns to the attention of the members of the House and the public. I think government must act in the interests of the people who elect it. When it comes to appointments or patronage, the needs of the people often run last. This is unacceptable.

I have long been concerned over the actions of governments that seem to ignore the average man or woman on the street when it comes to making appointments to bodies in or related in one way or another to the government of the province or the country. I am fully aware that I am referring to the practice of all three political parties. This concern is represented in the resolution now before this House.

Who is qualified for appointments? The man or woman on the street never, or seldom, appears to have any of the qualifications necessary. It appears that you have to be a retired member of this House or a retired civil servant to qualify. Often some people choose retirement and the offer of a government appointment to follow so they may benefit from the double incomes they will receive.

This is what double-dipping is all about. It is the process whereby persons, be they civil servants or former members, with retirement allowances from the government receive appointments to other government organizations or committees. They receive double incomes: their pension benefits and their salaries, honoraria or fees. I believe this is wrong.

My resolution proposes that we end these practices. This resolution will apply to all persons in all parties; so there is nothing political or partisan about it. Constituents throughout Simcoe East have responded positively to the resolution, and they represent the total collective political spectrum.

This resolution simply means a member of the Legislature or a senior civil servant who retires may not draw from two sources of public funds. It means a person must not receive his or her pension income at the same time as he or she is receiving other government income. This income can result from being a member of a government or paragovernment committee or board.

I hasten to add that this legislation will not cause any loss of pension in these circumstances. The pension benefits that would normally accrue earn interest for the recipient. He or she will receive increased benefits when the pension finally begins to be paid.

I have considered this resolution for a long time. With the recent spate of government going-away packages and golden handshakes, I feel the timing could not be more appropriate. Someone has to show some concern for the taxpayers' dollars. We should look at this -- and I have two bills that were presented a few weeks ago -- as a way of returning to fiscal responsibility. As members are all aware, not only do we have to be fiscally responsible but also we must appear to be so.

If the members opposite are under any impression that people on the street are not aware of the generous sendoffs and handsome appointments such as those received by our previous Clerk and former members of this House such as Mr. Di Santo, Tom Wells and Vern Singer; if the government and the third party members are not aware of the disgust of the taxpayers over these matters, they must be asleep. How could anyone in this House not be aware of the taxpayers' concerns? Yet the double-dipping has been going on for years, goes on today and will continue to go on unless we have the courage, and it will take courage, to put an end to it.

I have proposed two bills to deal with this double-dipping. One refers to previous members of the Legislature, and the other deals with civil servants. To my way of thinking, it is morally wrong for people retiring on very generous pensions to use the inside track to appointments such as those given to Ian Deans or Stephen Lewis. Yes, those are federal matters, but nevertheless it is morally wrong, whether it is in this House or not.

There are many people in this country and this province who have the qualifications of former members such as Mr. Di Santo, who is now the director of the office of worker adviser. Mr. Di Santo gets a healthy pension as the former New Democratic Party member for Downsview and a salary that I am sure we would all like to have as an extra income. Did Tom Wells need a double income after he left the Legislature? Did Jim Breithaupt? Did Russ Ramsey? Did Stuart Smith? Did Michael Cassidy? They all have retirement benefits from this House, and they all have appointments to other government posts as well.

I believe there must be many people who could have served in the positions now held by the people I have mentioned. If for some reason only Frank Drea was qualified to be the chairman of the Ontario Racing Commission, he should have to accept the fact that his pension as a former member would be held in abeyance -- earning interest, of course -- until he completed his term as chairman of the commission.

Government boards and agencies are filled with retired government employees, be they former civil servants or members of this House. The list is endless, it seems. The Workers' Compensation Board has seen a Lieutenant Governor as its head; currently, Bob Elgie, a retired cabinet minister, has that job. I believe John Smith, a previous Minister of Correctional Services, still works there. The Ontario Police Commission, the Ontario Municipal Board and other boards, commissions and chairmanships are filled with former civil servants and legislative members.

The situation is unfair. It was bad practice in the past, and it is bad practice today. It is fiscally irresponsible to appoint without open competition. It is immoral to provide a double income from the taxpayers, on top of the impropriety of appointing people based on their inside track position.

I urge each member of this House to search his or her conscience. I urge members to take a stand that will demonstrate and prove to the people of Ontario that they want to end the practice of double-dipping. I urge them to end a bad practice so the future can be made right. I urge them to have courage and the necessary intestinal fortitude to support this resolution to end what has been for many years and is still an irresponsible practice.

However, I wonder why this should take courage. Courage is what the soldier needs to go into battle and face the enemy. Where is the enemy in this case? The public is not the enemy. We are not enemies of each other. We argue and debate on behalf of the taxpayers who put us here, but we all have the very same goals: to care for the citizens of Ontario and to do what we can to improve their lot where possible and practical. We must not therefore be hindered by the past. The past is a teacher and we are its students. We must learn from the past, from the good and the not so good of the past, and apply this knowledge to the future if we are to serve the people.

10:10

On the matter of the double-dipping, which has been going on for a long time, we have the capability of ending it now. Perhaps it was not so terrible a thing a decade or more ago, but times change. Things are different now. There are not the dollars around now to allow such generosity as there were before. We all have to tighten our belts a bit.

Perhaps measures such as I proposed in the two bills introduced previously are truly necessary. The measures are not so serious that anyone is going to starve by having one source of income removed for a time. We are not taking anything away that a person requires for his or her basic substance. We are saying to this House that in the future we must take a responsible position in the matter of what one can and cannot take from the government's pocketbook, which is the taxpayers' pocketbook.

We will have to face the facts of life, act in a manner related more accurately to the facts of this generation and not let past precedents totally influence our present decisions and future actions. The status quo is an unacceptable thesis. People have to share the moneys of the public coffers, and one place to begin is to eliminate the practice, which has been all too prevalent, of filling both pockets with taxpayers' money when one pocketful is sufficient reward. I am looking at the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh), because I know he would like to have both pockets full.

We have to tighten our wallets and seek means whereby the available dollars can go as far as possible. We on both sides of this House know this to be true, even if we may sometimes disagree on the means to accomplish it. However, this should not be one of those times. We have at our disposal a way to begin the battle in bringing fairness and equity into one specific area that has need of fairness and equity, where retired members of this House and senior civil servants are receiving pensions while at the same time they are receiving salaries or fees from the same government pocket.

I said a few minutes ago that we are not enemies but that we do need the courage of a soldier who is facing the enemy. It may appear a little contradictory, but we do need a great deal of courage in this matter. We are all affected by the present practice. We may well be affected in the future when we ourselves retire and perhaps seek future employment with a government body.

I hope this resolution and the bills to which I referred receive the full attention and support of this House. In doing that, members will demonstrate to the taxpayers of this province a readiness to redress what has become an unacceptable practice and one that must end. Whether or not members are concerned about what the taxpayers think about their actions in this regard, members by supporting these bills will play a credible part towards fellow members in bringing honour and credibility to affairs of the state here in this Legislature. I urge all members to consider and support this resolution.

I would like to make one clarification. At the start I indicated people were drawing extra salaries. I also realize there is one former member drawing a pension who is also elected by the people and who does not qualify in this case. I refer to Michael Cassidy, formerly the member for Ottawa Centre, who is now a federal member. However, several others have government appointments and are drawing double salaries.

I will retain the balance of my time for the end.

The Deputy Speaker: The member is retaining eight minutes and 15 seconds for his wrapup.

Mr. Breaugh: I am interested in the fact that it was the member for Simcoe East (Mr. McLean) who put forward this resolution this morning. I appreciate the fact that he has been born again. For 42 years this was an all-right political practice. For 42 years there was nothing wrong with double-dipping and patronage appointments; all that was fair.

Just last year it was okay for Clare Westcott, as one example, to have his pension doubled and then take an appointment in the public sector. There was no need for courage then. There was no need to speak then. I appreciate that before Margaret Scrivener, as another example, took her appointment -- I believe it is to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board -- the member did not raise this point.

As one example, it is a pretty good concept that a member retires from a cabinet position with a good pension. Ordinary members do not have good pensions here, but if they have been in the cabinet, they do. They make as much on pension as they would as an ordinary member here, as some in the 14th century club are discovering these days. On top of that, they pick up appointments at $60,000 a year or so. It is not a bad or a cruel thing. However, the courage that was called for this morning was noticeably lacking that a short time ago.

We have done some research on this, and while I appreciate it is in the spirit of being born again, which is laudable, I have a little trouble. The member for Simcoe East said, "If you line only one pocket, that would be enough." There are those of us who might suggest that lining even one pocket may be wrong in some circumstances. The problem with the resolution -- and it is not a bill; it is a resolution -- is that it is a broad brush. It is too simplistic an answer to what is a very complicated problem.

Let me go in sequence on ways in which we could do something positive. First, on the appointments themselves, we have recommendations being considered by the government that a new appointment process with a review provision be attempted. This government seems a little less enthused over it now than it was a year ago, but it has not discarded it totally.

I wanted to read into the record this morning a list of the appointments -- and here is the appointments book, now a matter of public record for the first time in better than half a century; so we are making some progress. I leaf through the book. I could find in here about a dozen people I recognize from opposition benches or from the previous government who have made their way into the new appointment process. It seems to follow the pattern set by Brian Mulroney: appoint one person from the opposition side and 1,000 of your own and proclaim that is balanced. I do not think it is balanced. That appointment process is wrong, and it needs to be looked at.

Let me be more specific on some research we did that is pertinent to the case at hand. We looked through the appointments. One of the things on which all members will agree is that there are some glaring examples of unfairness and wrongness that one can quote.

It should also be pointed out that of the 1,928 appointments this government has made since it came into office -- and as I said, I found about a dozen from the opposition side who have made it through that process; so it is that fair -- about 50 of those almost 2,000 appointments could be considered to be full-time, well-paid jobs. Those people have not retired, and if they are getting an appointment that brings in $50,000 to $60,000 a year they do not need their pensions from here.

However, the rest of them, by and large, are appointments to conservation authorities, local boards and commissions, the administration of Old Fort Henry, the St. Lawrence Parks Commission and things of that nature. It would seem to me we would want former members of the assembly to be participants in that kind of process. Most of them get a per diem. They get an expense allowance. They get a trip to an annual convention somewhere. I do not have any problem in the world with saying those people are fine; leave them alone.

I would rather see an appointment process that is public and subject to review. That would do us some good. It would be fair to pinpoint, and we can do that, those appointments that are full-time jobs and relatively well-paying. By relatively well-paying, I mean they pay about $20,000 a year more than members of the assembly get. It is not hard to nail those down and to say that for those jobs, those people have not retired and so they should not pick up their retirement plans here and the full salary in the public sector somewhere else. The really gross appointments are not among the members.

The really gross ones come from the civil servants who get salaries at twice the rate of members and have a tendency to pick up the larger public appointments. That is where the real atrocities occur.

10:20

I would find this concept supportable if the member were to redefine his target here. That is important. For instance, the member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. Newman) has been here for a long time. If he ever decided to retire -- and that does not appear to be very likely; he may be here for another century -- I would be happy to suggest that he would be very fine on a parks commission or on a conservation authority. He has some expertise that should be used. He should not be forced to pay the penalty, because he has been an ordinary member, of giving up part of his pension to take such an appointment. I want a clearer target and a more public appointments process. That needs to be said.

Second, on the larger question, we do have to look at this. There are atrocities, and the member has named some. For example, I find it very difficult to talk to people who are on fixed incomes, pensioners by and large, in my own constituency. It is pretty tough to explain to them how someone out of this place gets a pension that amounts to several million dollars. It is tough for me to explain to people who are struggling to get passes on public transit, or discounts more likely, why it is necessary for the assembly to provide a car and driver for a former employee. That is a little tough to explain, because there is no rational explanation in the world.

It is not acceptable to say to our pensioners, "We are going to give you a four per cent increase in your pension;" and to someone else, "We are going to double your pension and give you a $60,000-a-year appointment as well." People understand the blatant unfairness in all that.

The member could have chosen, and it was his choice, to be a little more specific in his target. The concept is right, if he had been a little fairer, but he lumped everyone into it. He made the correction himself at the end of his introduction.

Michael Cassidy was a member of this assembly for a long while. The argument could be made that running in a federal election is an appointment process of sorts, but it pretty well is open to anybody who wants to run and it is hardly a government appointment. He did just that; so to lump him into the scheme is quite wrong.

The member may challenge the validity of making appointments from former cabinet members or former members of the assembly, but I would argue that people such as Margaret Scrivener, with whom I never agreed in all the time I was here, is a competent person who can serve well on a number of boards and agencies.

My argument is not against that kind of process. I do not think former members should be blocked from doing that or penalized for doing that. I do feel, however, that if the member targeted this kind of resolution a little more carefully, he would very soon sort it out.

By my count, there are about 50 positions that would be considered appointments in the public sector; they are full-time, good-paying jobs. The member can make a very good argument that the people in these jobs have not retired but have changed jobs and are doing something else. If the member redefined the resolution to say those people should not be permitted to take a pension and still have that kind of employment, I would be very supportive.

I would be even more supportive if the proposal did not come from a Tory member who has been around here. To be honest about it, the Tories put in place the patronage system in Ontario. I find it difficult to accept, now that they are out of office, that they are suddenly fiscally responsible, born again, very moral and full of courage, when I go through the book and see that the vast majority of the appointments in Ontario came from that old patronage system.

It is changing ever so slowly, ever so mildly and not nearly enough. I want major changes, and then I will be prepared to look directly at this kind of resolution, more clearly put and more precisely put, to catch those where there is something wrong. In doing that, I do not want a broad brush that prevents former members of this chamber from using the expertise they have learned in years of public service on a local board, agency or commission. That would be dreadfully wrong.

I know what the member is saying. He has a good intention, but I am amused that the intention came to the fore only at this time and was not present three or four years ago. I simply want the target redefined. Until he does that, I cannot support the resolution.

Mr. Mancini: I hope the member for Windsor-Walkerville is not the only one here. Where are the other guys going?

I wish to take this opportunity to make some comments with regard to the resolution put forward by the member for Simcoe East. I found the comments made by the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) interesting indeed. What we heard was a dissertation. Actually, we heard two dissertations. One was for the public at large, to satisfy public concerns about whether members were being remunerated too well or not well enough and what should happen to members after they leave this House. He was sympathetic to the concerns of the public. His second dissertation was to us as members of the assembly, saying, as a colleague, he wanted all his other colleagues treated in a fair way.

I want to be more specific than the member for Oshawa. I think I can make a case that will sound reasonable for people who have all the facts and that will sound reasonable for people who have served well in this assembly.

My 11 years of experience have shown me that members of this assembly from all parties work very hard and diligently indeed. As a matter of fact, if one were to compare the dedication, work and output put forward by the members of this assembly as a group, we would stand up to any other group in society. We have nothing to be ashamed of as far as our work is concerned. We certainly do not have to be ashamed of our remuneration or of any of the benefits we receive. We seem to forget that we are people at executive levels.

We run large offices and handle the problems of many thousands of people, three score thousand and more. On top of all that, we do very complicated work here in the assembly and in committees.

If possible, I want to set aside once and for all, at least for me, the notion that we are not quite up to standard or are not quite up to what we are receiving. As a matter of fact, I think the opposite is true. At the same time, I know members are not here to make money. Therefore, the issue of money in many respects clouds all the other issues that members are concerned about as far as their services and benefits are concerned.

Having said that, I want to make it very clear that as far as I am concerned, I do not find it offensive that the previous government appointed former members of the assembly, outstanding members of the assembly, people who had served their province and their constituents well, to other offices, where they could bring their expertise and continue to serve.

At the same time, I do not find it offensive in any way whatsoever that our new government has appointed Bob Elgie to the Workers' Compensation Board of Ontario and Odoardo Di Santo, a former New Democratic Party MPP, to the directorship of the office of worker adviser. George Samis, another former New Democratic Party MPP, was appointed to the Ontario Highway Transport Board, and Donald MacDonald, a former leader of the New Democratic Party, was appointed to the Commission on Election Finances. I can name a few others, but I think I have got my point across.

The member for Oshawa made a similar point, that some former members, some of them former ministers, were asked to serve in a different capacity after they left the assembly. I do not find that offensive or wrong. Members should never forget that the pensions we receive after having served a number of years are -- to some extent, compared to most other pensions; I should say to a large extent -- are paid by us. We are at the stage now where we pay 10 per cent of our gross salary into our pension plan.

The vast majority of members have no outside interests after they have been a member for four, five, six, seven or eight years. If they had interests when they came in, after a half a dozen years the interests they had at the time are not as relevant after the passage of years.

10:30

I know the member for Simcoe East is addressing a concern that has been voiced by some members of the public, but I do not think it is fair to say to members that they cannot later serve the people in other ways. Yesterday, we heard the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds) would not be running again. That was a personal decision by the member for Port Arthur. All of us know and realize the New Democratic Party member for Port Arthur can serve the people of Ontario in a different capacity when he leaves this assembly. Why should he be discriminated against? Why should he be declared persona non grata just because he was a member of the assembly?

In private practice, in private industry and in private business, many people who have worked for a company and who have decided to leave that company are hired back by the company by one method or another. The individual has decided to work outside the bureaucratic procedures of the company on a freelance basis. The company, realizing the person has a great deal of knowledge, information and commitment, hires the person back. They do not say to that person: "You worked for us a number of years. We will discount the fact that you paid into your pension. You cannot collect your pension and work for us at the same time."

The member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel), who has served this assembly for many long years, has not made any announcements about his intentions. There are a lot of other members across the floor who have not made any announcements of their intentions. All of them would be declared persona non grata. I do not think that is fair. People work hard when they come here. You do not last in this business, as the member for Sudbury East has done for 19 years, unless you are fully dedicated and giving your all and utmost to your constituents, to your party and to the general population as a whole.

People have to start understanding that we are not here on a free ride. There are no free rides in our political lives. The member for Simcoe East must know the demands that are placed on him and on his colleagues. The resolution makes it sound like this: "We have been here for a few years. Thank God, we have qualified for our pension." No comments are made about the 10 per cent of our gross salary that we pay into the pension. No mention is made about the actuarial deductions that are made if one tries to take an early pension; pensions are slashed almost in half. None of those comments is in this resolution.

No comments are made about the fact that the vast majority of members are unable to have any outside interests whatsoever to satisfy their income for future years. We are like everyone else. We have families and obligations. Many of us may want to continue to serve the people in some capacity. Why penalize us? If this resolution is good enough for the members of the assembly, it should be good enough for everybody.

I find it somewhat annoying. I know the member for Simcoe East well. I know he has positive concerns and he puts this forward with a positive viewpoint, but after a while, one gets tired not only of having the general public attack the members of the assembly for benefits or gratuities they think we receive and believe are in overabundance when it is not true, but also of having our own members perpetuate it. That is the main reason I cannot support it.

I want to put this on the record. I hope I have not complained in the past, and I do not recall that in my 10 years in opposition I actually complained or raised a fuss about a former member of the government receiving an appointment. I hope I am not being somewhat hypocritical today. I thank the member for bringing this forward for debate.

Mr. Ashe: Listening to the responses to the motion put by my colleague, one thing that has come forward is that there seems to be some general unanimity in all three parties that possibly the spirit of this resolution is in order in the context of picking out a few examples that are very difficult to comprehend on an individual basis. It is very difficult for a taxpayer to comprehend. Frankly, as I see the resolution, it is much too broad brush in its approach. It is really not appropriate and not one I can support in its written form.

I agree wholeheartedly that if a member, a civil servant or a public servant is retiring with a substantial pension -- and I appreciate and accept that everything is relative -- of $30,000, $40,000, $50,000 or as much as $60,000 a year, he should not be going into another position that is also being paid for out of the public purse in roughly those same terms; in other words, a job paying $40,000, $50,000, $60,000 or in some cases $70,000 or $75,000 a year, over and above his pension. That is the spirit of the resolution that I concur with. Frankly, I do not think that is fair to anyone, especially the taxpayers of Ontario.

I agree with the comments that in some cases an individual may have a particular or unique talent that makes him the best appointment, but surely there is a way to take care of that. As a simple example, if someone has retired on a $45,000-a-year pension and has the qualities and qualifications to earn the right to a job that pays $75,000 a year, surely he is entitled to $75,000. Whether it is $45,000 plus $30,000 or $75,000 and the pension is deferred in this case, I have no problem with it. It is only fair to the individual, to the system and, most important, to the taxpayers.

I do not agree that everyone should be put in the same category and that if you retire from this place, whether as a public servant or as a member of the Legislature, you are not in a position to be able to contribute to society on an ongoing basis because of your interest or unique talent or because you just do not want to retire from active public life.

There are many boards, commissions, agencies or even contract-type jobs that pay only nominal sums, and one may very well need to top up a retirement income; if it is in the area of $20,000, $25,000, up to $30,000, obviously depending on the time frame, probably that individual is going to need to supplement his or her income in any event. If that person can contribute to the ongoing wellbeing and advancement of the province, surely there should not be anything in place that would deter at least the consideration of that individual to continue to serve the taxpayers in Ontario.

Unfortunately, that is what this resolution does. I do not think the member for Simcoe East realized it would encompass this group of people, because I know him to be a fair-minded individual. I do not think he intended to include those people -- to use the examples of my colleague the member for Oshawa -- who may be appointed to boards, commissions, conservation authorities or whatever, where we are talking about only a nominal sum, a nominal per diem, a nominal per annum rate, and possibly some expenses. I do not think this is out of line at all. If anything, it should be encouraged.

If one has been around this place for any number of years, whether in an elected capacity or in a senior public-servant capacity, we hope one has gained some level of expertise in whatever area may have been more attractive to one's particular interest or talent. Surely it is a shame to put such persons out to pasture if there is still an opportunity to utilize those abilities, those capacities and those talents for the betterment of everyone in this province.

10:40

I am not going to take up my full time. The two previous speakers said, in varying degrees, the same thing I did. We are asking, if people have talent, why should that be held against them? At the same time, it is unfortunate that within -- I will be generous and say the past year or two -- there have been some rather glaring examples of the illustration that was used: the golden handshake, the platinum handshake, the full pension situation for an extremely high-paying appointment. These are the glaring examples that I do not think we can justify in any case.

Surely that is the intent of this resolution, but unfortunately, that is not what the resolution says. I do not think it would be fair to the system or to the taxpayers of Ontario to eliminate automatically the talent that is around us. In fact, on the basis of the way this resolution is written, I cannot support it.

Mr. Swart: I rise to take

part in the discussion on this resolution because I consider it is a very significant issue that the member brings before us. As has been stated by the other speakers, I think there is general agreement with the principle of this resolution. All of us agree that when appointments are made by a government primarily on the basis of a person's allegiance to or activity in a political party, that is not a good basis on which to make a decision.

It certainly is true that within this Legislature, as within most other legislatures and the Parliament of Canada, that has been one of the factors, and a major factor, in many of the appointments that have been made. We all recognize that there is a cynicism on the part of the public with regard to politicians. Some of it may be justified and some of it may not, but we as elected members will encourage that cynicism if we permit or practise double-dipping, whether it is done for ex-members of this Legislature or for public servants.

It brings discredit on our parliamentary system and on our democracy. I suggest it brings almost as much discredit as do people who may cross the floor of the House in the hope of getting some lucrative appointment, probably still within the political system, when they get on the other side.

Mr. Warner: If they live that long.

Mr. Swart: If they do not get defeated in the next election.

It is a practice not only of governments to do this sort of thing but also of opposition parties to dig up all the scandal they can in this regard and give it a high profile. Certainly, the Conservatives in Ottawa under Mr. Mulroney scathingly denounced the Liberals for all those appointments they made at the end or just before the end of their term. Of course, when the Conservatives got into power there, Mr. Mulroney used exactly the same practice as had been used by the Liberals before.

We see that to some extent in this House, after a government which for 42 years practised the patronage system in many ways. I do not think the member who introduced this resolution would deny that. In fact, I dare say the father of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Grossman) had a nice, lucrative appointment by the government of this province that was in power for 42 years. There are other people such as John Yaremko and so on. To this point, I think it is true to say the new government has not blatantly practised that to the same degree the previous government did.

However, having said that, I do accept the sincerity of the member in introducing this resolution. In fact, I believe it is a practice he would like to see eliminated in this Legislature. I accept his sincerity, at least partly, because he did name numbers of people within his own party who had been appointed.

Mr. Shymko: One.

Mr. Swart: I heard at least two.

If he was trying to make a totally partisan remark, he might not have done that, although that may have been for the purpose of deflecting criticism such as mine if he had not named those people.

It has already been pointed out that although he named Mike Cassidy, I think he did that erroneously because, as he well knows, that was not an appointment. He could have been without that job. No government that was in power had anything to do with Mike Cassidy being a member of the federal Parliament at this time. In fact, it vigorously opposed his bid but was unsuccessful, for the good of this nation I might add.

I was surprised a bit at the member for Essex South (Mr. Mancini), who seemed to spend most of his time defending the principles of the members of this Legislature, the fact that we are all honest people and that the public thinks we are not up to standard, but that we have nothing to be ashamed of. He used those little phrases himself. I do not think we need defending like that. I think he missed the whole point of this type of resolution and this issue.

What we have to be concerned about is the perception of the public in the democracy. As members of this Legislature, we have to be sure we refrain from doing those things the public can construe as fining our own pockets or doing favours to friends. That is absolutely essential in a democracy. It may not be just a matter of whether we are putting in these long hours and doing a good job. I respect members of this Legislature too. I have some idea of the hours they put in and the work they do, but what we have to think about is the perspective the public has of us as leaders. We are the ones upon whom their judgement of democracy is based and therefore we have a very special responsibility.

I feel like the others that the resolution we have before us is badly flawed. To say in the resolution that we recommend that this practice be ended and leave it at that does not really deal with the issue at all. Surely the member must have some idea of the way of ending it. He should have had that in the resolution, whether he wanted to point out that the appointments process is flawed, as my colleague the member for Oshawa has pointed out and with which I agree, or whether he should have suggested a policy such as they have in many of the European democracies.

Years ago, I had two visits to study government in England and in Sweden, mostly local government but also the central government. I found they have a policy there, even for local government representatives, that one cannot be appointed to a full-time position by a government, regardless of the level of government, until one has been out of office for at least a year or two years. It varies from place to place.

10:50

Perhaps that is the route we should go here, because that makes it much more difficult for a member to resign and get an appointment immediately. If he has to wait for a couple of years, he will think twice about taking that appointment and therefore it will deter that kind of practice. Maybe that is the route we should be taking. As my colleague the member for Oshawa said, there should be a much more open process.

In conclusion, I am going to have a great deal of difficulty in voting for this resolution because of its scattergun approach and because it does not propose any means of effecting the principle espoused in this resolution.

We as parliamentarians must give the lead to establishing the standard of democracy we want to have in our society and to the public generally. The matter of special favours, lining our own pockets or lining our friends' pockets, is a very major factor in their determination of that quality. Although this resolution may not be passed, I hope the government will follow up on this and bring in the necessary legislation.

Mr. McLean: I would like to comment on what has been said by members of this Legislature in regard to this resolution. The member for Oshawa made some good points. It is difficult to bring in a resolution that suits everyone and has the proper wording. However, the intent of the resolution was directed at senior civil servants or members of the Legislature who retire, then get an appointment to a board or a commission, draw a salary of more than $50,000 -- some are drawing $90,000 -- and get a pension. That is the intent of the resolution.

I concur with some of the comments made with regard to the commissions, the conservation authorities, the local police commission or the local housing authority. There are many boards that are very minimal and that are included in the 1,928 appointments the member mentioned. I concur with that. That is not the intent of this resolution. However, it says "boards and commissions."

The head of the police commission in Toronto is a political appointment, so to speak, making some $80,000 a year. The head of the compensation board is probably making the same amount of money. The chairman of the transport board is making a large salary. The list goes on and on. These are the type of people I am aiming at in my resolution. However, it is difficult to specify in detail in a resolution the ones we should look at. It is not the intent to single out the heads of the other boards and commissions who are appointed and perhaps make $100 a month or $25 a meeting. It is the full-time appointments. Perhaps that could have been better clarified in the resolution.

The member for Oshawa indicates that these appointments have been going on for years and years. I dare say they will continue. I have been here since 1981, so I am not responsible for a lot of the appointments, nor do I want to say they were wrong. When people accept appointments and they have a pension of $30,000 a year, it bothers me that it is all public money. It all comes from the taxpayer.

As the member for Oshawa indicated, one talks to people at home who are on fixed incomes and who have problems making ends meet. They read in the paper and see on television these great appointments being made of members of the Legislature or senior civil servants. I do not agree with that. This is why I brought the resolution forward.

The other reason is that I have two bills, Bills 140 and 141. I would like to see the government show an interest in them as a priority. I do not understand how the member for Essex South can stand up in this House and say he agrees with what is taking place. In essence, that is what he said, that he agreed with it. The reason he agreed with it was that as politicians we probably pay more in pension than a lot of other people do. One has to qualify for the pension with age plus number of years of service. The age is 55. The number of years as a member plus one's age must equal 55 before one can qualify.

Lots of people can retire at 45 from this Legislature and draw a hefty pension plus a great salary.

The member for Durham West (Mr. Ashe) made some excellent points in his remarks. I concur with his comments and his criticism of the resolution. So be it. It is not what I would call a perfectly worded resolution. The intent of the resolution is what I am getting at, namely, people who have an appointment with a large salary should not also be drawing a pension from the public purse.

I was surprised at the comments of the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart). He mentioned that our leader's father has an appointment. I do not know what it is. I know he is doing volunteer work now. I know he had one in the past. I can only say I know he does not have one now. I was also interested in the comments of the member for Welland-Thorold when he indicated what has taken place in other countries such as Sweden and the policies they have. A further investigation into that is worth while because what he was saying made sense to me. I hope we have the opportunity to have a further look at that.

I think the resolution before this Legislature today is a good one. I still ask for the support of all members. The intent is there. I believe the government should take this resolution and complement it with the two bills I have, Bills 140 and 141, and bring a bill into this Legislature. From the comments from all parties today, this would stop the double-dipping, and senior civil servants and members of the Legislature would be treated equally to everybody else in Ontario.

NUCLEAR ARMS FREE ZONE

Mr. R. F. Johnston moved resolution 1:

That in the opinion of this House, the province of Ontario, Canada, should declare itself a nuclear arms free zone and the government should prohibit the deployment of nuclear weapons in Ontario, the testing of nuclear weapons and associated equipment in the province, the construction of nuclear weapons and associated equipment, the transport of nuclear weapons and associated equipment through and within the province and the export of goods and materials for use in the construction and deployment of nuclear arms. In addition, the province should encourage cities, provinces and states throughout the world to initiate similar action.

11:00

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

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I would like to reserve some time at the end.

This is called The Chariots of War. It reads:

For 20 years they built it.

When it was ready they started it.

It was the most appropriate of all machines.

No machine had ever howled like it,

spat fire and steel from its maw,

hurled earth around it, as it did.

But having started it

they could not make it halt.

It trampled all beneath it

cattle, children, the ripening fields.

It rushed to towns and ground them underfoot,

moved from land to land, nation to nation

sparing nothing.

When it had maimed everything living

it stopped at last in a meadow, there it still

spat fire and steel from its gullet.

After many generations,

when life began to rise again on the earth,

people built a fence around it

and set beside it an inscription,

which could be seen for leagues:

"This was made by our fathers

in inconceivable insanity."

That poem by a Finnish writer symbolizes what has taken place in terms of the proliferation of nuclear arms, the lack of control out there and the huge trepidation we all have that this machine, once unleashed, can destroy everything we hold dear.

Since April 1983, this resolution we are debating has been resolution number 1 in Orders and Notices. I have gone to extraordinary lengths to make sure it was always number 1, including introducing it the day before the speech from the throne was read, to make sure nothing else got in first. I did that because of its symbolic importance. No issue we deal with in this Legislature has the profound implications and importance that potential nuclear annihilation does. That we address it here in this Legislature and take responsibility for it has been a cause of mine now for these many years.

Listening to the radio these days, with all the golden oldies emphasis that is out there, is a mixed blessing. It reminds us of our youth and brings back great joys, but it also reminds us of how old some of us are getting. The other day I happened to be listening to one of the stations that play these old songs from the 1950s, when I was young. I heard one I had not heard in 30 years, the song about the rubber tree plant and the ant. I do not know whether you recall it, Mr.

Speaker, but a line in it went: "Everyone knows an ant can't move a rubber tree plant." The song went on, "The ant had high hopes and with those high hopes eventually moved the rubber tree plant." I have felt somewhat like the ant on this issue in this House, because the previous time I introduced it, it was defeated and did not go as far as I wanted.

I believe it is important to maintain high hopes. High hopes need actions to reinforce them, especially around this issue, on which cynicism is so profound and the sense of powerlessness is so great that those of us who have responsibility should take it. We are debating here today whether we have the responsibility on this issue, whether we want to say we have power or are powerless -- I hope we do not wish to say we are powerless -- whether we are sovereign or only pawns in this whole proliferation horror around us and whether we are tethered by cynicism or liberated by hope.

Three years ago, when we introduced this resolution for the first time, my friend the member for Hamilton West (Mr. Allen) did me the honour of using his time to bring it in that fall, almost at this time. We had a whole week of events to try to encourage people to participate and to get interested in this issue. We did unique things such as holding a play in the Legislature, besides the theatre of the absurd in which we often participate on a regular basis.

It was written by Erika Ritter and was a wonderful thing, which basically asked, if a nuclear war were just about to happen, who among us would get into the government bunker? In that I am still on the opposition side, I presume I never will; but perhaps the Conservatives, now being on this side, may have more interest in that debate than they did three years ago.

In a more serious vein, we also had one of the survivors of Hiroshima here, and there were many moving moments, none more moving than the debate itself. I will always remember the speech of the member for Kitchener-Wilmot (Mr. Sweeney). As members who were here may recall, I had great difficulty maintaining my own emotions after he spoke. It was perhaps one of our best afternoons here in terms of the quality of debate and the attitudes of members; but the vote, unfortunately, went against.

Many things have changed since 1983. Manitoba has declared itself a nuclear weapons free zone. We do not have to worry about being the first or about what will happen to us. The government of Manitoba was actually re-elected, I remind people. It does not have to fear. The balance of power throughout the world was not unduly upset by Manitoba's declaration, but it was a little beacon of light for all of us to look at and take hope from.

New Zealand, on the other hand, took major action and has caused somewhat of a furore within its alliance with the United States because of its statements around nuclear weapons free action, but what it indicated was that it can mean something. It does not have to be just a statement of principle; it can mean something in terms of a new force on the superpowers in taking action.

I remind members who do not know that Spain made its entry into the North Atlantic Treaty Organization conditional upon not having nuclear weapons placed on its soil. Iceland, the recent host of the summit and one of our allies, is also a nuclear weapons free zone.

Here in Ontario we have gone from just a scattering of municipalities that had declared themselves nuclear weapons free to 51 that I know of as of today. More than a third of the people in the province have voted municipally to say they want to be free of this umbrella of nuclear madness that all of us are living under. If municipal politicians can say it is their responsibility to act and make a statement, then surely we as provincial politicians can do so as well.

There has been another change for me. I have a child now whom I did not have in 1983. If I understood what the member for Kitchener-Wilmot was talking about and what other people were talking about, when you have a child and you understand what our gift of the future may be to the next generation, that is no future at all. It adds another whole layer of emotional import to this kind of discussion.

On the other hand, during the same period we have seen an escalation in the arms race. Even in spite of the fact that the majority of Canadians are against cruise missile testing, the cruise missiles are being tested in our country. We have seen the failure at Reykjavik. I do not know how other members felt about it, but when I saw them come out in the afternoon with the joy in their faces and a seeming solution there, and then saw the results that night, I was crestfallen. I felt absolutely let down and betrayed by the leaders of the two superpowers. I think that has deepened the cynicism in people.

Of course, we have the Star Wars escalation, which is supposedly a solution but which, as any of us can gather, is just another way of adding more weapons to that enormous stockpile. I remind members who do not remember the statistic that there are about 50,000 nuclear weapons in total on both sides at this point. No matter how you balance it out, the overkill capacity is just enormous.

I thought the cynicism that had developed because of that would immobilize people, and I have noticed among the peace movement that people no longer want to march or to take the walk to city hall in Toronto, as they did when we used to have 20,000 people out. They want to see action, and there is a determination and a quiet resolution in people's minds about getting action that I had not seen in 1983.

In this campaign, I presume many members have been called by people in the peace movement or by interested people in their community who knew the resolution was coming up and who have talked to members quietly about why they feel this is important.

11:10

Going back to that whole golden oldie business, a song that was very important to me was one by Buffy Sainte-Marie; it is called The Universal Soldier. I do not know whether members remember it, but the words to that song were:

He is a universal soldier and he really is to blame,

His orders come from far away no more,

They come from him and you and me, and brother, can't you see,

This is not the way we put an end to war.

I believe people now understand that we all have individual responsibilities. It is crucial for each of us to take whatever steps we can at whatever level we have influence to try to change the path that seems so inextricably drawn to our total annihilation.

I remind people of the studies that have been done on the attitudes of children concerning nuclear war. Please remember that in studies done in Boston, a majority of kids in high school these days, when asked what their future was going to be, said they had no future. They could not anticipate living more than another 15 to 20 years, because they presumed we would all be destroyed. What does that do to the moral fibre of our nation, to the sense of hope and of improving our society that all the next generation should have?

I am pleased there are some students in the gallery today from places such as Welland and Burlington who are expressing other feelings and are here to ask us to support this resolution. A couple of high schools in Brampton have declared themselves nuclear weapons free in the past couple of weeks. It is another statement of this need to act wherever we can.

What are the elements of our complicity that we as Ontarians should deal with? There is the whole question of the production and sale of tritium, which for generations we have been selling from Chalk River to the United States for the development of nuclear arms. What are we going to do with Darlington? Are we going to continue that export? What kind of controls will we put on it to make sure tritium is not used for the construction of nuclear weapons? This resolution says there has to be at least control.

What about defence contracts? We do not know how many there are, but we know that Litton, for instance, produces the guidance system. This resolution says that kind of production should not be possible in Ontario. How we, as a Legislature and as a government, will deal with this is another matter. I presume we all agree there should be no loss of jobs. No company that has gone into a contract legally in this country should be penalized because we are now expressing a new will. We should find ways to make sure companies do not have to resort to the undertaking of defence contracts for nuclear weapons production or component parts production in Ontario.

Research is going on at the University of Toronto and the University of Waterloo. We should know what that is and whether it is for direct defence contracts or whether it has a more general use that we can support. There is transportation of goods for nuclear weapons through our province, and this summer we had port visits by ships that may have had nuclear weapons on board.

Let me remind members what this resolution is about. This is just their expression, as individual members of this House, of a principle they want to have enunciated. That is what we are talking about. If members pass this, it is one small tiny step towards what we must do. If we do this, I presume the next step is to say to the government, "There is now a moral obligation on you to take some action that reflects the principles of this motion."

That could take a number of forms. It could mean introducing conversion legislation to help companies such as Litton convert to production for peaceful high-tech purposes. It could mean setting up a small group of us to get together to work out policies that would reflect this principle and together to produce that kind of statement. It would also allow us to talk with the federal government and say: "Manitoba and Ontario together make up almost 50 per cent of the country in population. It is time the federal government looked at this as an issue that has national consequences."

I will come to the final matter in a minute, which is reciprocity, because the member for High Park-Swansea (Mr. Shymko) touched on a very important issue in his proposed alteration of my resolution.

First, let me deal with the neutrality question. Even the Toronto Star, which has been a great proponent of disarmament issues for the past little while, in opposing this resolution has made one of those fundamental errors in logic that a lot of us make from time to time. It has said that for us to act here on this kind of issue and to make a statement of our desire to be nuclear weapons free is to express neutrality; it is to say we must withdraw from the North American Aerospace Defence Command and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

Those are things I might personally be in favour of, but they are in no way part of this resolution. That argument is an insult to Spain and Iceland, and it is an insult to everything Papandreou is trying to accomplish in Greece within the context of NATO; they are saying there must be room to move.

To make the argument that we, as a sovereign Legislature, cannot express our will or make a statement along these lines, I suggest, is to make the argument that as a true ally, of the US in this case, we must always accept unequivocally what the strongest ally in the alliance wishes us to do. The final result of that would be to say we are obligated, if they asked us, to place nuclear weapons on our soil. It would be an abrogation of sovereignty to do so. We have to understand that there is a balance in this. I am not suggesting we should do anything that undermines the alliance.

The other thing I am not suggesting is that we need to trust the Soviets in all this. I do not trust the Soviets, and I say that very clearly. I have seen no reason why they should be trusted. As a democrat, I have an absolute abhorrence of their totalitarianism. I stand here, as do all members, with the ultimate privilege of free speech. We cannot be touched in anything we say. That privilege is one of the most magnificent rights that can be conferred, and it is not permitted in the Soviet Union.

I also abhor their suppression of many of the national groups that are under their bloc's control at this point; however, they are there, they have enormous power and they must be dealt with on whatever terms we can try to do so.

The very last

section of this resolution therefore becomes very important; that is, the question of reciprocity, what I put down as encouragement of other cities and states to participate. How we want to change that from this resolution into government action is something I leave up to the members of this House.

I do not think it is a correct parallel, I might say to the member for High Park-Swansea, to say that one of the Soviet republics should twin with Ontario. In my view, the equivalent of that parallel would be to say that a number of the US states should parallel with one of the major republics within the Soviet Union. However, it is possible to say that within the satellite sphere of Romania, Bulgaria or any of those countries, we should be looking for somewhere to parallel with, looking for some sign of reciprocity.

I welcome the notion that we should be pushing for that. If it were the will of this House and of the government that we should hold up a final statement on our policy until we find and try our best to negotiate that, I personally would be happy. That would be a major step forward and a wonderful thing for us to do in terms of a sense of empowerment.

Before I stand down to hear other people, there are a number of people I must thank. First, there are the peace movement people, who have worked so hard to try to talk to members and convince them to support this resolution. Second, I want to thank two members of the House, the member for York East (Ms. Hart) and the member for Burlington South (Mr. Jackson), for the work they have done within their caucuses. This is not something usual in terms of private members' hour, and I do appreciate their assistance. Third, I want to thank my own party, the New Democratic Party. It has made this its policy very strongly at conventions, unanimously at conventions.

We were trying to find somebody to be the second speaker for our caucus, but how do we choose? Should we choose the member for Hamilton West (Mr. Allen), who introduced it last time, because of what he has done, or the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds), who has done so much work in Thunder Bay on the issue? The member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) wanted a chance to do it, and the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) asked whether he might do it. In the end, we decided the most appropriate person to be our second spokesman was our leader because this issue is so fundamentally important to us. I am very privileged that the member for York South (Mr. Rae) has decided to do that for us.

Before I sit down -- I obviously will not have any time for a rebuttal, Mr. Speaker, but with my incredible sense of timing I am going to use up every second -- I would like to plead with the members one more time that today can be a very historic day for this House, in stating a principle we wish to follow. Then there is much work to be done in terms of how we would implement that and how we would refine the

definitions that are within my motion to reflect the reality of the province. I would welcome working with each member to make this symbolic gesture a very practical reality.

[Applause]

The Deputy Speaker: I remind the people in the gallery that demonstrations of any kind are prohibited under the rules of the House.

11:20

Mr. Henderson: I am very pleased to rise and support this motion as vigorously and energetically as I can. I thank the member for Scarborough West (Mr. R. F. Johnston) for the superb job he has done over the years in championing this cause. I cannot quite bring myself to thank his party, but I am sure that deficit will be made good by others. I want to spend a few moments responding to some of the arguments made against the thrust of this resolution. I will use the last part of my time to offer some facts and figures of my own in support of it.

The comment has been made that this resolution goes too far, that it speaks not only against nuclear weapons on Ontario soil but also prohibits the construction of nuclear weapons and associated equipment and the export of goods and materials for use in the construction and deployment of nuclear arms. The argument, so it goes, is that this makes it too broad, too all encompassing and too difficult to enforce and that it dilutes the thrust of the member's motion.

The second argument is that by virtue of Canada's obligations to NATO and NORAD, it is hypocritical to pass a resolution such as this, that it amounts to a declaration of neutrality on the part of Canada. I state these objections only to say I cannot agree with them at all.

It does not seem to me necessary at this time to become too involved in the details of whether associated equipment or materials and construction are covered. What we are looking for is a strong and very vigorous endorsement of the principle that Ontarians want no part of nuclear weapons and nuclear escalation. This motion says that very clearly. As well, it seems to me that it is simply not so to say that our obligations to NORAD and NATO require that we defeat a resolution such as this.

To put the matter somewhat starkly and baldly, war, armaments and treaties have been around an awful lot longer than nuclear weapons. While I am not in favour of any of those things, it seems to me that one can decide to do away with nuclear weapons without necessarily dismantling Canada's entire network of treaty arrangements.

The third argument against this motion centres on the fact that we cannot trust the Soviets. With respect to the Soviet bloc, as the member for High Park-Swansea observes in his memo -- I apologize for anticipating his remarks, but I will not get a chance to speak after he does, so I am going to make one or two comments now -- the Soviets have not declared one square inch of their territory as nuclear arms free zones. Fair enough; to the best of my knowledge, that is so.

He says that perhaps it would be appropriate for us in Ontario to pass a resolution that will make the declaration of nuclear arms free zones in parts of the Soviet Union a reality. I wish we could. It seems to me, however, that we are into the time-honoured difficulty of everybody wanting somebody else to take the first step. Distrust and suspicion abound on both sides. We saw that only a few weeks ago at Reykjavik.

Everybody wants somebody else to take the first step. Surely the time has come when Canadians and Ontarians can have the courage to take the first step. Perhaps by doing so, the goodwill we will generate, if not the sense of one-upmanship we will generate, might encourage, provoke or persuade the Soviets to reciprocate in kind.

I want to say a few things about the holocaust of nuclear war. If my city of Etobicoke were bombed with a modern nuclear weapon, every man, woman and child would be vaporized. No sidewalks would be left to bear the shadows. The deaths of those at ground zero would at least be painless. One has that consolation because where once stood Etobicoke would instantly stand a very large, hot, radioactive crater.

In 1981, a large group of atomic scientists, statesmen and military people, some from nations of the Warsaw pact, met in Washington. A year later, they met in Cambridge. They agreed that a one-megaton weapon, one twentieth the strength of those now available, if exploded over any modern city, would demolish all its structures, kill 90 per cent of all people within a four-mile radius, burn, blind or cripple 60 per cent of others within reach of the initial blast and create 300-mile-an-hour hot winds.

It would kill or disable 60 to 80 per cent of all physicians, nurses and aides, almost totally destroy clinical facilities and drug supplies and virtually abolish medical care for the tens of thousands of blinded, maimed, burned, crippled and emotionally wrecked survivors who would be in such desperate need of help. It would condemn a third of all adults and half of all surviving children to the dangers of leukaemias, diminished resistance to infection, neurological disorders and cancer, and it would destine their offspring to abnormal genetic pools for endless generations. That is a nuclear weapon of one twentieth the strength of those now available.

Let us do what we can in Ontario to rekindle the spirit of Reykjavik. Let us demand that our governments stop the nuclear arms race and work with the other side to abolish nuclear weapons everywhere.

I want to make mention of the huge economic price we pay for the nuclear madness that prevails in the world today. The cost of training and equipping a single modern soldier would subsidize a child's health needs from birth and cover his or her education through to the end of college.

For the price of one atomic submarine, hundreds of thousands of skilled and unskilled workers put into service could eradicate endemic diseases throughout the world that constitute 80 per cent of all illness. If the $1.5 billion spent daily by the nations of the globe in war readiness were diverted to human purposes, one third of the world's population that is now dying from disease and starvation could be rescued. Ethiopia could become a land of plenty.

Among the tens of thousands of children thereby rescued would be hundreds or thousands of new Pasteurs, Einsteins, statesmen and peacemakers. I am told that Harry Truman, God rest his soul, made that fateful decision to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but who among us really stands blameless? Who among us has not participated or been tempted to participate in those rationalizations we all hear about of having to bomb Japan to end the strife and save the lives of thousands?

Let us face it, the United States did not bomb Japan to save lives; it bombed Japan to win the war. It knew people would die and it figured better it should be Japanese than Americans. That is the mentality of total war. The innocent suffer and die too.

I have been told that Japanese scientists, working on their version of the bomb, who knew of the American work, none the less mounted a go-slow campaign in defiance of their war ministry because they were sure the Americans would never use the bomb on people. So much for man's humanity for man.

Even rich nations cannot afford the nuclear arms race. They print or borrow money to cover war expenditures. They devalue their currencies and fuel inflation. They raise taxes and interest rates. They divert resources from the central industries. They close factories and set into motion a worldwide rise in unemployment and economic insecurity. I am not an economist, but those kinds of consequences have been traced to various aspects of the nuclear arms race by men and women who are more expert in that field of endeavour than I am.

I believe we must mobilize every possible influence to end this waste of mankind's precious resources. We must develop world institutions and world bodies that can resolve global conflicts. We must turn our human efforts to mutual and creative advantage. We must combat the ignorance, poverty and illness that fuel the hideous spiral towards nuclear tragedy.

11:30

The countdown is approaching. I am almost out of time, but let me tell the members, the countdown for humanity may well be approaching too. I join the member for Scarborough West in urging every member of this assembly to support this very worthy motion.

Mr. Jackson: It is an honour to stand in support of a resolution declaring Ontario a nuclear arms free zone. Like all members of this assembly, I participated in the hallowed observances on Remembrance Day, November 11, just two short days ago. The message that day was clear. We seek an everlasting peace in memory of those who gave their lives so that we could have the freedom to achieve a lasting peace. Amidst my re-elections on Remembrance Day, I found time to read an

article in the Toronto Star. The headline -- "Arms Talks Break up in a Shouting Match" -- was both frightening and prophetic.

The

article carried a Washington dateline and began as follows:

"Serious arms-control negotiations between Washington and Moscow are unlikely to resume until the spring, say aides to US Secretary of State George Shultz, after a meeting last Wednesday turned into a shambles.

"Both sides repeatedly screamed at each other `like children,' one aide said."

It is frightening to imagine that the future hope for nuclear de-escalation is in the hands of these adults; yet how prophetic that this conduct is styled as being childlike. Have they really listened to the children of the world? They are certainly not listening to the young children in Burlington who this week gave testimonial in our community newspaper, the Burlington Post, when asked the question, "What would you do to make the world a better place?"

Here is a sample of what they said. Greg Staskovich, a grade 5 student at Lawrie Smith School, said, "Get rid of nuclear weapons." Devin Williams, a grade 3 student at Lawrie Smith School, said: "We should choose governments who won't make weapons or buy them." Collin Neal, a grade 2 student at Lakeshore School, said, "Stop making guns and give people food and schools."

I think Collin understands what is happening with declining enrolments as well.

Susil Gupta, a grade 2 student at Lawrie Smith School, said: "Stop shooting guns and bombs." Mark Louis, a grade 2 student at Lawrie Smith School, said: "Don't spend money on bombs. Give it to poor people for food."

Perhaps the most insightful comment came from a grade 4 student, Stace Smith, who said: "Dismantle the bombs. It's like suicide if we don't."

Children all over Ontario are becoming increasingly aware that the nuclear arsenals of the two superpowers currently contain the explosive force of all the munitions exploded during the Second World War times 6,000. That is 6,000 Second World Wars.

Children such as Stace Smith are growing up with the threat of global nuclear suicide. When I was in university, I used to question why would I want to bring up a child in that kind of nuclear-threatened world. Now, as a father and as an MPP, I must do something about that on behalf of my daughter Amy, because our children will continue to have nightmares and tremble at the apprehensions that not joy but terror "cometh in the morning." Early childhood researchers are concerned about the powerful psychological threats posed by nuclear weapons right now to the capacity of children to imagine a human future.

That is why it matters very much what we think and how we vote on this important resolution as individuals, as a province and as members of the human race. Thanks to the doom-and-gloom theorists, our children have clear thought models for what a nuclear end might be. What is conspicuously lacking from today's political leaders is a positive model for peace. We need more thinkers and leaders who can hold before us an alternative to a nuclear holocaust, to empower us and unleash the positive energy of our collective will.

Again, for those who will listen, there are encouraging signs from Ontario's young adults. On October 20, the United Nations Club of Aldershot High School in Burlington held the Halton region's first peace conference to celebrate the International Year of Peace. That United Nations Club is a group of young Canadian students very concerned about world peace. It provided a forum for Halton youth to express their views on the subject. The students of Aldershot High School believe it is not enough simply to reject the apocalyptic view of human destiny.

They feel a need to say yes with heart and intellect to a wholly positive alternative. They agreed at their conference that world peace could be achieved only through responsible and positive action taken by a joint effort of all peoples and governments.

Our younger generation is also aware that man holds in his mortal hands the power to abolish either all forms of human poverty or all forms of human life. The Annual Report on World Military and Social Expenditures suggested that in the last 40 years the world has spent $17 trillion on military spending. That is 17 plus 12 zeroes. Most recently, it has been spending at the rate of $1 million a minute. Four hours of such spending could eradicate malaria from the earth. Less than 10 hours' worth would end the world's hunger problem.

The modern globe is far too small, its nuclear weapons too destructive and its disorders too contagious to permit anything short of a resolution towards peace. In fact, this resolution is on behalf not only of Ontarians but of all humanity. This resolution is not really ours as a Legislature; like so many other social initiatives today, it has come from the people. It is the result of efforts that began with individuals and groups across this province and across this country that are concerned about our future. They cross partisan lines and they cross ideological lines.

Nearly 50 communities have declared themselves, by referendum, nuclear arms free zones. In the last municipal election, the people of Burlington, by a margin of four to one, declared themselves in favour of a nuclear weapons freeze. They are the grass roots that all three parties defend with such eloquence and seek out with such diligence.

The people want an end to the arms race. They expect from us as legislators a sign that we too want an end to it, because if we do not succeed in extricating ourselves from this vicious $1-million-per-minute cycle, we shall all of us be lost together; and the longer we continue to march ahead on this fateful road, the more difficult it will be for us to leave it. It is the fate of this generation to live with a struggle we did not start, in a world we did not make; but as we know, the pressures of life are not always distributed by choice.

While we hope and pray we will never experience a nuclear Armageddon, never has there been a generation more willing and able to meet the challenge of developing a positive model for peace and a positive framework for nuclear disarmament.

Members of the Aldershot United Nations Club are present in our assembly this morning to bear witness to our responsible and positive actions. They know our responsibility will be discharged not by a simple pronouncement of virtuous ends but rather by nonpartisan, all-party support of this resolution to ensure at least a first step, namely, that Ontario will declare on behalf of its citizens that it is a nuclear arms free province.

Mr. Rae: I rise on behalf of my colleagues, first of all, to thank the member for Scarborough West for having once again brought this resolution forward and for having made all the members of the Legislature aware of the importance of this issue. I know on behalf of all my colleagues and, I think, on behalf of the members of the Legislature that we owe a debt of thanks to the member for Scarborough West for the work he has done in making all of us more aware of the importance of Ontario's taking a stand.

I speak as leader of our party, but I am also speaking very personally. Just the other day I was chatting with my daughter about the meaning of Remembrance Day. She is five years old and she wondered why I was wearing a poppy and what the meaning of Remembrance Day was. My wife and I were talking to her and said that it was because there were wars. She said, "What are wars?" We said that wars happen when countries fight. She said, "How can countries fight if they do not have arms." Out of the mouths of children come questions and truths that need some answers.

11:40

The history of our civilization, alas, has been that countries do have arms. They have generations of young men and women who have gone into battle and been killed in the name of national sovereignty. They have arms in the sense of weapons that have been used as the means of defence and as the means of destruction over the course of the last thousands of years.

Yet, and this is the crucial change that has to take place in our thinking, there is a difference between the generations that followed 1945 and every other generation in human history. We have to come back to this point time and time again. Whenever we talked of war in times past, we talked of people dying and of people being killed. We talked of people fighting for a purpose, of people defending and of the response to and fro.

Never before in the history of mankind has mankind had not simply the ability to destroy a city, village or town or even a country; for the first time in our history, we have in our hands the ability to wipe out the human race itself. It is this fact that has been leading us over the past number of years to have to come to terms as a people and as a civilization with this change.

It is a sea change, a change of quality and a change of a kind that our thinking cannot quite comprehend. It is not simply that we have the ability to destroy part of ourselves. It is that we now have the capacity in our hands, technologically, to destroy history itself, to destroy not simply a country or a town but also to destroy the entire notion of civilization itself. This is a fact so awesome that it is almost impossible for us to comprehend.

What is so tragic about these debates is that we continue to have these debates as if we were talking about a technology that was based in the 19th century. So much of the military strategy that is thrown back and forth is based on the premise of the old technology that is no longer in place.

When I hear President Reagan say, "All we need to do is find yet another technology that will protect us for ever in a purely defensive way from the threat of nuclear weapons," I think of those generals who believed before the First World War and the Second World War that all one needed to do was to build another trench, another line, another wall, and that would be the ultimate defence. Nations paid the price for that kind of thinking before 1914 and before 1939 and 1940. Civilization, life itself on this planet, will pay the price for that kind of arrested thinking when it takes place in 1986.

The objective of our resolution is not simply that Ontario become nuclear-free. I speak for all the members of our party when I say the objective of this resolution is to make the world free of nuclear arms and weapons, free of what President Kennedy called this sword of Damocles which hangs over not a particular country, town or even leader, but our civilization itself.

There are a lot of arguments against this resolution. There are those who say that for us to move unilaterally is somehow sending the wrong message. There are those who say that this represents a unilateral act of disarmament on the part of Ontario, while on the other hand we have a Soviet empire which is clearly not interested in disarmament.

Let me try to respond to that as best I can. Many comments have been made about my past. I see the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) is here again today. I am proud of the fact that my father served this country overseas for many years. One of the things he did -- I am sure the Treasurer is aware of it -- was serve as Canada's representative at disarmament conferences from 1946 to when he retired in 1980.

As a young boy, I attended many of those conferences. I can remember as a high school student in Geneva going to the Palace of Nations, which was the old site of the League of Nations, and watching the group of 18, as it was then called, talking about the possibilities of disarmament and the various arguments made. For a young person, it was enlightening and frustrating, frustrating because there never seemed to be a sense that anything would ever happen. Official positions would be stated. Documents would be exchanged. At the same time, arsenals were being developed, new generations of weapons were being developed and, again, official statements being made back and forth.

There have been small breakthroughs, such as the breakthrough in 1963 with respect to the test ban treaty and the breakthroughs with respect to SALT I and SALT II, but they have been so slow in coming. It is so difficult to get any sense of momentum or appreciation among the leaders of both superpowers, that the world has, somehow, to find a voice, a way of expressing its deep-seated feeling. It is not just a question of reducing, little by little, the nuclear arsenal; it is a question of wanting to eliminate it altogether.

I share the thoughts of the member for Scarborough West. Watching the outcome of the Reykjavik conference, I thought most people around the world did not view it as a triumph. When I saw President Reagan put on that military hat and cheer to the soldiers, I felt a deep sense of depression. We missed an opportunity at Reykjavik. I say "we" because I think many in the world felt cheated of an opportunity finally to take the world on a path towards a nuclear-free future.

That opportunity was missed, and this resolution in its own small way for Ontario gives us a chance to express the opinion of this province and this group that we want to make sure, for our part at least, that we do not want to have anything to do with nuclear weaponry.

Ms. Hart: Although I cannot match my colleagues in eloquence, I rise to speak in support of the resolution to declare Ontario a nuclear arms free zone. I think it particularly fitting that we are engaging in this debate during Remembrance Day week. Just two days ago, many of us gathered at cenotaphs across Ontario to honour the thousands of women and men who died fighting in two world wars and in Korea. I am convinced that those noble Canadians did not shed their blood so that we might hold a few more yards of muddy ground, nor was their youth extinguished for the hollow honour of victory. They went, they fought and they died so that future generations of Canadians would live in peace.

11:50

My generation is one of those for whom they sacrificed. Born after the Second World War, we have not known the immediate pain of loss, as did our mothers and our grandmothers. What we have known all our lives is a more generalized fear, the fear of nuclear annihilation. It is a fear which clutches us at root and informs our perception of the future. Last spring the graduating classes of Ontario high schools were asked what concerned them most. These young people, supposedly in the most carefree time of their lives, spoke again and again of nuclear war.

Their idealism and hopes have been supplanted by pessimism and fear. Today, as private members, as legislators, we have an opportunity to take the first step in addressing that fear.

It is true that the passage of the resolution is symbolic in nature and does not require any specific steps to be taken. I have been asked how such a symbolic gesture advances the cause of peace one whit. My answer to that challenge is that every great river is born as a few drops of water, a mere trickle high in the mountains. The peace movement is not new. Think of the poetry spawned by the First World War. An example is Siegfried Sassoon's Aftermath. In his words:

The past is just the same and war's a "Bloody game."

Have you forgotten yet?

Look down and swear by the flame of the war

That you'll never forget.

We in this House can most effectively demonstrate that we will never forget by standing up and being counted on the side of peace. It is only a small step, but in talking to my constituents in York East, I believe it is an important step. The strong desire for peace is no longer the province of the literati. There has been progress. It is now the desire and the hope of many ordinary Ontarians that we will have a future and that the future will be nuclear arms free. Let us stand up and cast a vote for all Ontarians in support of the resolution of the member for Scarborough West.

In closing, let me say we can best remember those who died, by working for peace. May I leave you with the words of Vera Brittain, a nurse in the First World War, as was my own grandmother, and a courageous pacifist when it was not fashionable to be so. These words are from The Last Post, a poem she wrote in Etaples, France, in 1917.

The stars are shining bright above the camps,

The bugle calls float skyward, faintly clear;

Over the hill the mist-veiled motor lamps

Dwindle and disappear.

The notes of day's goodbye arise and blend

With the low murmurous hum from the tree and sod,

And swell into that question at the end

They ask each night of God --

Whether the dead within the burial ground

Will ever overthrow their crosses grey,

And rise triumphant from each lowly mound

To greet the dawning day.

Whether the eyes which battle sealed in sleep

Will open to reveille once again

And forms, once mangled, into rapture leap,

Forgetful of their pain.

But still the stars above the camp shine on,

Giving no answer for our sorrow's ease

And one more day with the Last Post has gone,

Dying upon the breeze.

I urge the members to speak with one voice in making sure that never again will the last post be sounded in war.

Before I take my seat, I wish to compliment the member for Scarborough West and the member for Burlington South (Mr. Jackson) particularly. This is an issue which transcends partisan concerns and party lines. It is an issue which speaks to the very future of our children and our children's children. If we want that future to be peaceful and not to have our children annihilated in a nuclear war, then we must vote together.

Mr. Speaker: The member for High Park-Swansea for two minutes.

Mr. Shymko: I want to express concern. It is unfortunate that on such an important topic this party is not given time equal to that given both the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party in debating this, particularly for a member of the Legislature who may have a different point of view. I have been given two minutes and I will do my best to express my concerns.

War is madness, and nuclear war is the ultimate madness. There is no one on this side of the House whose remarks, if expressing reservations on this resolution, can be accused of promoting war or in any way being opposed to the process of peace.

When the member for Scarborough West introduced his resolution on November 24, 1983, he said, "When I introduced this resolution this spring -- a rather silly, in a sense symbolic, gesture -- I did not expect...I would be participating in a debate of the quality we have heard."

I do not want this to become a silly and symbolic resolution. I cannot support a resolution that remains silent on the millions of people whose territory has never been declared a nuclear free zone -- not one square inch of it. When Manitoba, New Zealand, numerous American states and one third of this province, as was pointed out by the member, declared themselves nuclear free zones, it had no impact on the other superpower.

I am concerned about the words of our UN ambassador, Stephen Lewis, the previous leader of the third party, who said: "It is unfortunate that the Soviet Union believes that nihilism is preferable to negotiation, butchery is preferable to bargaining." We would like to see a resolution that is bargaining, that is negotiation, that is bilateral, that says, "Take so many square miles of territory -- half, a third, 20 per cent of Manitoba and Ontario and your federated states -- and declare it a nuclear free zone." That is what I suggest should be supported.

Mr. Speaker: The allotted time has been used for private members' public business. We will deal first with Mr. McLean's resolution.

REMUNERATION OF RETIRED EMPLOYEES

The House divided on Mr. McLean's motion of resolution 64, which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes

Allen, Andrewes, Caplan, Cooke, D. R., Cordiano, Cousens, Curling, Dean, Ferraro, Gordon, Harris, Hennessy, Jackson, Johnson, J. M., McCague, McFadden, McLean, McNeil, Mitchell, Nixon, O'Neil, Philip, Pierce, Pollock, Scott, Sheppard, Shymko, Smith, D. W., Smith, E. J., South, Sterling, Swart, Sweeney, Treleaven, Yakabuski.

Nays

Ashe, Bossy, Breaugh, Bryden, Callahan, Cooke, D. S., Epp, Gigantes, Grande, Grier, Hart, Hayes, Henderson, Johnston, R. F., Knight, Laughren, Mackenzie, Mancini, Martel, McClellan, McGuigan, McKessock, Miller, G. I., Newman, Poirier, Pouliot, Rae, Ramsay, Reycraft, Stevenson, K. R., Ward, Warner, Wildman.

Ayes 35; nays 33.

12:16 p.m.

NUCLEAR ARMS

The House divided on Mr. R. F. Johnston's motion of resolution 1, which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes

Allen, Andrewes, Bossy, Breaugh, Bryden, Callahan, Caplan, Cooke, D. R., Cooke, D. S., Cordiano, Curling, Epp, Eves, Ferraro, Gigantes, Gordon, Grande, Grier, Harris, Hart, Hayes, Henderson, Hennessy, Jackson, Johnson, J. M., Johnston, R. F., Knight, Laughren, Mackenzie, Martel, McCague, McClellan;

McFadden, McGuigan, McKessock, McLean, McNeil, Miller, G. I., Newman, Nixon, Philip, Pierce, Poirier, Polsinelli, Pouliot, Rae, Ramsay, Reycraft, Sargent, Scott, Sheppard, Smith, D. W., Smith, E. J., South, Stevenson, K. R., Swart, Sweeney, Treleaven, Ward, Warner, Wildman.

Nays

Ashe, Cousens, Dean, Mancini, Mitchell, O'Neil, Pollock, Shymko, Sterling.

Ayes 61; nays 9.

The House recessed at 12:20 p.m.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1:30 p.m.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

CONSERVATION AUTHORITY

Mr. Sheppard: October 8, 1986, marked the 40th anniversary of the Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority. This authority is one of the original three authorities in Ontario. At 11 o'clock tomorrow we are unveiling a plaque in the town of Port Hope in remembrance of 40 years of dedication.

In the 1920s and 1930s, there was a general concern in Ontario about the extensive soil loss and flooding problems that had become prevalent as a result of severe drought and deforestation. In 1942, the provincial government appointed the interdependent committee on conservation and rehabilitation to consider these problems and the most effective means of dealing with them.

The Ganaraska watershed was selected as a model area to identify conservation needs and make recommendations for remedial work. A report was published in 1944 and two years later the Conservation Authorities Act was enacted. In the same year, the Ganaraska River Conservation Authority came into being, with only six member municipalities at that time. The first major project of the authority was the establishment of the Ganaraska forest, which was officially opened in May 1947.

Today, the authority, with eight member municipalities, is known as the Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority. The Ganaraska forest, now more than 10,000 acres in size and offering watershed residents programs in conservation education and outdoor recreation, is still a major project of the authority.

PROFESSIONAL CERTIFICATION

Mr. Mackenzie: The Society of Ontario Professional Engineers and Administrative Employees, a society representing 6,500 employees of Ontario Hydro, applied for certification on November 5. This will be the largest group of professional employees applying to the board for certification. They already have a voluntary agreement with Hydro, covering all 6,500 employees. They also have 200 exclusions to the current voluntary agreement. These cover management positions.

The word out in the field is that Hydro will be requesting up to an additional 1,500 exclusions from this bargaining unit. We should recognize that if this is the intent and if this is what they are trying to do, it totally negates the right of workers to organize, workers who already have an agreement and exclusions specifically set into that agreement.

I want to serve notice on the government that I hope it will take a look at this and decide who is running the show, Hydro or Ontario. Do workers have the right to this kind of certification? Why can the current numbers and exclusions not be the basis of the certification? Anything less would be an insult to these workers. I hope the government recognizes the battle we may be in very shortly on this issue.

SCHOOL FUNDING

Mr. Callahan: I would like to do something new. People in and outside the Legislature often do not thank the government for its sincerity and its sensitivity in dealing with particular issues.

In my riding, we had a school, Notre Dame Senior School -- young people were being housed in a public school. It was a very crowded arrangement and very difficult. People were being bused in. I want to say thanks to my government and to the Minister of Education (Mr. Conway) for being so kind as to allocate moneys so that these young people can eventually get into a school that will serve their needs.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Do not forget the Treasurer.

Mr. Callahan: I am sorry, I forgot to thank the Treasurer; I do so now.

CREAM PRODUCERS

Mr. Pierce: I wish to address the House today on a serious problem of discrimination by this government against the cream producers in northern Ontario.

Despite the fact that our northern cream producers are residents and taxpayers of Ontario, they are not eligible for the cream quality programs announced by the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Riddell) on June 19, 1986. The order in council that outlines who is eligible for the programs states that a producer must be a member of the Ontario Cream Producers' Marketing Board and an Ontario resident.

The cream producers in the Rainy River district, through no fault of their own, sell their cream in the Manitoba market because of the poor cream market in northern Ontario. Therefore, these cream producers are forced to belong to the Manitoba cream board.

The cream producers in northwestern Ontario were forgotten and neglected when the cream quality programs were initiated last spring. The government has continually emphasized to the House its knowledge and support of the residents of northern Ontario, but how can this be the case when northern Ontario residents are excluded from provincial programs because the government does not recognize the difference between northern and southern Ontario?

I am requesting that a change be made to the order in council to make available to the cream producers in the Rainy River district the programs for which all other cream producers are eligible. As the member for the Rainy River riding, I ask the government to make northern Ontario cream producers eligible for all provincial grants.

LAYOFFS IN SUDBURY

Mr. Laughren: A little less than a year ago, Falconbridge purchased Kidd Creek Mines in Timmins for approximately $600 million. At the same time, it continued to ship its ores to Norway without their being refined in this country, which we find very offensive.

This year in negotiations with the Sudbury Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers Union, the proud union in the Sudbury area, the company sought concessions. The union said, "No, we have difficulty granting concessions but we will take back shares in return for any concessions." The company hard-lined it and said, "No, that is not acceptable."

Since then, Falconbridge has announced it is laying off 275 hourly rated employees and a number of salaried staff as well. Following that, an ad hoc committee in the Sudbury basin, consisting of the local members of Parliament, the MPPs, the area mayors and the regional chairman had a meeting on October 25. We decided unanimously to have a public inquiry into the intentions of Falconbridge, because there have been some disturbing rumours that Falconbridge may be using its facilities at Kidd Creek in Timmins to refine some of the ores it extracts from the Sudbury basin.

We now, and will be continuing to, call on the Premier (Mr. Peterson) to implement a public inquiry into the intentions of Falconbridge. We think the community has a right to know what its future holds.

HERITAGE ISLAM SOCIETY

Mr. Offer: It is my pleasure to inform the House of the anniversary of the Heritage Islam Society of Mississauga. This organization plays a vital role within the social, cultural and educational life of the Islamic community and in Mississauga as a whole.

As such, it has made a rich contribution to the achievement of multicultural harmony. Every one of the members can and should he proud of his association with such a tradition of service and goodwill.

It is the work of associations of this nature and many others, in meeting the challenge in their determination, energy and commitment, that makes certain this province remains a multicultural mosaic, where heritages, ethnic backgrounds and cultural identities are secure and remain identified within the province as a whole. I compliment the Heritage Islam Society in Mississauga for the work it has done over many years.

ONTARIO WINES

Mr. Andrewes: I have a timely reminder for all members of the Legislature and for others who participate in the daily activities of the assembly that this week marks the introduction of nouveau wine from four Ontario-based wineries.

Bright's, Inniskillin, Hillebrand and Château des Charmes are introducing wines of both the red and white gender. This is the first wine from the 1986 vintage. It is produced by a process known as carbonic maceration.

As members know, 1986 has not been an easy year for grape growers and wineries in Ontario. The excessive rains and the lack of proper heat units and sunshine have added to the miseries of the growers. This normally means that a less desirable vintage will be produced. However, it appears that the quality of the nouveau wine is exceptional; the best they have had for about seven years.

As members consider what new technology they might use in entertaining, I would certainly commend to them the products of the vines of Niagara.

13:41

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

COURTHOUSES

Hon. Mr. Scott: I wish to report to the assembly on plans being developed with respect to courthouse construction, maintenance and repair.

Under the Constitution Act, it is the obligation of the government of Ontario to provide courtroom facilities for all courts held in the province irrespective of whether the judges are federally or provincially appointed. We thus provide court facilities for judges of the Supreme Court of Ontario, the district courts of Ontario, the provincial courts of Ontario, criminal, family and civil divisions, and the unified family court. Courthouse facilities include not only the courtroom itself but space and staff for a wide variety of support services.

At the present time we provide courtroom space and services in 246 separate locations in 48 districts. Many of these locations are more than 100 years old. For structural and historic reasons, many of them are difficult, if not impossible, to modify or modernize effectively. Many courtroom facilities are located in premises leased from counties or municipalities. With funds in short supply, the obligation of the municipalities to maintain and repair these premises to fully acceptable standards is difficult to discharge.

Apart from the physical inadequacies of many premises and the burgeoning volume of court work over the last generation, the increasing complexity of criminal and civil litigation long ago made the problem of courtroom and support service space a critical one.

Since taking office as Attorney General, one of my priorities has been to establish for the first time a strategic plan based on consistent principles by which courtroom space could, over the next generation, be provided and maintained. We have begun to develop such a plan and in doing so have established a number of general principles to guide the allocation of resources for court facilities. These principles include:

1. Facilities will be provided only -- and I emphasize "only" -- in response to proven need.

2. The Ministry of the Attorney General is responsible for the management and administration of the court system. The assessment of need is a critical part of that responsibility and the assessment will be made by the Ministry of the Attorney General and no one else.

3. Courtrooms will be utilized to the maximum extent possible. Therefore, starting now, a courtroom can no longer be assigned permanently to any one particular division of the court.

Pursuant to these principles, we have identified a number of policies that will assist in our decision-making as we provide and manage courtroom space. These policies include:

1. The quality and size of courtrooms, judges' chambers and court offices will be based upon objective standards and will be consistent with the prudent use of public funds.

2. The provision of new or additional space will be considered only after all other viable options to resolve the problem of need have been exhausted.

3. As a matter of long-range planning, courts should be located in buildings designed for that purpose.

4. As a matter of administration of justice policy, crown attorneys should be located within the principal courthouse or its environs.

5. In situations of need where additional and traditional courtroom space cannot be quickly provided, we are prepared to consider using modular portable facilities, a model of which is available for inspection.

As part of the development of a strategy for the short and medium term, for the first time in Ontario history we are assessing the needs of our courts on a county or district basis. That process involves developing a profile of the judicial district that includes consideration of the economics, the population, the growth potential and existing facilities in each district. We intend to use available funds in consultation with local users and municipalities.

As profile reports are completed, I will therefore be sending copies to members of the judiciary, the bar, police forces, municipalities, interested members of the public and our own local staff for review and comment. Very shortly, the first such profile report for Niagara South will be available.

By late autumn we hope that the most critical profile reports will be completed and submitted to local users. Thereafter, we will be in a position to establish our project priority list. In this way, we hope our plans for allocation of available funding against demonstrated need will be made in consultation with affected users and the local community. Our determinations will be a matter of public record.

I recognize that maintaining and improving our court facilities is a major challenge during a period of fiscal restraint when there is so much competition for scarce resources and a significant history of protracted neglect. I believe, however, that by embarking on a strategic approach utilizing significant public and user input and by developing a multi-year plan in which priorities are clearly established, we will be in a stronger position than in the past to maintain the future course that the administration of justice must take if our facilities are to remain responsive to the needs of the people.

Mr. Sterling: I would like to comment briefly on the Attorney General's brand-new, great strategy to deal with courthouse accommodation in the province. I think he is really injecting another step to forgo the need to provide the funds necessary to build proper courtroom facilities across Ontario.

I note in his principles and in his operating policy that he deals with judges, courtrooms and his crown attorneys, but he does not deal with the needs of the public and what the public should have in each and every courtroom. He does not deal with the much-needed waiting rooms in the halls for people waiting for their turn in court, with the needs of defence counsel to meet with their clients or with proper accommodation for our juries.

When our government was in place, we had priorities. We spent $50 million of $120 million in capital construction in the Ministry of the Attorney General. This policy is nothing but a stall. What we need is commitment, action and money for our courthouses.

Ms. Gigantes: I will respond very briefly to the statement by the Attorney General concerning the strategic planning of renovation and expansion of the court facilities in Ontario. The statement is common sense and it is a wonder it did not occur to him before. I will raise only two mild points.

In the last paragraph, the minister refers to the problem of improving and maintaining facilities during "a period of fiscal restraint." One wonders when the government is going to give up repeating that phrase and how much money the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) has to have rolling around in his pocket before we no longer hear that phrase in every statement.

I thought it a little mean-minded of the minister not to name the program for what it is, the Gerry McAuliffe court facilities program. I think we should honour it with that name and give Mr. McAuliffe credit for the hard work he has done to make the Attorney General move forward on courthouse facilities.

FUNERAL SERVICES LEGISLATION

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: After extensive consultation with the funeral services industry, memorial societies and consumer groups, the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston) and I have agreed that there is ongoing need for shared responsibility of the funeral services sector by the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

We also agree that there is an immediate need for the strengthening and realignment of responsibilities so that there is greater consumer protection relating to the $200 million held in trust for prearranged funerals. The government will be proceeding as quickly as possible with new legislation in this area.

There is a need for further consultation surrounding the appropriate realignment of responsibilities between the two ministries. I am releasing today two reports made by ad hoc committees studying this matter and reporting to the government that reflect our ongoing consultation and resulting recommendations.

The first report, prepared in 1985, made several specific recommendations concerning the commercial aspects of funeral services. The government will consider these recommendations in discussions with the interest groups over the next several weeks.

The second report being released today deals with factors concerning shared jurisdictions. I want to assure the House we are moving quickly to deal with the concerns contained in these two reports.

Mr. Runciman: First, I will respond briefly to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations on his announcement in respect to the Funeral Services Act. We on this side of the House are glad to see that the Minister of Health won out in that little tussle. The Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations was saying publicly several months ago that he was going to consolidate everything under his ministry, and of course that caused a great deal of concern within the funeral service industry and within this party as well. We have certainly made our views known. Obviously, the Minister of Health shared those concerns and we have seen some action today.

I also want to make reference to one comment about the fact that a study will be undertaken on cemetery-funeral home combinations. They are going to look at this on a separate basis. I would point out to the House that a study was done on this matter some years ago, a study known as the Turner report, I believe.

I have personally made two requests of the minister to have that report made available to me, the members of my party, the members of the monument-building industry and other interested parties from the public, and we have consistently been refused access to that report, which deals specifically with what they are now going to set up another study on. It seems redundant to me. It certainly has to appear that way unless access is provided to the public and to members of the opposition in reference to the Turner report.

I would ask the minister, before he proceeds any further with this additional study, to make that report available to members of the opposition and to the members of the industry to determine whether another study is warranted at this stage. I suspect it is not.

Mrs. Grier: I am glad the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations recognized the importance of the funeral services sector and has agreed to make a statement on that sector. Like the member for Leeds (Mr. Runciman), when I heard the minister say he was going to release two reports, I assumed that one of them was going to be the Turner report. I would like to associate myself with the request for the release of that report, which has been in the hands of the ministry for quite some time now.

When I looked at these statements, which I have not read in detail obviously, I hoped there would be some mention of the concerns expressed on numerous occasions to the ministry about the monument builders. They make up one independent sector of the funeral services industry, largely peopled by small businessmen who find themselves very much in need of the realignment of jurisdictions and the re-examination of the legislation that the minister is contemplating. When we get down to the details of the implications of the statement, I hope they will not be forgotten.

INSURANCE RATES

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: In my capacity as Minister of Financial Institutions, I wish to take this opportunity to inform the House of the government's response to Dr. Slater's Ontario Task Force on Insurance as it relates to aspects of tort law that have been identified by Dr. Slater, the public and the industry as creating uncertainty in the insurance market. Later in my statement, I will also address some other areas discussed by Dr. Slater.

Dr. Slater indicated that tort reform would in the long run help make the tort liability insurance system more predictable and less costly. Members of the public and the insurance industry have raised these issues as being of more immediate concern.

Let me set out three examples of these concerns.

One concern is the waste and duplication that arise when courts allow injured victims the right to retain benefits received from collateral sources such as private disability insurance or public assistance schemes. By failing to include the collateral benefits in the calculation of the actual loss, courts are said to allow a double recovery on some items. Double recovery can only add to the cost of claims and insurance premiums.

A second concern arises because of the present prejudgement interest rules. More plaintiffs now are delaying the expeditious resolution of their claims in order to increase the prejudgement interest award. Such delays are not only costly but are also a disservice to both plaintiffs and defendants.

A third concern deals with that large part of a lump sum personal injury judgement that reflects a tax gross-up component, an additional sum of money intended to meet the tax obligations that occur when the lump sum is invested.

An example of this arises in the much-cited case of the young man from Brampton who was so tragically injured. Of his $6.3-million award, approximately $3 million is compensation for the actual injury, lost income and future care. The other $3 million represents the necessary gross-up to deal with the tax consequences of investing a lump sum award over a number of years. Again, we are looking at an issue that only adds to the cost of claims and insurance premiums.

The Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) and I have begun discussions with the federal Minister of Finance on our concern with gross-ups and we have recommended amendments to the Income Tax Act that would result in the elimination of tax on lump sum payments.

I would also advise members that the issue of gross-ups, along with double recovery and prejudgement interest, is now under study by Professor Stephen Waddams of the Ontario Law Reform Commission. Professor Waddams is currently examining the broader issues of compensation for personal injury and death. We have asked the Law Reform Commission of Ontario to expedite its examination of double recovery, prejudgement interest and gross-ups.

In addition, the Family Law Act and the issue of joint and several liability are currently being examined by the law reform commission. The commission's team includes advisers from the legal profession, consumers and the industry. We have asked that this study be accelerated, and the project is expected to report by next summer.

As well, the subjects of Good Samaritan legislation and limitation of actions are under active consideration by the policy development division of the Ministry of the Attorney General.

There has been much discussion about capping or placing limits on damage awards for pain and suffering. About 34 American states have recently passed legislation dealing with this issue. In Canada, however, there is no need to place legislative limits on pain and suffering awards because a $100,000 ceiling was imposed by the Supreme Court of Canada in 1978. With inflation, this amount is now $184,000. I see no need to further limit such awards.

I would like to point out that not all of Dr. Slater's recommendations were directed to the government. A number of them called for action by the insurance industry itself.

The insurance industry should know that Dr. Slater's task force pointed out the significant differences between the American judicial system and the tort system as it operates in Ontario. The task force concluded that in terms of damage awards and compensation levels, Ontario is not California north, yet sceptics within the insurance industry state this is so. I urge the insurance industry to develop the statistical and analytical program to support its argument, as Dr. Slater proposed.

I would like to summarize briefly this government's activity in some of the other areas relating to Dr. Slater's recommendations.

Dr. Slater called for the government to encourage formation of industry-based insurance pools where there are capacity problems. The Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology, the Ministry of the Environment and the Ministry of Financial Institutions have all responded to that recommendation; the most recent example being the creation of a US products liability insurance pool for manufacturers and businesses in Ontario who would otherwise be unable to export products to America.

Dr. Slater also recommended that we encourage t