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

May 14, 1984

32nd Parliament, 4th Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

REPORT ON RENT REVIEW

ORAL QUESTIONS

GO TRANSIT

PENSION REFORM

HAMILTON GO-ALRT

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE REVIEW BOARD

ELECTRICAL WORKERS' DISPUTE

VETERINARY DIAGNOSTIC SERVICES

MALVERN SOIL CONTAMINATION

LEARNING DISABILITIES

INSPECTION OF NURSING HOMES

PETITIONS

EQUAL PAY FOR WORK OF EQUAL VALUE

INDEPENDENT SCHOOLS

GAS BILLING

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

LAND REGISTRATION REFORM ACT

MILK AMENDMENT ACT

GRAIN CORN MARKETING ACT

LIVE STOCK AND LIVE STOCK PRODUCTS AMENDMENT ACT

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ESTIMATES, OFFICE OF THE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR

ESTIMATES, OFFICE OF THE PREMIER AND CABINET OFFICE

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

REPORT ON RENT REVIEW

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, this morning, at the opening of further hearings being conducted by Mr. Stuart Thom in his review of the rent review process, the commissioner commented on the delays that have occurred in the completion of his report. In his comments today he pointed out that I await the full report with "controlled impatience."

Mr. McClellan: Oh, yes. Right.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: It is at the printer's.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Is that a squeak I heard over there, like the other one when I had to have the question repeated?

Mr. McClellan: It was a laugh, if the minister wants to know what it was. It was sort of in the nature of "Ha ha."

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I know the honourable member has his concerns about certain members of his party, but he should not squeal so much. He should relax. The squealing will die down after a while.

Mr. Thom has advised that although his report is in draft form, it is felt it would be better not to finalize it until it is known whether there should be additions or amendments arising out of the hearings that commenced today.

In view of the inaccuracy of previous predictions as to when the report would be finished, I hesitate to suggest another completion date. If the hearings proceed as scheduled at present, they will be completed in two weeks. It would then appear that the commission would require additional time to make revisions to the draft report before it can be printed.

This leads me to comment on an earlier reply I made in this House about the stage of the report at that time. On April 27, in reply to a question from the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan), I indicated the report was in the hands of the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) for printing. I wish to assure the House that this was the information I had received at the time.

It appears, however, that in the course of information moving from the commissioner's office to the staff of the Attorney General to my staff, a misunderstanding arose over the exact stage of the printing process. Although I do not know for certain what occurred, it would appear that the existence of a draft report and the fact that bids were being called from printers by the staff of the Attorney General led to a conclusion that in fact the report was ready for the printers. It is clear that this was not the case, and I wish to apologize for any confusion my remarks may have caused.

I also wish to indicate my very real disappointment that the report will not be available at a much earlier date than now appears will be the case. However, as I have said before, this matter is in the hands of the commission. Mr. Thom himself stated this morning that the additional delay arising from the further hearings is regretted and that the last thing he desires is that completion of the report should be held up for a moment longer than necessary.

ORAL QUESTIONS

GO TRANSIT

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transportation and Communications.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I am not surprised.

Mr. Peterson: We have to make him feel important.

The minister will be aware that some 11 years ago in a fine film made at a cost of $152,000 -- untendered, I should add to the Premier (Mr. Davis) -- the then Minister of Transportation and Communications announced a great transit plan for northern Metro. The minister will recall that on the strength of that film his colleague won the Transportation Man of the Year medal at the time.

He will also recall an elaborate announcement made two years ago about a transportation plan for northern Metro. Now we read in the morning press that he has been mugged in the corridors of power by the Treasurer (Mr. Grossman) and that there will not be a transportation plan for northern Metro. What is the minister's plan for transportation in northern Metro?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, my plan is exactly the same as it was on October 7, 1982. It has not changed. That plan was introduced, based on a cabinet minute approving it. The announcement was made, and there have been no substantive changes to that plan in the interim. By the way, I was not mugged in the corridor.

Mr. Peterson: Is the minister telling us the Treasurer was mugged? It is important that we clear up this press report, which I gather the minister would call misleading since he is standing in this House and completely denying it. He knows about the traffic jams in this city. He knows one almost needs a reservation to take the subway during rush hours. He knows the major transportation arteries have become parking lots. Is he now standing in this House and saying clearly that the government policy is to proceed as announced two years ago and that he has beaten the Treasurer in their internal fight?

Hon. Mr. Snow: No. I did not say that. With regard to the Toronto Star article, those portions of the

article attributed to me are factually and, as far as I can see, perfectly correct. There are sections of that

article that refer to a mysterious Queen's Park source, as so often seems to be the case with a lot of information around this building. However, I cannot agree with this mysterious source's information. That part of the Toronto Star

article is factually wrong.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the minister will forgive us if we are not entirely clear about where matters now stand. Is the minister saying the plans he announced some two years ago are going ahead, or is he saying they have been changed or delayed? Exactly what is he saying?

He is as baffled as other members of his cabinet always are by leaks from mysterious sources. Naturally, we would all dearly love to know who they are, which person it is in the Premier's office or wherever else they may happen to be. I do not know. Apart from commenting on those sources, could the minister clarify this basic and simple point? Is the plan he announced two years ago going ahead, or has there been some change in it? If he cannot tell us now, when will he be able to tell us?

2:10 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, the plan is basically going ahead as announced. If I may give the honourable member a slight update, when I announced the plan on October 7, 1982, we announced we were going to build two extensions to the GO Transit line, one from Pickering to Oshawa and one from Oakville to Hamilton. We were going to start right away with the planning of those two lines. We also said we were going to start a planning process that would last 18 months to two years to define a route across the north of Metro to connect Pickering to Oakville. All those things have been going ahead exactly as was announced.

As to the Pickering-Oshawa section, the planning went ahead slightly faster than was anticipated. There was a great deal of co-operation from the municipalities and all those involved. That has been finalized. Tenders were received last Wednesday for the first contract. Either today or tomorrow, probably tomorrow morning, I expect I will be signing the award of that contract. Another contract is to be tendered later this month, and six or seven more are to be awarded during this fiscal year on the Pickering-Oshawa section. Everything is happening just as it was planned.

As to the other section, between Oakville and Hamilton, the

section of the plan from Oakville to Highway 6 is in the same position now as the Pickering-Oshawa section. It would be in a position to go forward except that the

section from Highway 6 into Hamilton has not yet been clarified as to which route is going to be used. Consultations are still going on. This matter is still before the council of the region of Hamilton-Wentworth and the council of the city of Hamilton. Further reports are going to that council in the next few days.

It is obvious we will not be able to start construction on the Oakville-Hamilton

section this year. Consequently, we are not planning any expenditures for construction on that section. I hope the matters relating to Hamilton will be resolved in the next few weeks and we will be able to start planning for and working towards a start on that

section a year from now.

In the meantime, planning is proceeding for the Pickering-Oakville link around the north of Metro during the two-year period, as we said it would two years ago.

Mr. Cunningham: Mr. Speaker, I notice the Toronto Star source seems to be absent from his seat in the House, and I hope he is still well after this cabinet battle, particularly in view of the budget tomorrow.

If the plans for the northern GO route are still proceeding, why have the public meetings for that route been cancelled?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of any public meetings that were cancelled.

PENSION REFORM

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. No doubt the minister has been reading about the deficiency in the pension fund at CCM as well as certain allegations about his ministry not being on top of that situation. There is also the broad policy issue, which happens to be the need for pension reform in the private sector in this province in a whole variety of areas such as vesting, locking in and all those matters.

In view of the fact that we have had two major reports, the select committee report and the Haley report, we are continually dragging our feet on this question, which in large measure is the minister's responsibility. Why has he not brought in reforms that would in large measure have prevented this situation?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, without in any sense trying to avoid the question, I hope the Leader of the Opposition is aware that pension policy is in the hands of the Treasurer (Mr. Grossman) as distinct from pension administration and regulation.

Having said that, I think the Treasurer has made his proposals clear. It is also clear from the record that he will be having meetings with his counterparts throughout the country very shortly to review the issues to see whether there can be some compatibility in the process.

Mr. Peterson: The administration of the current act is the minister's responsibility and some of his predecessors have been active in encouraging reforms in this province. Why was the ministry not on top of the contributions to the fund? That is now going to cost the guarantee fund millions of dollars to make up for a deficiency on the inspection side.

What has the minister done to inform himself of the regulatory capacity of his ministry? Why was he not on top of the situation? How much is it going to cost us to fund because of the inability of his ministry to enforce the rules?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: With the greatest of respect, and I do not mean that in the usual way said between fellow lawyers standing in a court because the Leader of the Opposition would know what that really means, I do not look on this as a regulatory failure.

The facts of the matter are that under the statute, under the regulations and under the practice of the commission, within six months of the previous calendar year, the commission receives a statement from the employer with respect to contributions he or she has made to a plan for his or her employees. An actuarial report is required every three years, and at that time it is ascertained whether the contributions made during the three-year interval meet the requirements of the particular pension fund and the benefits that have been scheduled.

That particular actuarial report had not been delivered, but the filings made by the company had been made. Whether or not they were adequate would have been a matter that would have been determined if the events that overtook the company had not occurred and the actuarial report had pointed out any deficiencies there were.

It is fair to say this province is fortunate with respect to the fact that it does have in place a guarantee fund to meet crises such as this, and it is because of it that the benefits which workers would have been entitled to up to three years prior to the termination or winding up of the plan will now be met as a result of the contributions from the pension guarantee fund.

Mr. Peterson: Would the minister not agree with me, when he looks at the specifics of this situation, that even though it is better than nothing, it is clearly inadequate and it speaks to legislative deficiencies and the inability of this House and the government to wrestle with the problems of pension reform? It is now too late in this situation, and many of those employees will have been denied what would have been their benefits in normal circumstances.

My question to the minister, again in broad terms, is: when is he, together with his colleagues, going to bring pension reform into this House so these kinds of situations do not have to happen? Are we going to drag our feet for ever? Surely it is a priority.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I have already indicated the Treasurer's timetable very clearly and he has indicated that publicly as well.

However, I might say that if one were to have some sort of trivia quiz, as some reporters are known to do in some of their columns, and one were to ask, "Which province in this country is the only one that has a guarantee fund in place?" would anybody know the answer? Manitobans might not know it, because they do not have one. The former Saskatchewan government, which has a well-known reputation, did not have one. The province of Quebec does not have one. The federal government does not have one.

There is one province in this country that has a guarantee fund to protect workers, and it is right here. Let the Leader of the Opposition take it from that who is concerned about protecting workers' interests, and the only conclusion he can draw is that this government is concerned.

But let me be fair with respect to part of his question. There is a need --

Hon. Mr. Davis: What is John Turner's view of this issue?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: The Premier does not know what the view would be today. Come back tomorrow and we will know the real view.

Mr. Ruston: What is Mulroney's view? He has nothing.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Back to the question.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I think there is a need to address the issue --

Hon. Mr. Davis: Boy, they are touchy over there.

Mr. Bradley: What is John Clement's view?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Their leader doesn't want to carry the can for them.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I think there is a need --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you very much.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I only wish the minister had been at the meeting I was at on Saturday and had given the same kind of answer in talking about how well workers are protected. There were a lot of workers there who were not protected, who have not been protected, and who are losing out as a result of a failure on the part of the Tory government in Ontario.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

2:20 p.m.

Mr. Rae: That is a fact.

Can the minister confirm that the actuarial report which was filed in 1978 with respect to CCM recommended that an unfunded liability of more than $1.8 million should be covered by annual past service payments of $214,000 and that these were not fully made?

Can the minister confirm that payments on the basis of current service, approximately 15 cents an hour worked, recommended in the 1978 valuation report, were not fully made? Can he confirm that amendments introduced under the 1980 collective agreement increased the total liabilities of the plan by more than $1.8 million and provided for an increase in the current service contribution to 26 cents an hour worked, and that these contributions were not fully made?

Can he confirm those three basic facts? Can he also tell us exactly what the commission was doing between 1978 and 1982 to ensure that contributions were made in order to protect the savings of the workers at that firm?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, when the actuarial report was received with respect to the prior three years in 1979, the deficiency there was noted, the requirement was made that an amount be paid into the fund and it was done. As I have indicated fully, from that point on, the role of the commission was to make certain there were filings and the contributions were made, and the adequacy of those filings and the amounts deposited would be matters that would be determined when the regular triannual actuarial report was received.

Let me be very clear. It is my determination that it is not satisfactory. We do need to go further than this. We do need to have a process whereby individual employees and/or their unions are advised on a more regular basis about the facts with respect to the contributions and whether or not they meet the requirements of the plan.

Having said that, I do not think any one of us relishes the fact that workers at CCM have suffered a hardship as a result of this; we all understand that. The only point I am trying to make is that it is fortunate we do have in place a guarantee fund that provided the benefit protection the fund was intended to provide.

I tell the member quite frankly, as we now look back in retrospect, even if the amounts that should have been forthcoming had been made they still would not have met the requirements that were necessary and there still would have had to be a substantial payment from the guarantee fund. The net result is that the guarantee fund moved in to provide a level of protection that certainly cannot be satisfactory to everyone but that indicated there was a process in place that certainly helps workers to some degree.

Mr. Rae: If the minister is saying that even if CCM had made the contributions the plan would still have been underfunded, and that is what I have just heard him say, can he tell us how many other companies whose plans are now on file with the Pension Commission of Ontario are in a similar position?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Let us first understand that a significant number of new benefits were added in the 1978-79 bargaining period, and the member will know from his experience in the world of accounting and finance that a 15-year period is required for funding. Until that 15-year period is reached, certainly there will be underfunding; until that 15-year period has elapsed -- which, by the way, is exactly half the funding requirement time in the United States, for example -- then a particular benefit that is negotiated will be underfunded. That is a fact in all pension plans.

Mr. Peterson: Given that the minister is right and that under current pension benefits legislation there is that 15-year period to make up deficiencies or underfunding, as he says, and this is the way it has worked in the past, one of the realities is that if there is no enforcement of the contributions in, if one does not take the view that those are deferred wages and the employees have the right to obtain them, then one can run into the kind of situation we had with CCM.

Would the minister not agree we need tougher enforcement to make sure those funds are actually paid in? This comes directly under his ministry. Is the minister prepared to take the leadership in discussions with the Treasurer (Mr. Grossman), who is responsible for pension reform in general, and say we need to beef up the enforcement to make sure each company that contracts with a group of employees lives up to its side of the bargain?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: The member raised this in an earlier question and I was about to comment on it when the Speaker cut me off. I think he does have a valid point, and we are looking at issues that might provide workers and their unions with greater information about the timeliness of funding to contributions to the plan. We have been looking at that for some weeks. I would not think there is a need to wait for that as part of the broader reform package.

Mr. Rae: There are still a lot of unanswered questions that we simply have to get at about what happened between the pension commission and CCM between 1978 and 1982 in terms of correspondence and enforcement.

How does the minister justify the three-year holiday, the three-year gap in the pension guarantee fund? I would remind the minister of what this shortfall means to the workers at CCM. One man who retired in early 1982 will have his annual pension of about $4,500 cut by $900. A 69-year-old's annual pension will be reduced by nearly $1,600, from $6,200 to $4,600. Another worker, who was 43 years of age when he left the company in 1972, was supposed to have an annual pension of nearly $1,100 when he reached 65 years of age; now he will get about $425 a year.

There are literally dozens of other workers, and the minister will be aware of this, whom I met on Saturday who are not going to be getting any pension at all because of the vesting requirements in the law, specifically with respect to the pension guarantee fund. What justification can there be for this three-year gap? There is no three-year gap for protection for depositors in trust companies, banks or credit unions and there is no three-year gap with respect to the travel fund.

Why is there a three-year gap when it comes to the deferred wages of workers and the savings of workers, when the difference for individual workers between what they would have had in 1982 and what they end up getting now because of this three-year holiday is hundreds and thousands of dollars a year in many cases? What justification can there be for that gap?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I hope you will be patient for a moment, Mr. Speaker, because there are two fundamental questions that have to be addressed here.

First, had there been no pension guarantee fund, virtually the only workers who would have received pensions, even assuming the contributions had been up to date, would have been those who were already on retirement. As a result of the intervention and the payment of a large sum of money from the guarantee fund, those workers received a protection -- admittedly a reduced protection. Their bridging benefits received some protection and workers who are going to suffer hardship as a result of being laid off will receive a degree of protection.

True, those who have had under 10 years' service will not receive protection, but those who have had 10 years' service and are under 45 years of age, and therefore not vested, will also receive some degree of protection. I know that is not enough to answer the needs they have. I understand that. I am only pointing out the fact that without the guarantee fund things would have been worse.

Second -- and this was debated extensively in the House -- the main point of the member's question had to do with what one might call a cliff or a cutoff point. The member and I know, and trade unionists I have spoken to acknowledge, that there might well be a tendency on the part of parties negotiating to sacrifice wages for pension benefits in the event the company did not survive.

We had lengthy discussions with our counterparts in the United States where there is a similar cutoff period. It was agreed, following debate in this House, that it was a most appropriate measure, so it was passed after full discussion and debate.

What that three-year cliff really means is that if a specific pension benefit is negotiated prior to that three-year period then it is protected to the level that it is funded by that time, but as the escalation occurs afterwards it is not protected. There has to be some sort of a process such as that, and it was determined that was the most appropriate one.

Mr. Rae: If the minister is suggesting that workers anticipating a bankruptcy are going to try to make some kind of an arrangement for their pensions because they know they are guaranteed, that is the most outrageous example of blaming the victim I have ever heard from this government. It is the most unlikely scenario one can imagine.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Rae: Can the minister confirm there are 200 annual returns, out of 8,745 plans registered that were supposed to have been made to the pension commission as of December 1983, that have not been made? Can he confirm that figure?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I do not have those figures with me.

2:30 p.m.

Mr. Rae: If the pension commission is going to be releasing, under the minister's name, a report that says the pension commission kept close watch over Ontario's registered pension plans last year, surely the workers in those 200 companies which have failed to file a return are entitled to know what is happening and what their protection is. What is the pension commission planning to do about those delinquent returns?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I have already responded to the leader of the third party and to the Leader of the Opposition in great detail outlining the present process with respect to annual filings. Deficiencies are determined when the actuary reviews them on a triennial basis.

I have determined that is not satisfactory. We have to move towards some more frequent process of evaluating the sufficiency of the contribution and towards a process which advises employees and/or their unions on a more regular, and shorter, basis than that. We have been working on it for some time and hope to proceed with it in the near future.

Mr. Rae: I hope the minister will undertake to table a list of those companies as soon as possible.

How would the minister feel if he were a CCM worker and he read in his Financial Times on Friday that when Jack Gallagher resigned as the chief executive officer of Dome Petroleum the company paid $3 million into a trust company to establish an employee benefit plan; Bell Canada set aside nearly $300,000 as a future retirement allowance for its chairman and president; the former chairman and chief executive officer of Falconbridge Nickel Mines received $125,000 as a retirement allowance in 1983 and H.C. Hatch, Sr., of Hiram Walker Resources received pension benefits of $190,000 in 1983?

How would the minister feel if he were reading that and saw there are really two Ontarios and two Canadas -- an Ontario and a Canada where the average worker gets stuck every time with the cost of change, yet somebody such as Jack Gallagher manages to get $3 million set aside for himself for the genius of his financial creativity over the past 10 years?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I would not be prepared to get into a discussion of the justification of its merits. There is no one in this House who is satisfied with what happened to the CCM workers. I am saying we have endeavoured through the guarantee fund to provide a greater level of protection than has any other province.

That may not be enough and there may be, as I have said, a need for more frequent information being given to workers and/or their unions about the sufficiency of the funding levels, but I do not think in Ontario we should apologize because we have a guarantee fund in place. I do not want to comment on the merits or demerits of pensions others receive.

HAMILTON GO-ALRT

Mr. Cunningham: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transportation and Communications relating to the choice of the York Boulevard alignment for the new government of Ontario advanced light rail transit program. The minister will know by now this proposal will require the expropriation and demolition of 50 houses in the community, the disruption of a neighbourhood cemetery, as well as a great deal of dislocation on York Boulevard. He will also know there are at least 4,500 to 5,000 people in the area who have signed petitions opposing this.

Given all of this, and given that the Toronto, Hamilton and Buffalo railway right of way would take people right downtown and perhaps would be cheaper, is the minister prepared to indicate he will re-evaluate his decision to locate this along the York Boulevard route and consider a more practical and cheaper alternative along the T, H and B right of way?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I am not about to make any changes in course at this time because we are still in the planning process. The technical advisory committee that evaluated all the possible routes into Hamilton recommended the York Boulevard route. This committee is made up of about 10 engineers and planners, eight of whom are representatives of the region of Hamilton-Wentworth and the city of Hamilton and only two of whom are representatives of my ministry.

The recommendation for the use of the York Boulevard route is a recommendation of the majority of the committee, of whom eight out of 10 are from the city of Hamilton. That recommendation is before the municipal council and the regional council and I will await their decision on the recommendation.

Mr. Cunningham: Would the minister not agree the choice of the T, H and B alignment would allow for a more readily expandable opportunity in the eastern direction towards Stoney Creek? Moreover, will he confirm that more recently threats have been made to people living in the local community that they take the York Boulevard alternative or they get nothing?

Is the minister in a position today to tell us those threats are not consistent with fact and have not been made? Is the minister aware of this?

Hon. Mr. Snow: All I can say is they certainly have not been made by me or by anyone representing me. I cannot suggest what threats the member might have made to the people of Hamilton.

Mr. Allen: Mr. Speaker, the minister is aware that there has been quite an extensive sounding of local community concern on this question and that the people most immediately affected have expressed their anxiety about the route which now seems to be surfacing once more.

Will the minister ensure that when these ventures are undertaken in future people will be consulted beforehand and not after the decision? Will he also undertake to trust the local community to look closely at what obviously have not been well-examined alternative routes, especially the T, H and B route? In every explanation of that option, I have not seen any substantial evidence that the local committees have really pressed the issue of serious investigation of that alternative.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the serious investigation the honourable member is referring to that the local community should do. To start with, I would like to take issue with the first part of his statement, before he got into a question, with regard to the public participation process and his suggestion that public participation take place before the decision.

I would like to ask the member what the devil he thinks is going on now. No decision has been made. Certain studies have taken place and certain recommendations have come forward. However, no decision has taken place and many public meetings with a great deal of public participation have gone on, are going on and will continue to go on regardless of what the member says and regardless of how he tries to mislead the people of Hamilton.

Interjections.

An hon. member: He did not say, "in the House." He said, "mislead the people of Hamilton."

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think the minister --

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, you will do the honours.

Mr. Peterson: You can mislead an entire population, but not a the member of this House.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I know what he said and I heard it quite clearly. I think the minister would like to reword the answer or withdraw the offensive word.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, what I am interested in is that the people of Hamilton have the full information and the truth.

Mr. Speaker: Right; we all are.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I did not accuse the member of misleading anyone in this House, but I believe he has misled the people of Hamilton. If that is wrong and I cannot say it, I withdraw it.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you very much.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE REVIEW BOARD

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services. Last October, I raised questions in the House about delays of rulings of the Social Assistance Review Board and about the fact 70 per cent of its cases were being heard later than was provided for in the regulations. The regulations state, "Forty days following the sending of a notice of appeal there shall be a ruling."

Can the minister state why the case of Waruna Hoelke has not yet been heard? This is a learning disability case I took before the board in February, which is now 91 days and counting from the notice of hearing. It has caused his parents to take him out of Pine Ridge school in the United States because they cannot afford to keep him there any longer until they hear the ruling.

Why does it take so long to get rulings from that board when one can get a ruling on an appeal from the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission in days? Even the Ontario Labour Relations Board never takes more than a few weeks for the most complicated of cases? Why does the Social Assistance Review Board take so damned long to bring forward rulings for the poorest in our society, those who need the most help and have the most urgent need?

2:40 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, on the whole I think the Social Assistance Review Board does an excellent job, particularly in the area of handling appeals from the learning disabled. That is not really in my ministry but concerns appeals for the Ministry of Education. I will report back to the House tomorrow if the member will send over the name of the case.

I would remind the House that the Social Assistance Review Board is an independent board and does not consult with the minister, but I will find out what the difficulty is. The second thing I would like are the details of the withdrawal from the particular school in the United States.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: In the autumn of 1981, for the first time I know of, the SARB study group brought this problem of the length of time to the minister's attention. It was 60 days after we had the appeal that Mrs. Hoelke received a letter saying the group had reached a decision and was sending it off to the board's legal counsel and we would hear by May 7. It is now May 14 and we have not heard.

Why are so many of these cases going to legal counsel? How much money is being paid to Mr. Fulton and his friends to hold up the decisions? The last two weeks of his fee, which I understand may as high as $1,000 a day, would have paid for this kid going to school for an entire year. Why are lawyers making a bonanza out of SARB delays while the poor wait?

Hon. Mr. Drea: I do not know the economic circumstances of the family nor do I want to. On that type of appeal, it does not necessarily have to be a poor family. It is based upon the --

Mr. R. F. Johnston: The wealthy keep sending their kids, but the poor cannot.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Behave yourself, will you?

Mr. Speaker: Back to the question, please.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Does the member have the little thing with the red light on the end of it aiming out to get the right tone of voice?

Mr. Speaker: Back to the question, please.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I have to defend such a renowned solicitor as Mr. Harold Fulton in this House.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: How much is the minister paying him?

Hon. Mr. Drea: I do take exception to the allegation that Mr. Fulton is paid to block decisions. The Social Assistance Review Board is an independent board. It operates by statute at arm's length from the minister.

I have already told the member I will find out the details of this case. On many of the appeals for children and adolescents who have learning disabilities, the very nature of the appeal is that the local board of education, either the public board or the separate school board, has maintained it can provide --

Mr. R. F. Johnston: We will come back to that.

Hon. Mr. Drea: I think I would if my campaign chairman were the head of the board of education.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Drea: The simple fact of the matter is that when a board of education says it can provide special education, there is no vehicle by which public money can be spent to send the child to another jurisdiction. Quite often the legal decisions are based upon the fact that the board says it can provide special education, but expert evidence or witnesses have been brought forward by the plaintiff or by the appellant saying it cannot be provided.

The legal opinion is to ensure that the decision, if it is in favour of the appellant, will not be overturned and, by the same token, if it is against the appellant, because these are very substantial matters involving young people, that it is correct legally. Tomorrow I will give the member the reasons for the delay. Quite often the delay is caused by the fact that the evidence simply is not in. It is a very delicate type of proceeding and no one wants to make a decision until it is in.

Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that by September 1985, when Bill 82 takes over this situation, the minister's vocational rehabilitation branch will no longer deal with such children. I stand to be corrected if that is not the case. Are any guidelines being given to the board suggesting it does not take on any new cases because of the impending change approximately a year from now, or is it still totally free to make whatever decision it feels is appropriate at this time?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, to the best of my knowledge any appeals would still be heard. I think what has to be taken into account is that a particular type of education may have been provided over a period of time, but they do have to come back every year. I think it would be most unfair to say it was a three-year type of thing that ended after two years because of the full implementation of Bill 82. I would think they would not want to entertain a placement that would start after Bill 82, but I cannot see any reason why they would want to do anything now and I have not heard anything about it.

I would also point out to the honourable member that my own ministry and the Ministry of Education have been working closely on these matters. It is not just a question of the vocational rehabilitation branch. It goes far beyond that.

ELECTRICAL WORKERS' DISPUTE

Mr. Hennessy: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the Minister of Labour. Last Saturday I had three gentlemen from the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 1788, in my office in Thunder Bay regarding the Hydro strike at Atikokan. There was a lengthy discussion in which they showed concern.

I would like to suggest that something be done immediately to get the union and management back together at the bargaining table. I feel a strike of any length of time will prove a financial problem for the workers, their families and the local economy. I ask the minister to use his good offices to get both parties back together at the bargaining table.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, the member for Fort William (Mr. Hennessy) has written to me in respect to this matter. Atikokan is affected, as are Bruce, Darlington, Pickering and Lakeview, with the electrical workers going on strike last week. There are 24 workers involved at Atikokan out of a total of 1,072. Most of the workers involved are at Bruce where there are 534; there are 200 at Darlington, 120 at Pickering and eight at Lakeview.

Each work stoppage is unique in itself. Our mediators feel with some work stoppages it is prudent to get the parties back to the table immediately. With other work stoppages they feel it is wise to let the parties cool off a bit before they bring them back. Our senior people are involved in the mediation exercises with Hydro and the electrical workers, and I am confident that they will be able to get them back to the table in the near future.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, will the minister convey to the various parties that the cost of not resolving this situation could be very severe, up into the $3.5-million-a-day range, if the power plants have to be taken out. That would obviously have an impact on everyone concerned. Will the minister use his good offices to convey that the price in this matter will be spread widely over the province and potentially have a huge impact on the consumer? Will he use that point of view and argument to persuade people, hopefully, to come to an early resolution.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, my officials and I are well aware of the circumstances and the possible repercussions of this work stoppage. I want to assure the Leader of the official opposition that everything is being done that can be done at the present time in the form of mediation and conciliation services.

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, as the minister knows from when we raised this last week, at least part of the reason is the restraint legislation that now has workers doing the same job at two different rates, one being $1 an hour less, on the site. Does the minister not know that $1.8 million would resolve this totally? That may be an awful lot cheaper than what we may face if the situation is not resolved shortly.

2:50 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, it is not my responsibility to negotiate the settlement or to suggest to the parties what they should offer or what they should accept; that is part of the collective bargaining system, as the honourable member knows full well. He has been involved probably more than any other member in this Legislature over the years in collective bargaining.

VETERINARY DIAGNOSTIC SERVICES

Mr. McGuigan: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Agriculture and Food. In response to my question of May 8, to which he gave me the answer last Thursday, the minister said there has been no policy change in respect to the release of pure cultures of pathogenic bacteria.

Dr. Manson of Charing Cross says this information is not factual. In the case I referred to, in which the farmer lost $12,000 because the laboratory failed to release the cultures, the veterinary first asked that the cultures be released on February 20 and asked for them several times subsequent to that, but they were not released until seven weeks later, April 9, when he called Dr. Henry in Guelph.

Is the minister aware that Dr. Henry of the ministry's veterinary services lab, as reported in the Globe and Mail on April 20, 1984, stated there were three reasons for the policy change? One was to transfer services to the private sector, the second was to relieve personnel in the light of restraint policies and the third was to protect the ministry from legal liability.

Will the minister admit there has been a policy change, as outlined in Extension Notes For Veterinarians of February 1984, number 291? They state: "The following services will no longer be offered: rat pregnancy tests, bubonic pregnancy tests, bacterin production" -- and that is the one we are talking about -- "and wart vaccine production." That extension note has a footnote on it that says, "Not to be published."

Will the minister admit there has been a change, according to that note?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I will take another look at it. With respect to the release of cultures, my information from staff was that this is a long-standing policy. The fact that one veterinarian at Charing Cross says the ministry is wrong does not necessarily mean the ministry is wrong. But I will take into consideration the information the honourable member has provided today and take another look at it.

Mr. McGuigan: Will the minister look at the fact that Dr. Manson says that even at the present moment, if the farmer puts pressure on the veterinary services lab it will pass on the bacterin to the private lab, but it will not do it for the veterinarian? This would be equivalent to a provincial medical lab responding to the patient but not to the medical doctor.

Will the minister examine his own statement of Thursday, in which he points out that the private lab was unable to culture the positive organism? I think this is a situation in which the defence has made the case for the prosecutor. The minister himself pointed out the heart of the problem. The private lab cannot do the job, and the ministry lab's refusal to pass on the work prevents the veterinaries from carrying out the corrective methods in a timely manner.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Certainly, I will be glad to consider all of that. I pointed out last Thursday that the main purpose, of course, for the provincial veterinary laboratories is diagnostic work. The information I presented to the member last Thursday was that which had been provided to me by senior staff of the ministry after the member had asked his initial question. I will certainly go back to those people and take another look at it.

MALVERN SOIL CONTAMINATION

Mr. Charlton: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy. The minister is no doubt aware of the problem of the radioactively contaminated soil in the Malvern survey on McClure Crescent. He should also be aware that a proposal was made last fall by the Atomic Energy Control Board and the government House leader, who is the member for the riding, to move the soil to a provincially owned site in Scarborough, and that today a residents' association is commencing a court case to oppose that removal to the government-owned site.

Can the minister tell us here in the House why his ministry and Ontario Hydro have so adamantly opposed moving that radioactive soil to one of the nuclear sites in this province where radioactive wastes are being stored already?

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware that the ministry has opposed the movement of this material to any particular site. Discussions have taken place among the municipality, this government and Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd., which has control and jurisdiction over the disposal of nuclear wastes.

Mr. Charlton: If his ministry has not opposed the removal of the soil to one of the Ontario Hydro nuclear sites, perhaps the minister could tell us whether or not he is prepared to make an offer to the Atomic Energy Control Board and the government House leader to allow the soil to be moved to one of the Hydro sites. The court case, which commences today, may very well again delay the removal of that soil from McClure Crescent and may again put the residents of McClure Crescent in a situation where they have to go through another year and a half or two years of struggle to try to get that soil removed.

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: I assume the government will attempt to expedite the removal of that soil in the best possible way to the safest possible location. I am not aware of any approaches made to Ontario Hydro by either the Atomic Energy Control Board or Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. about the storage of that soil on any Hydro site.

LEARNING DISABILITIES

Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Minister of Education dealing with a particular learning disability often referred to as an attentional deficit. Is the minister aware of the activities of a group of parents in Guelph, which has now extended to Kitchener, known as Circle H? Their activities are directed specifically to their concern about the lack of particular attention given to that learning disability. Is the minister also aware that a number of American jurisdictions have now recognized it as a specific learning disability and are dealing with it in a unique way?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, the actions of the Circle H group were drawn to my attention earlier today by the member for Kitchener-Wilmot (Mr. Sweeney) from articles from newspapers in his area. I have been aware of this disability for much longer than this member since I was a practising family physician for more than 30 years, and hyperactivity was certainly one of the major problems we had with small children. It is a matter we have been dealing with in a number of ways, both medically and pedagogically, with limited success in some cases but with very good success in other cases.

There are a number of ways of dealing with this matter, some of which are being addressed by certain programs I am aware of in the United States, which are somewhat different or very specifically and narrowly directed and which, for some children, seem to be particularly beneficial.

One of our philosophies related to the matter of dealing with learning disabilities is not to exclude any means that could provide an appropriate solution to the problems of the children involved. I do not intend to narrow the focus of the pedagogical pursuits of teachers of special education in this province by suggesting that only one route would be the appropriate one. We will certainly look at that route and incorporate it where it would seem to be beneficial, and where portions of it would seem to be beneficial if not all of it is.

3 p.m.

Mr. Sweeney: The minister will also be aware from the information I sent her that more than 200 parents in my community have expressed concern that the way in which their children's disability is being dealt with at present is not satisfactory. She will be aware that within her own guidelines such designations as communications, behavioural, etc., are specifically identified, but when they are applied to this group of children the response and the teaching techniques are simply not appropriate.

Will the minister give these parents some assurance that she will look at this type of learning disability a little more carefully? Only the minister with her staff could confirm this, but they have told me that as many as 80 per cent of the children who have a learning disability could have this one. If it is partially a medical problem, because as I understand it the neurotransmitters in the brain are affected, just dealing with it as a communications or behavioural problem simply is not sufficient.

This is the basis of my question: these parents really are looking for the minister to reconsider that in this case a particular designation and approach to dealing with the problem might have to be enforced in Ontario, as it has been in other jurisdictions.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Since attentional deficit dysfunction is a component of many of the problems faced by children with specific or nonspecific learning disabilities, one questions whether one would need to add a special diagnosis particularly for this.

From my reading of the articles that were sent to me by the honourable member, I perceived that many of those parents were saying the problem was not only within the educational program but also at home for very many of them. The problem at home can be very severe for parents who have little guidance in the means of dealing with the difficulties of a very hyperactive child.

It is not a matter that should be dealt with only by the school system, as the member has suggested. Indeed, it is a medical diagnosis in most circumstances and needs to be dealt with in that way first with the co-operation of the special education teachers within the school system who can provide the appropriate kind of direction for many of these children.

Most certainly this is being looked at, there is no doubt about that; but I am not about to commit myself to adding ADD as a very specific kind of label for children. We have done everything possible within the amendment to the Education Act, which is better known as Bill 82, to remove the tendency to label children within the school system. That label is a bad enough one, and most of them get it before they ever get to school.

INSPECTION OF NURSING HOMES

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health regarding Rest Haven Nursing Home in St. Thomas.

I first wrote to the Ministry of Health on this matter back in February 1983. I wrote a follow-up letter in March 1983 and phoned the inspection branch out of London for a third time. Each time the Ministry of Health went in there and inspected Rest Haven Nursing Home, it indicated the problems were not significant until the last inspection after my phone call where they indicated there were some problems with cleanliness but nothing terribly significant.

My question deals with the annual inspection which was carried out on January 4 and 5, 1984, when the nursing home inspection branch found 113 violations of the Nursing Homes Act. How does the minister expect any of us to have any kind of confidence in his nursing home inspection branch when for two years it has gone in there on complaints that have been specifically about uncleanliness and food and those are now the subject of the 113 major violations under the nursing home inspection branch?

Why does it take two years to identify what one of the relatives of one of the residents in that home has been telling us and his ministry have been occurring now for two years? Why are there no charges against this nursing home when obviously it is flouting the law?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, as I look at the clock once again, unfortunately I do not think I am going to have time to give a full and complete response to this question.

Mr. Foulds: Give it a shot.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I am not sure why the honourable member always waits until the very last minute of question period before raising questions that sound as serious as the one he has raised.

Mr. Foulds: Try for a short answer.

Mr. McClellan: Try answering instead of all of this smart-aleck stuff.

Mr. Speaker: Back to the question, please.

Hon. Mr. Norton: The member is well aware that I have taken significant steps to increase the enforcement capacity of the inspection branch of the ministry, including the secondment of a full-time crown prosecutor from the Ministry of the Attorney General to head up the prosecution of any offences.

I am sure the member at least will be willing to acknowledge that a careful review of the list of the infractions he is referring to will show they are of varying magnitude. In fact, some of them are of the nature that could well have arisen since previous inspection.

I have no reason to believe the staff in the inspection branch was in any way negligent in the earlier annual inspections, but I assure the member I will review in detail the inspection report and the nature of the infractions and report to him more fully on that question.

PETITIONS

EQUAL PAY FOR WORK OF EQUAL VALUE

Mr. Kolyn: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the members representing the constituencies of Brampton, Eglinton, York East and Kenora, I table the following petition:

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

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

"Whereas women in Ontario still earn only 60 per cent of the wages of men;

whereas women are still concentrated in a very small number of occupations; and

whereas unanimous approval of the concept of equal pay for work of equal value was expressed in the Ontario Legislature in October 1983,

"We petition the Ontario Legislature to amend Bill 141 to include equal pay for work of equal value and to introduce mandatory affirmative action."

Mr. Worton: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition as follows:

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

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

"Whereas women in Ontario still earn only 60 per cent of the wages of men;

whereas women are still concentrated in a very small number of occupations; and

whereas unanimous approval of the concept of equal pay for work of equal value was expressed in the Ontario Legislature in October 1983,

"We petition the Ontario Legislature to amend Bill 141 to include equal pay for work of equal value and to introduce mandatory affirmative action."

This petition is signed by a constituent in Wellington South.

INDEPENDENT SCHOOLS

Mr. McNeil: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table the following petition:

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

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

"We, the undersigned electors and residents of Elgin county and supporters of the St. Thomas Ebenezer Christian School society, respectfully petition for your support to redress a serious injustice in current educational policy and practice. The facts are simple.

"In the past five years alone, parents who send their children to independent schools have contributed $1 billion for education in Ontario without receiving a cent for the education of their own children. In fact, they have had to bear a double burden through fees and contributions to their own independent schools.

"Furthermore, in a democratic and multicultural society, parents should have the right to send their children to schools of choice without a financial penalty. This is recognized partially in the case of Catholic families and with minor exceptions fully in the case of Franco-Ontarians. It should apply equally to all. Five provinces have now recognized the principle at least partially. When is Ontario going to do the same?"

This petition is signed by 131 people.

GAS BILLING

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by a number of residents in the Woodstock and Brantford areas. It reads as follows:

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

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

"That the Ontario Energy Board have Union Gas Ltd. stop its $6.25 monthly fixed charge, which we consider an unfair way of collecting revenue. We would like it replaced with a minimum monthly charge such as the London Public Utilities Commission has for water, which is also piped to a meter. We would also like our monthly bills itemized."

Perhaps I will leave this with Mr. Speaker. He may want to talk to his former colleague who is now with Union Gas.

3:10 p.m.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

LAND REGISTRATION REFORM ACT

Hon. Mr. Elgie moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Gregory, first reading of Bill 66,

An Act respecting Conveyancing Documents and Procedures and the Recording of Title to Real Property.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to reintroduce for first reading today the Land Registration Reform Act, 1984, a piece of legislation first introduced in December 1983, before the Legislature prorogued.

As you are aware, my ministry has been concerned with updating one of Ontario's oldest institutions, its land registration system. This legislation will authorize many of the proposals contained in the Ontario Law Reform Commission report which called for automation of the land registration system.

The Land Registration Reform Act provides for the computerization of record-keeping and property mapping and for the use of shorter, standardized documents for land transactions. A prototype automated office has already been established in Oxford county in the city of Woodstock. When the system has been proven, through monitoring and modification if necessary, it will be gradually introduced in all registration offices across the province.

Passage of this legislation will simplify the operation of the land registration system and reduce work load and delays for both staff and clients.

MILK AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Timbrell moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Pope, first reading of Bill 67,

An Act to amend the Milk Act.

Motion agreed to.

GRAIN CORN MARKETING ACT

Hon. Mr. Timbrell moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Pope, first reading of Bill 68,

An Act respecting the Marketing of Grain Corn.

Motion agreed to.

LIVE STOCK AND LIVE STOCK PRODUCTS AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Timbrell moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Pope, first reading of Bill 69,

An Act to amend the Live Stock and Live Stock Products Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I would like to offer a few brief comments on the three pieces of legislation I have introduced.

The proposed Grain Corn Marketing Act provides for a compulsory refundable checkoff for producers of grain corn. The resulting funds will be used to help finance the activities of the Ontario Corn Producers' Association to advance the production and the marketing of grain corn.

The second bill I want to mention is of a housekeeping nature. The Milk Amendment Act would expand the power of the Milk Commission of Ontario to make regulations with the approval of cabinet and would enable all regulations made to milk products to be made under the Milk Act.

I am introducing this legislation in the hope of accomplishing these aims as expeditiously as possible.

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Martel moved, seconded by Mr. Foulds, first reading of Bill 70,

An Act to amend the Education Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to authorize the apportionment of school rates between public and separate schools in the case of a mixed marriage where the husband and wife own or lease rateable property jointly.

I was hoping the minister would introduce this.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

House in committee of supply:

ESTIMATES, OFFICE OF THE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, I have a very lengthy opening statement. I assume that, as is our custom, we will deal with the estimates of the Office of the Lieutenant Governor, the controversial item, and then move on to the Office of the Premier.

Although it has only been five months since these estimates were approved with enthusiasm by the members of the House, I would like once again to take this opportunity to express, on behalf of the government, my sincere best wishes to the Lieutenant Governor and my thanks to him and Mrs. Aird for the excellent way in which they have conducted their responsibilities.

Because there was some modest notice in the press related to increases in the estimates of the Office of the Lieutenant Governor, I should point out there was an increase this year primarily related to bicentennial activities. The Lieutenant Governor takes justifiable pride in the efficiency with which his office is administered.

It is of note that in 1983 the number of guests received in the Lieutenant Governor's suite was some 18,000. That was up 80 per cent from the number in 1981. I know many members of the opposition have been with His Honour when he visited their communities. I am sure there is a very genuine feeling throughout this province as to how the Lieutenant Governor conducts his responsibilities with dignity and with a real appreciation of the importance of the office of the Lieutenant Governor.

Without adding many other descriptive terms I might use, I very simply extend to him and Mrs. Aird my appreciation and that of the government for the excellent way in which he conducts himself as Lieutenant Governor of this province.

3:20 p.m.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Chairman, I will join in the flattering remarks of the Premier (Mr. Davis) towards the Lieutenant Governor. My colleagues and I hold him in equally high regard.

With respect to any increases in his budget pertaining to bicentennial duties, I do not blame the Lieutenant Governor for them at all; it was the Premier who created the bicentennial this year and I do not want to hold the Lieutenant Governor out as an unwitting victim of the Premier's plans in that regard.

Interjections.

Mr. Peterson: Would you keep a little order in the House, Mr. Chairman?

I have had the pleasant experience of attending with the Lieutenant Governor on many occasions. I have never seen him anything but completely charming, completely kind and completely himself, which is, of course, as someone who is filled with grace, charm and intelligence. I can think of no person who could represent Her Majesty better in this province. He is certainly unstinting in his devotion to his duties and I think all members in this great province are well served not only by His Honour but by Mrs. Aird as well.

Therefore, I am very happy to join in the magnanimous praise that I am sure will be forthcoming from all corners of this House. I think he needs the budget he has; it is money extremely well spent by the taxpayers of this province. I want to congratulate the federal government again on this magnificent appointment it has made as Her Majesty's representative in Ontario.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Chairman, I am happy to join in this lovefest. I did not know the Lieutenant Governor before my election as leader of the New Democratic Party in this province, but I am delighted to say that I have come to know him rather well since that time.

Mr. Elston: The one bright spot in the member's career.

Mr. Rae: That is right. I would say it is one of the nicer things that has happened to me.

The Lieutenant Governor has performed a difficult job with a tremendous amount of dignity. I would like to recount an occasion on which I attended with the Lieutenant Governor. There were not a lot of people there, not a lot of press there. It was a special event that he himself sponsored at Variety Village, an athletic day, the Annual Lieutenant Governor's Games for Handicapped Children.

The Lieutenant Governor was in a great deal of pain with his back, as he is from time to time. He spent the entire day with the kids, with the families, with the parents. It was not something for which he would get a great deal of public credit, but it was something he obviously felt very deeply about himself, and as somebody who has been involved in that particular charity I want to pay tribute to the Lieutenant Governor for handling himself with that kind of feeling.

We were all moved, I know, when the Lieutenant Governor completed his speech from the throne. If I may say so, one of the few things in the speech from the throne -- I think the only thing -- that came close to moving me was at the very end, when he used sign language to convey the end of the speech.

As members know, he has spent a great deal of time working with the deaf. He has taken it on as a special interest and it is really marvellous that the Lieutenant Governor has taken the time, spending a certain number of hours every week trying to learn this language and now obviously coming close to mastering it after a couple of years.

He has made it a special project and is taking the time to do it without a great deal of public fanfare and without anybody paying an enormous amount of press attention but because he felt it was something he could do as a Lieutenant Governor to focus attention on a group of people he felt were being ignored by society.

This is an indication of the kind of person we have in that office. We are very lucky we have him. Whenever I meet with the Lieutenant Governor, first of all he knows who I am, which is always refreshing; he is one of the select 25 per cent. He is somebody of great political wisdom, and in private conversation he is of tremendous frankness with respect to the political situation among all three parties. He is somebody on whose advice I rely in many respects.

Mr. T. P. Reid: The member cannot blame him for that.

Mr. Rae: I will take everybody in.

He deserves a great deal of credit for the distinction and the manner in which he has conducted himself. I am certain we want to suggest the amount of money allocated for him is satisfactory to us. If he wants more, we would even be prepared to consider that. I am sure the Premier would as well.

I also want to congratulate Mrs. Aird, who has always handled her responsibilities with great dignity and with tremendous attention to the people she meets. She has to meet hundreds, indeed thousands, of people every week and she always takes the time to listen to and learn from those people.

We can be really proud we have had a Lieutenant Governor who has gone all over the province. He accompanied my colleague the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Stokes) up to the very far reaches of northern Ontario. He has been to places where no Lieutenant Governor has been before and has always handled himself with great dignity. It is important we have in this assembly a representative of the Queen of whom all of us can be very proud and of whom Her Majesty can be proud as well.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Chairman, I have my annual hobby-horse; it is not just television, as Mr. Hoy might say.

A number of years ago when we had the select committee on the fourth and fifth reports of the Ontario Commission on the Legislature, I was one of those who came to the conclusion that the Lieutenant Governor should have a residence, as is the case in most provinces in Canada. Not that we eye his quarters with envy and hope we might get a chunk of them --

Mr. T. P. Reid: That is part of your motivation.

Mr. Martel: That was not part of the motivation at all. I do think it is time. I have been to a number of the Canadian Parliamentary Association meetings. It seems to me when we go to other provinces and the Lieutenant Governor hosts something for all the parliamentarians across this country, or for the many other functions he does host, he should have appropriate facilities to do so.

I know why we lost the official residence of the former Lieutenant Governor. I think it was Turnip George who thought it did not belong in this province.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: It was Mitch Hepburn.

Mr. Martel: It was Hepburn. He sold it.

Mr. Nixon: He used it as a hospital for veterans.

Mr. Martel: Yes, he cut out everything, including cars. I do not know how leaders take cars after his big cutting edge went on and cut out everything.

I say to the Premier I think it is time that matter be taken up seriously. Here is the largest province in numbers and in wealth --

Mr. Peterson: Is the member trying to sell him a house?

Mr. Martel: No, I do not want to sell him a house, or even get a commission on it.

I suggest it would be rather more appropriate. If one looks at the number of functions he hosts, it would be rather nice in the summer to do some of those in a garden, giving him some flexibility, rather than the facilities here. I hope an office would remain so he could file papers and so on, and do the functions he has to do. I sincerely mean it when I say it is time we had an official residence, as they do in most provinces and as they do in Ottawa, for the Lieutenant Governor. Do we have to be 11th in everything? It seems to be the case in Ontario.

Mr. Peterson: Is the member saying we are 10th and last?

Mr. Martel: In most things, but 11th in this one. Probably the Northwest Territories are further advanced than we are.

I am very serious in saying we need a residence. I realize money is short, but I am told the Premier can come up with -- how much money was it? -- for the speed skating oval when Gaetan Boucher was here. Apparently, no one else but the Premier knew he was about to announce that funding was available.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Three million.

Mr. Martel: Yes, $3 million. I am told people in the ministry over there did not even know it was coming. It was a splendid shock for them the day the Premier announced it. He may have done it because Mr. Boucher was here and had done so well. If we can come up with that kind of money for that sort of activity, surely we should have an official residence for one of the highest posts in this province.

3:30 p.m.

Mr. Peterson: Would the member settle for a jet to fly him around?

Mr. Martel: No, not a jet.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) has raised this issue before. I am always intrigued that he would raise it. Some days I feel encouraged that he has. I guess he feels there may be a first minister at some time in the future of this country who may decide, as a first minister did with Mr. Schreyer, that a person of the member's political philosophy would some day be an ideal --

Mr. Martel: You are making me the president of Inco, so it does not matter.

Hon. Mr. Davis: That is true. Anyway, I am intrigued. I agree with the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Peterson), there are very few, if any, who would be a better Lieutenant Governor than the present Lieutenant Governor.

I do look to the gentleman who is on his geographic right and philosophical left on some issues and would say there are many who would feel he would be almost as good at some point in time.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The member expressed his view on the residence. That is what concerned me.

I would just say to the member for Sudbury East that I have raised this with His Honour, not in any definitive sense at all, as is not my custom; I always raise issues in a very definitive way with people. I sense that if he had a preference, on a personal basis, he would prefer the existing arrangement. That does not mean it is cast in stone or anything of that nature.

I should also point out that when Mr. Boucher was here there was some discussion of a skating oval to be located in Brampton. Brampton was the initial suggestion and somebody said perhaps in Sudbury. I approached it in the context that a redesign of a possible domed stadium might contain the skating oval.

I want to assure the member for Sudbury East that I am not aware of any, shall we say, announcement for a speedskating oval, except to make the observation that the suggestion obviously has merit. I was intrigued at the number of Canadians who, when we did get a couple of medals in that area, so rapidly identified themselves with his accomplishments. I guess it is not unusual for people to do that sort of thing and then discover there was not a skating oval of this nature in the entire province.

I would be very surprised if those people involved in that aspect of amateur support did not approach the government at some point to suggest the development of such a facility here.

I would assure the honourable member that irrespective of potential geographic location, I would be very surprised if the minister responsible was not quite sympathetic to that.

Mr. Rae: If there was an Olympic medal for skating sideways, you could win it yourself.

Hon. Mr. Davis: It is better than going backwards.

Vote 101 agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: This completes consideration of the estimates of the Office of the Lieutenant Governor.

ESTIMATES, OFFICE OF THE PREMIER AND CABINET OFFICE

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, as is my custom, I have a very lengthy opening statement which my staff has spent weeks in preparing. I have decided in my usual fashion to give members opposite the opportunity to raise those issues that will be directly related to the Cabinet Office and the Office of the Premier. As has been my tradition, I will make notes of the various observations, try not to interject too often and perhaps sum up when the estimates are reaching their conclusion.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Chairman, I would like to persuade the Premier that his tradition of saying nothing until the end, talking out the clock and leaving us with nothing is not very constructive in the estimates procedure. I know how he has handled it in the past. He says nothing, he tries to constrain himself and then he takes the last 15 or 20 minutes, or an hour if that should be necessary, and tells us nothing. We end up after five hours or so no further ahead than when we started.

There are a variety of ways, depending on the personality and temperament of various ministers and/or critics, to have a meaningful discussion of public policy or just have it as one more waste of time. Because I have the floor, I could choose to speak for an hour or two and harangue the government and then sit down, pass it to my friend the leader of the New Democratic Party, go around and nothing happens.

I would invite the Premier to perhaps take a new approach and use this occasion to engage in a discussion about public policy and some of the approaches of his government. I invite him to answer when I ask him various questions because there are a number of things that concern me at the moment, long-term things as well as short-term things that would benefit from the rare occasion when the three leaders in this House can engage in a discussion about certain selected topics. Obviously the leader of the New Democratic Party has his own agenda and I would look forward to participating in that as well.

Let us take a little different approach rather than just keeping it all to the end and having nothing happen, because I do not want to have to read Hansard for the last few years to show there is no meaningful discussion, just a series of speeches and/or yelling at one another, and/or accusatory remarks that take us nowhere.

Question period does not suffice as a discussion ground for some of the important issues of the day. One thing I have in mind and would like to lead with is a discussion of the Grange commission. I invite discussion on the subject and would try to persuade honourable members of my point of view. My friend the leader of the New Democratic Party may also have some points on this issue, and others may feel as I do.

We called for the creation of that commission; I am not denying any responsibility because we had a unique situation that frankly none of us was able to cope with very well.

We knew the police had gone in and done perhaps the best they could, perhaps not the best they could; that is something yet to be determined. Here we were as legislators feeling our public responsibility was to get at the truth, perhaps no one thinking out well enough the rights and responsibilities of some of the individuals.

I am sure it inspired no particular happiness in anyone's heart watching the proceedings of phase 1 of that inquiry: the uncertainty on the part of the counsel, the various players involved, the references to the courts and, indeed, even the confusion of the commissioner in that regard. I am not criticizing the commissioner because I do believe he is an absolutely first-rate judge dealing as best he can with the uncertainties or the vicissitudes of his own mandate.

That basically has been resolved by the courts at this point and phase 1 is over, so I would like to leave that behind us at the moment and discuss, if I may, phase 2 of the inquiry.

Hon. Mr. Davis: No, no. I do not think that is so.

Mr.. Peterson: The Premier is very welcome to speak.

Hon. Mr. Davis: No. I do not think that is the case.

Mr. Peterson: In terms of the hearings if not in terms of the final report, obviously; it may go on and have various appeals and all that kind of thing.

I invite the Premier's comments on this because he is a lawyer and is sensitive to these matters. The Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) has not been here in the last three weeks to deal with these kinds of issues. As the chief executive officer of Ontario, it ultimately comes down to the Premier and his judgement on this matter and I am going to invite him to engage in a discussion of this whole matter.

I want to tell him of my concerns, then perhaps he can share his with me. One of the problems in drafting the terms of reference in any royal commission is to try to predict all the vicissitudes and uncertainties that go down the pipe. Let us be charitable at the moment and say the originally drafted mandate did not take into account all the things that have arisen in that case and have caused a great deal of harm and grief to a lot of people.

A constituent of mine with a little boy who was going in for heart surgery recounted to me in graphic detail the nightmares of her child, the screams in the night, from listening to the television on the ward. He would say to his mother, "Mommy, there is a baby-killer loose in this hospital." That is a very difficult issue to handle. I do not have a simple answer.

She wrote to the commissioner and the commissioner responded in an extremely sensitive and thoughtful way, recognizing, of course, ultimately our responsibility is to ascertain the truth, because we cannot let 30 or 40 deaths that have not been accounted for go without using every instrument in society to try to determine the truth in the matter and at the same time try as best we can to protect individual rights in the circumstances.

3:40 p.m.

By and large, that is behind us. I want to deal with phase 2 and draw the Premier out on this question. It seems to me that phase 2 is different in a number of ways. It is a determination of the role of the crown and its various agents -- the Solicitor General, the Attorney General or the prosecutors, as well as the police. These are public officials engaged in a public duty.

The Premier will be aware that many reputations have been irreparably damaged in this discussion. One hopes the various parties will get over this in the not too distant future and the harm that has been done to some people will not be permanent. In this House we cannot be the judge of that circumstance at the present time.

When the original terms were drawn, and of course we did not have access to participating in the drawing of those terms of reference, we asked that there be a commitment to make sure there was an open, accountable, public inquiry into the public officials who conducted that whole investigation. It may turn out that one of the problems, if there was a crime, a unique crime, is it may have been a crime that is undetectable by modern forensic medicine, with the present state of the police force. Perhaps there are certain things in this world that are going to go unknown.

I do not know the answer to that. I desperately hope we can find out why the conventional system failed in these circumstances and that we are doing what we can to build an artificial construct or a new, unique way of dealing with these circumstances through the royal commission that may or may not come up with the truth. I desperately hope it does, given the uncertainty at the present time. I am sure the Premier reads the papers. I am sure if he does not read the papers, the news is reported back to him. If he does not see television, he knows what is reported back to him because he has staff monitoring these things for him. He knows there is uncertainty at the present time.

Very frankly, one of the things that disturbs me is the deportment of some of the crown counsel, some of the questions they asked in phase 1. Perhaps we can let bygones be bygones, but they are the government's representatives in court. They are the representatives of the Attorney General, now suggesting that to go on and name names and look at the conduct of the public officials in the pursuit of the public duties is not right in the circumstances.

I would like to persuade the Premier to use his good offices in the absence of the Attorney General to make sure we have a full and open inquiry into the conduct of the public officials in this matter.

We have a choice of letting the commissioner go on with some insecurity, not knowing exactly what his responsibilities are. The Premier has heard it said many times that all we need is direction. If it does not come through the Attorney General's counsel, it comes directly from the Attorney General, from the cabinet or through an order in council and it should offer direction saying, "Here is what we want from you."

One must respect at all times that a royal commission is an artificial construction. It is completely and thoroughly a child of the order in council that creates it and also gives it its parameters and is subject only to various acts that pertain to that. They give it life and scope and can cut off that life when they so want to.

Given the uncertainty, my advice to the Premier now is that we can let the thing drag on, go to the courts and on and on with various different kinds of appeals and uncertainty, or clear up the terms of reference immediately. I would ask the Premier in the House why would he not avail himself of that responsibility now in discussion with the various law officers of the crown and his cabinet colleagues, knowing what he originally had in mind, or presumably he does, to take the opportunity to clear the air in that matter so they can proceed with phase 2 of the inquiry.

I would invite the Premier's comments on that.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, if the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Peterson) would review Hansard on the estimates over the past number of years, he would find that while I make the offer at the outset to listen to as many questions and observations as possible, there are a number of other members besides himself and the member for York South (Mr. Rae) who wish to ask questions. I recall getting questions from the member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Kerrio), the member for Erie (Mr. Haggerty) and a number of others and I like to make time available. That is why I suggested I would reserve my comments.

If the Leader of the Opposition wishes me to comment on the several items he raises in the course of his observations, it has never taken much to persuade me to say a few words and I will do my best to accommodate him. I assume he has a list of several, of which this is the first, and I will give him the benefit of my views.

I expressed my views as head of government on Thursday afternoon last week or whatever date it was. I should point out to the Leader of the Opposition that the Attorney General is in Ottawa today. I expect he will be here tomorrow, and he may wish to direct questions to him.

I would like the Leader of the Opposition to understand there is something of a process and that the Attorney General is very directly involved in the establishment of a royal commission of this nature and very involved in terms of the advice he gives to me and to members of cabinet. Once again, I am reluctant to prolong this discussion. I do not know how the Leader of the Opposition feels, but I have a reluctance to express personal opinions with the royal commission under way at present.

I pointed out last week and feel very strongly that while the Leader of the Opposition may feel there should be some alteration to or redefinition of the specific terms of reference of this royal commission, I also sense that if it were a different kind of royal commission and the Leader of the Opposition felt we should not in any way interfere, he would not be reluctant to say so.

I understand that, but I also think it is fair to say and appropriate to point out, and I am sure the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) would agree if he were here, being one who has taken a long interest in the judicial process, that there is a judicial process. A royal commission is not like, say, a committee of the Legislature. There are very definite statutory provisions contained within the act. There is the due process that cannot be ignored in all these issues.

As I said to the Leader of the Opposition last week, I do not think any terms of reference on any public inquiry will necessarily preclude the debate that goes on between legal counsel at that commission of inquiry related to their responsibilities to their clients or that would preclude, on occasion, certain references being made to the courts as to what was being discussed or how it was being discussed at a commission of inquiry. That is not unique, nor can I sense any terms of reference that could be drafted on any subject that should or ever would preclude it. It would be a very sad day if that were the case. That is not part of the judicial process.

I am not prepared to start exercising certain judgements. I am not suggesting that the Leader of the Opposition is, although he is getting fairly close to exercising certain personal points of view, and maybe as Leader of the Opposition he has that luxury. I do not think it would be appropriate for the head of government or the Attorney General to offer personal observations on some aspects of this commission of inquiry.

The Leader of the Opposition asked me whether I am concerned. Of course I am concerned. I am concerned about a number of aspects. We all are. I do not think it is totally logical to discuss redefining terms of reference if the existing terms of reference permit the commissioner who has this responsibility from conducting this in the way --

Mr. Peterson: They don't know --

Hon. Mr. Davis: With great respect, the Leader of the Opposition should read the terms of reference. I assure him that no matter how they might be redefined, if we are asked to do so, and to my knowledge we have not been asked to do so --

Mr. Peterson: I am asking you to do it. You created it.

3:50 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Davis: That is fine, sure. Yes, we established the royal commission. I have just heard from the Leader of the Opposition, as a lawyer with his QC and his, I read, Team Peterson. He spent a lot of time learning about the judicial process. That was in the Team Peterson sketch. I have not practised law now for 26 years, but I do know something about it. It is not as simplistic as he says for us to establish or redefine the terms of reference. Before they reach phase 2 it may be the commissioner will come and say, "I want further definition."

I know the Leader of the Opposition has read the terms of reference. He has studied them carefully. He has had considered legal opinion about them as to what they mean. He might even quietly tell me who gave him those legal opinions. My guess is the legal opinion said there really are very few restrictions that the terms of reference per se would bring about. I think he would find that is the case.

The concern of the leader of the New Democratic Party was that phase 2 would be sort of conducted in the same way as phase 1. I think that was the general impression as to the police forces, the investigating officers, etc., that there would be the same scrutiny. I think that was the terminology used. I forget exactly what was said. I do not believe the leader of the New Democratic Party was looking for a redefinition of the terms of reference.

I am just at a bit at a loss as to how I can help the Leader of the Opposition. As he fully acknowledged, there was a lot of rhetoric at the time. We listened carefully to some of his speeches about the need to establish this commission. The commission has been established. I do not think anybody who knew some of the concerns expected that this royal commission would move ahead smoothly or without certain personalities being involved. He knew that when he called for it. He had to have known that some of this was going to happen.

Mr. Conway: That representatives of the Attorney General would say in public that some witnesses should take a truth serum?

Hon. Mr. Davis: If the member wants to provoke me into -- no one anticipated --

Mr. Conway: I did not know the Attorney General's representatives were going to talk about a truth serum.

Mr. Chairman: Order.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Nor did anyone else.

I think the member knew, because I assume he was part of the advice given to his leader, that one could not have a commission of inquiry of this kind without personalities being involved and witnesses being cross-examined. He knew that when he advised his leader.

Mr. Conway: Of course I did.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Certainly. Then I am just as --

Mr. Conway: But I did not assume the Attorney General's lawyers would be talking about truth serum.

Mr. Peterson: Which is his emanation.

Hon. Mr. Davis: If the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway) wants to make a speech on this subject, I would be delighted to sit down and listen.

Mr. Conway: Just on a supplementary, if I might --

Hon. Mr. Davis: There is no supplementary.

Mr. Conway: Just on that point. Because the first minister has raised the question, Mr. Chairman, I want to say --

Mr. Chairman: Order.

Mr. Peterson: He invited him to speak.

Mr. Conway: The Premier has invited a comment. He is going to get a short one from me to this effect: while I expected that there would be a variety of developments at the commission, I did not -- and I want to be absolutely clear about this -- expect that lawyers for my government would in the full glare of the television lights invite the question that some witnesses might submit to truth serum.

I think that is an extraordinary development under any circumstances and that is the kind of exceptionality to which I make a personal reference. If it upsets the first minister, then I am very sorry, but I did not expect that representatives of the Attorney General's department would be so bold and exceptional as to suggest that. I note that the learned legal beagle from Cambridge, the Progressive Conservative member for Cambridge (Mr. Barlow), gives a bipartisan quality to my concern.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think there are a number of issues. Before the member for Renfrew North interjected in a quiet unassuming fashion, as is his custom, what I said, relating it to the specific activities of a particular individual who is involved in part of the process, was that was not the point I was making to his leader.

His leader said, perhaps while the member was still outside, that the reputations of certain individuals obviously had been impacted by this inquiry. All I am saying is that irrespective of what an individual, whether counsel for the commission, counsel for the individuals or whoever he may be, may have done, I do not think anybody who thought this through right from the beginning assumed this commission would succeed in accomplishing its objectives -- and hopefully it will -- without the reputations of certain individuals being part of this process.

Surely when the member advised his leader to call so enthusiastically for this inquiry, he must have known that some of this would take place. He must have known; I am sure he did.

Mr. Conway: I had more faith in the Attorney General's department than I should have had.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think the member is confusing the two issues, I really do. I say that with great respect.

Mr. Peterson: You thought through all this confusion. Is that what you are saying?

Hon. Mr. Davis: No, I am not saying that at all.

Mr. Peterson: You cannot have it both ways.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am not trying to have it any way; I am not trying to have it one way or the other. I am trying to explain to the Leader of the Opposition that a process has been established by order in council at the strenuous urgings of the members opposite, I remind him, in which we have a justice of the court who is in charge with certain statutory responsibilities.

As I say, I do follow this --

Mr. Conway: You talk about our staff. Read that note carefully.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am just glancing at a note here that is partially related and partially unrelated. I said earlier -- the member was not here for this discussion -- when his leader said it was going into phase 2, that actually my recollection is that phase 1 is not finished, that arguments have not yet been heard on phase 1 and that they are not proceeding immediately into phase 2. My recollection is that there is to be probably a two- or three-week adjournment between the conclusion of phase 1 and the beginning of phase 2. I may be wrong on that recollection and I am quite prepared to be corrected.

Mr. Peterson: The Premier is discussing the rules for phase 2. There is a great deal of uncertainty. He is getting certain positions put forward by the Attorney General's representatives, his own crown people, and other interests are being expressed, obviously, by counsel for the different witnesses and the different interest groups there. But they are in the process of attempting to establish how they are going to handle phase 2, what they can do and what they cannot do. I am just bringing the Premier up to date.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am always delighted to have the Leader of the Opposition bring me up to date. Unlike him, I need all the help I can get.

However, my impression is that phase 1 is not completed. I just reiterate to him once again that I am delighted to hear any other views he has, but this government is not going to interfere in the conduct of this commission unless the commissioner wants us to do so with respect to a redefinition of the terms of reference. There has been some discussion of this and, as I say once again, as of two o'clock today -- I cannot tell the member as of four o'clock -- I do not believe we have had it.

I would be delighted to hear any constructive suggestions the Leader of the Opposition may make with respect to this commission, which was established -- once again I remind him -- after very strenuous urging on his part.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Chairman, since the Leader of the Liberal Party was kind enough to say he wanted me to be involved in this discussion and since the Premier has, as he has done on a fairly regular basis, attributed views to me, I would like to put on the record and explain, since I am here, just what our views are as a party and what our concern has been from the time the tragic events at the hospital became public knowledge.

My concern throughout the piece -- and I am concerned about the terms of reference because I do not think they speak directly enough to this problem -- has been that the purpose, in my view, of a public inquiry of the Grange type, whose establishment we called for, was specifically to be able to answer the question of how that number of deaths could have occurred at the hospital over such an extended period of time without the public being informed of it and without the public authorities being advised of it. That to me is the central question.

4 p.m.

I have never taken the view and do not believe for an instant that the royal commission is going to be able or should be able or was established to find out who did it. The royal commission, in blunt terms, is not a whodunnit. One of the great mistakes that has taken place in the public focus on this commission and in much of what has gone on at the commission has been the sense that somehow this was the job of the commission. It has never been the job of the commission.

For anybody -- counsel for any of the parties to the commission -- to even suggest for a moment that is in any sense the purpose of the commission or something to come out of the commission is wrong. It is an affront to our sense of justice and our sense of what it is that the commission should be all about.

What the commission should be all about is trying to determine the conduct of people in public authority and how it is that a number of deaths were allowed to occur over such a period of time without being reported.

My concern has been the focus and public attention that very naturally attached to the questioning of a number of the nurses who were involved in the cardiac ward. My concern, and I think it is a concern that has been shared by a great many people, is that far too much attention has been focused on determining the conduct of those individuals when an inquiry cannot be used to make any assertions of fact with respect to them or to their degree of responsibility.

I expressed concerns at the very beginning when the royal commission was established, the day the Attorney General announced the terms of reference. I asked a specific question -- I am going by memory; I do not have the Hansard in front of me -- of the Attorney General:

"Why is there nothing in the terms of reference which refers specifically to the conduct of the responsible authorities in the hospital and the responsible authorities within the police and elsewhere with respect to the question of how long people in authority either were aware or should have been aware of an extraordinary number of deaths occurring at the hospital without a public investigation of some kind having been carried out and initiated?"

That has been our concern from the very outset.

Since this is a discussion amongst three leaders, I will say to the leader of the Liberal Party that I think I know where he is coming from and I appreciate what he is saying, but I am a little baffled if he honestly thinks that a clarification from the government of Ontario is somehow going to prevent any one of a number of counsel at any point in the inquiry from objecting to any set of questions or demanding a clarification from the Divisional Court.

I say quite seriously that I do not think any of us can invent terms of reference that are not going to be subject at any stage, as they have been up until now, to legal challenge. We cannot invent any kind of process that is going to take away legal rights from the parties that naturally pertain to those parties at all times. We cannot invent those things. I do not think that is what he is arguing we should be doing, but it seems to me that is implicit in some of his demands for clarification.

I will be very blunt about the other concern I have. There are a number of individuals at the lower level of the hospital hierarchy who, frankly, have been through the mill. As the commissioner himself said, what was a public inquiry has become a very public inquiry and is now a very very public inquiry.

I think I am speaking for a lot of people and our real sense of concern for what has happened when we hear, "Oh well, now we have to change the terms of reference; we have to stop this questioning," just at the point where we are beginning to ask questions of those in public authority who have never been asked real questions before.

I remind members that the Dubbin inquiry looked specifically into the question of the administrative routine of the hospital. When the questions were asked of the people in the hospital with respect to what happened on the cardiac ward, those questions were asked off the record, in people's offices. They were not subject to the same rules of public inquiry as is happening with the Grange royal commission.

I do not think I am stepping over the boundaries the Premier has drawn, but I think there is a very real perception by the public that one set of rules has applied to those in authority and that up to this point another set of rules has applied to those who have no power in the system.

It would be very wrong if that perception were allowed to strengthen by changing the terms of reference because we know we are going to be getting objections from police counsel, since Mr. Percival has said, "I am going to object if there are any questions because there is a civil suit going on." It would be a very real mistake if the terms of reference were changed in that way.

I want to say to the Premier that I do not think it would necessarily be a mistake if the terms of reference were amended to incorporate the question which, if I may say so, we put to the Attorney General the day the commission was announced. Specifically, we asked the commission to focus on the question of how that number of deaths could have been allowed to occur over such a long period of time. The time frame concerns me immensely, the length of time this tragedy was allowed to carry on without apparently the full force of public authority being brought down to bring an end to those events.

I do not think it is any exaggeration. I do not think I am any different from any other member. I have watched and listened to the proceedings with an enormous amount of concern. I have debated internally on what is appropriate for me to say as a leader of a party about an inquiry that is ongoing.

I have some concerns, and I have voiced them today as far as I am going to. I can see some merit in changing the terms of reference if that allows us to focus specifically on the matter I have suggested. But I would be concerned if anyone thought that by changing the terms of reference, we were thereby shortening the process. That is not necessarily the case.

It would be very naïve if any of us thought that was going to be the case with respect to the number of very highly paid and very distinguished legal counsel who are there on a daily basis looking out for the interests of their clients. I do not think for a moment that any terms of reference devised by this Legislature or by the Attorney General are going to stop those counsel from taking steps to protect their clients.

I would like to make one last point on Mr. Percival's point throughout the piece recently. I am a little amazed that he waited until now to tell the commissioner he was going to object to questions because there was a civil suit ongoing between Susan Nelles and the police. She also wanted to involve the office of the Attorney General but was not allowed to for technical reasons.

I am a little amazed that he waited until now to tell us this when we had a previous reference, when it would not have been difficult to combine the two references to the court and to do it all in one go. I am a little amazed he took his time about it, if I may be quite blunt about it.

If he persists in this approach of saying the civil suit precludes any questions from being asked, I would say to him that is a question that should be resolved by a court if that is what he insists, because I think he is wrong. I am not a QC, and I do not know, but my assumption is that a public inquiry has pretty broad terms and that a private suit between an individual and somebody else should not preclude the inquiry from doing its job.

I would like to see that question resolved. I do not think this Legislature can resolve it if Mr. Percival is determined at any time to take the entire process to court. I do not think anything this Legislature does is going to resolve it, short of a full-scale retreat.

I am not prepared to agree or to argue or to counsel that we should agree to that kind of retreat in the face of objections from the police. The police should be subject to the same kind of scrutiny, the same kind of inquiry, the same deliberations and, if I may say so, the same degree of publicity that has already occurred.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, I did not presume to try to remember all the member for York South said on Thursday last week. I think I was fairly close in terms of his desire that "the conduct of the police authorities, etc., should be under the same degree of scrutiny." I think that was the phrase he used and repeated here today.

I have nothing further to add. After listening to the member for York South, I would observe that, on the basis of his speech, he is probably as entitled to his QC as some others who have it and who have also commented on the subject.

I do not know why the honourable member should be so amazed. I never cease to be amazed at what some legal counsel may do at some point in the course of a trial or a royal commission. I have stopped being amazed at what anyone might do, particularly lawyers.

4:10 p.m.

Without getting into the substance again, I apologize to the leader of the third party, but I am not comfortable in terms of my responsibilities in commenting in any detail on what is going on at a royal commission. He may feel comfortable, but I do not. I am concerned about the process and about what might be construed from what I may say as to how that might impact upon the royal commission itself. I may be wrong in that, but it is a view I hold strongly.

I point out for no other purpose than being a nonlawyer, that I listened to what the member for York South said, not as it related to -- I do not say this covers it -- the length of time it took etc., but in terms of the investigation. Clause 4 is simply "to inquire into, determine and report on the circumstances surrounding the investigation, institution and prosecution of charges arising out of the deaths of the above-mentioned four infants."

Mr. Rae: No, that relates to the --

Hon. Mr. Davis: That relates to one aspect of the concern the member expressed. I am just glancing at the other terms of reference as to some reasons for the length of time it took to have these come to public attention. I think it is obvious that has been dealt with to a certain extent. I do not know what the conclusions will be; I would not prejudge that.

I do apologize to the Leader of the Opposition, but I cannot help him any more as to this royal commission. The Attorney General may have some further views he would like to express as the chief law officer of the crown, but I learned early in my public career not to get involved in offering legal opinions.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Chairman, obviously we are not going to move the Premier any further, but I am sure there is no question that every one of us watching this situation would cover it in a variety of different ways. What I am trying to do is to offer constructive suggestions as to how to remove some of the problems from the second part of it.

Bygones are bygones at this stage. We could have second-guessed that situation. There is no doubt the Premier is quite right that we fell for the situation as did a lot of other people. The notable legal counsel Edward Greenspan said, "The police have shot their bolt," and now it was time for a new look by a royal commission.

The first phase is basically over with and any harm done by the publicity has been done. We know the judge does not have the power to name names; that court decision is being used by certain counsel to argue with the commissioner that he cannot name names in the second phase. That is my point. That could be cleared up now and the Premier should say that because they are public officials in the pursuit of public duties, they can name names in the second phase.

Mr. Rae: But that does not deal with the lawsuit problem.

Mr. Peterson: I think it does. I do not think there is a major problem in that regard. Because it is an artificial construction, the creature of an order in council plus the Public Inquiries Act, I do not believe that in the circumstances there is any legal impediment. The whole issue at stake is the conduct of public officials, and I cannot see that any lawsuit is going to interfere with that. It is counsel representing various parts of the government who are advancing these arguments. What concerns me is that the Premier could instruct those counsels --

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think in fairness one has to be fairly careful when he says "representing various parts of the government." The government is not the Metropolitan Toronto Police.

Mr. Peterson: The various groups take instructions from the Premier and others, and there is close association.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Let us try to stick to the facts on this issue. The Metropolitan Toronto Police is not part of the government.

Mr. Peterson: Is the Premier prepared to take responsibility for some of his representatives there or is he not? On the one hand he says he is not, and on the other hand he says he is somehow responsible.

Let me try to clear this thing up as I see it. I do not see any legal impediment to clarifying the rule and what he expects that thing to do. He has created it. He can sit back at a distance and say: "I created it, but I created a mess and I have no idea what is going to go on. That is okay. We did not clearly anticipate it." If the Premier looks at what the counsel are saying, they are saying to the Attorney General, "Direct us." The commissioner is virtually saying: "Tell us what you want us to do. We have been created and we do not know exactly what we want to do."

I am saying that the Premier, in the interest of determining the facts as outlined by the leader of the New Democratic Party, who as I understand his position -- and do not let me misrepresent it -- wants a clear determination of the public role, coroners, why it was not reported, the police investigation, why premature charges were made and all of these things.

In the efficiency of the existing legal and police structure to solve or investigate problems like this there is a big issue at stake. I am saying to the Premier that in the interests of the truth, we must redirect this royal commission to make sure it has full power to go ahead.

Rather than watch the thing go on with legal hassle after legal hassle, I am saying the confusion that developed in the first phase does not have to develop in the second phase if the Premier directs it properly. I am not asking him to sit back in the weeds and make comments about it; I am not asking him to call people con men as a trial is going on; I am not asking him to do a running play by play of his personal opinion of the conduct of various people.

I am asking the Premier to take responsibility for his various emanations, like some of the crown counsel; I am asking him to define the rules, to tell them clearly and specifically what he wants and what we all want and then proceed with dispatch. It is quite a simple request.

We Liberals sometimes learn from our mistakes of the past, but the Premier tends to go on perpetuating his mistakes of the past. If it was a mistake -- and let us not argue that now -- at least clear it up for the second phase. I am asking the Premier that only.

Perhaps I have not put my case very well; perhaps I have not explained it. I do not see any legal constraints. I am not asking the Premier to descend into the forum. I am asking him, frankly, to show leadership and to get to the truth of the matter in a clear way with dispatch.

The Premier stands here and says, "Peterson, you called for the thing for months." I am prepared to take my responsibility for that; I did and I am not embarrassed about it. If he wants me to take responsibility for it, as he appears to do, then he should give me the power to change it and make it appropriate in the circumstances. Others have called for it; this is not just a naive call from the plains by us. Other thoughtful observers of this scene from a variety of different quarters have said, "Direct us, lead us and we will go on and ascertain the truth as best we can.

I do not think this is contrary to any of the existing common law; I do not think it is contrary to the Public Inquiries Act. If the Premier is worried that redefining the role of the royal commission would be an admission of a mistake in the first place -- perhaps that is what he is worried about -- then I say to him, "Do not worry about it." I do not think anyone in this House will criticize him for that. We think it would be a courageous and intelligent use of the power he has to go on and to help get to the truth in this circumstance.

That is what we are asking. We are trying to be constructive now, as we have been in the past, in solving this matter. This is what I am asking.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, I really cannot offer a great deal more except that I do confess to some measure of confusion. I will not prolong the discussion, except to make the observation that I think the Leader of the Opposition is approaching this in a somewhat simplistic fashion. It is not as simple --

Mr. Peterson: You always do.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I did not interrupt you.

I am just telling the Leader of the Opposition that certain processes are involved in the judicial process for this royal commission. Any alteration in the terms of reference, no matter how it was redrafted, would not preclude counsel at the inquiry taking a position related to the terms of reference or some other process that is going on and taking a stated case to the Divisional Court. That is not going to stop it.

Sometimes in these situations it can be painful and it can be prolonged to get at what we would like to see them get at. I think the member is perhaps misleading himself in assuming that some alteration in wording is going to make it easier or is necessarily going to make it more expeditious. All of us would like to see it move more rapidly; no one is comfortable. But I think just to say that cabinet can change some of the words and this will all fall into place is wishful thinking.

Mr. Peterson: Listen to the lawyers.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Listen, there is no consensus among the legal fraternity. Even on television one does not sense any great consensus down there before the commission.

4:20 p.m.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, I do not know how you want to proceed with this. I think it is very healthy, actually, and more convenient for the members of the House if we deal with the Premier's estimate topic by topic.

I do not want to step into what the other leaders have in mind, but I really would like to draw the Premier's attention to the words from the commissioner himself that have been broadcast on the nightly news, when he almost seems to be in some agony as he is responding to the point put to him by counsel, Mr. Percival and others. He is the one who is talking about amended terms of reference or an approach to the Divisional Court on a stated case. That is the alternative in his mind.

In the Premier's answer a few days ago, he said he had not been approached by the commissioner asking for a revision in the terms. I do not think that solves it, because we do have people down there who are directly in the employ of the chief law officer of the crown. We cannot put the responsibility for the problems on another jurisdiction. After all, the whole process is one that is established on the authority of the Lieutenant Governor in Council and I do not have to tell the Premier that.

The thing that troubles me is that, having gone through much of phase 1, and we can argue about whether it is completed or not, and having heard the public testimony, much of it very painful indeed, but at least that is all on the record, now we approach the other aspect as to the responsibility of how the case was conducted by the police and how charges were brought, which is not the responsibility of only the police. The Premier knows that. He and his colleagues certainly share that responsibility and may have to carry all that responsibility.

If there is any problem with getting the facts out about that, we are talking about a different type of situation entirely. We are not talking about a world-class heinous crime. We are talking about public affairs. I do not blame the lawyer for the police for objecting when evidence may lead to some criticism being directed at individuals who did not do their job the way some person, maybe even the commissioner, found it to be so. The commissioner even talked about it in those terms.

As I understand royal commissions, particularly now with the Divisional Court judgement imposed upon it, names shall not be named, what we want are the facts. As I recall, royal commissions are never quick jobs; occasionally they are pretty quick. When the report finally comes down, in many instances the classic question from the opposition to the government is, "Will disciplinary action be taken or will charges be laid?" That is on the basis of the facts as they are brought forward. It is not for the commissioner to say who is guilty, but it is his job to elicit the facts.

No doubt when he makes his report, particularly having to do with how the case was handled, it is just possible that certain criticisms may be directed at certain aspects of crown of