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

December 8, 1988

34th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L118 - Thu 8 Dec 1988 / Jeu 8 déc 1988

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY AMENDMENT ACT

ANIMALS FOR RESEARCH AMENDMENT ACT

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY AMENDMENT ACT

ANIMALS FOR RESEARCH AMENDMENT ACT

AFTERNOON SITTING

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

LEAD IN DRINKING WATER

ABANDONED URANIUM MINES

HUMAN RIGHTS

NORTHERN SUPPORT GRANTS

EASTERN ONTARIO

ROBERT FOSTER

HOSPITAL SERVICES

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

TEMAGAMI DISTRICT RESOURCES

HUMAN RIGHTS

COURT SYSTEM

CORONER’S INQUEST

RESPONSES

CORONER’S INQUEST

TEMAGAMI DISTRICT RESOURCES

CORONER’S INQUEST

COURT SYSTEM

CORONER’S INQUEST

HUMAN RIGHTS

EARTHQUAKE IN ARMENIA

ORAL QUESTIONS

TEMAGAMI DISTRICT RESOURCES

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

HOME CARE

WILLIAM MILNE AND SONS LTD.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

VISITORS

DENTAL CARE

CORONER’S INQUEST

HEART AND CIRCULATORY DISEASES

AIR TRANSPORTATION

PROPOSED TRANSMISSION LINE

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE REVIEW BOARD

SALE OF DRUG-RELATED EQUIPMENT

DOCTORS’ FEES

PETITION

SPECIAL EDUCATION

REPORT BY COMMITTEE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

PSYCHOLOGISTS REGISTRATION AMENDMENT ACT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ESTIMATES, OFFICE OF THE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR

ESTIMATES, CABINET OFFICE

ESTIMATES, OFFICE OF THE PREMIER

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The House met at 10 am.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Epp moved second reading of Bill 181,

An Act to amend the Legislative Assembly Act.

Mr. Epp: It is my intention to reserve approximately four minutes for the windup. I also hope, since a number of the members have prepared to speak, that enough time will be allotted so that each of the other parties will have an opportunity to have two speakers for a certain length of time. I know that each of them will not have 10 minutes, but I know that one of the members would at least like a few minutes at the end, and I hope that will be allowed.

At the outset, I want to give credit to all members of the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly which is represented by all three political parties. They have worked long and they have worked hard on this bill. Although this bill comes under my name and I have chosen it as my private member’s item, in fact, it is a bill that emanates from the Legislative Assembly committee and therefore I want to give credit to the members.

In looking at this bill, I find that there are basically two things that it does. One is it removes the word “molestation” because of its ambiguity and because it can either be interpreted in a very narrow sense or a broad sense, and there has been confusion regarding that matter in the past.

Second,

section 38a is installed in the Legislative Assembly Amendment Act and it says, “No person shall make a personal service that is required or authorized by law in a civil matter upon another person.” I want to emphasize that it says “upon another person” because it means not only members but also people outside of the member constituency here, the people who are working in this building. It includes everyone in this building and in other buildings that are incorporated in this act. It says:

“(

b) in a room or place in Ontario in which a duly constituted committee of the assembly is meeting; or

“(

c) in an office of a member of the assembly, other than a constituency office, that is situate outside the Legislative Building, and that is designated by the Speaker for the purposes of this section.”

In other words, it includes everyone in this building. It includes everyone in the Whitney Block who is associated with the members, as I understand it, on two floors there. It includes the various ministries where we have ministers, whether it is the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) on King Street, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Sorbara) on University Avenue, or the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) on St. Clair Avenue. It includes all the ministers, ministry staff in that particular office and the parliamentary assistants who are usually located in the immediate vicinity of the minister.

It is a fairly broad

interpretation of the areas that it covers and I want to emphasize the fact that it covers these places and it does not limit it to the members themselves.

The question then arises as to why this particular amendment is necessary at this particular time. I want to go back to 1978 when the case of the member for Huron (Mr. Riddell), now Minister of Agriculture and Food, came before this House and he was served with a notice of action under the Libel and Slander Act at his Queen’s Park office. The Legislature was in session at the time and the matter was referred to the standing committee on procedural affairs after the member complained that the service constituted a breach of

section 38.

If we look at

section 38 of the Legislative Assembly Act, it says, “Except for a contravention of this act, a member of the assembly is not liable to arrest, detention or molestation for any cause or matter whatever of a civil nature during a session of the Legislature or during the 20 days preceding or the 20 following a session.”

A session, as members know, starts with the throne speech. If the current session winds up somewhere in January, as might be predicted by some, then it would be either 20 days before that throne speech, which we had earlier this year, or 20 days after next January -- whatever that day happens to be. It incorporates those times.

The counsel to the committee that was hearing the case of the member for Huron, Burton Kellock, concluded that

section 38 did not create an immunity from the institution of civil proceedings nor did it create an immunity from service of process. In arriving at this conclusion, Mr. Kellock noted that it is clear from the debates at the time the Legislative Assembly Act was passed in 1876 that the member did not intend blanket immunity from civil proceedings.

Mr. Kellock also pointed out that the word “molestation” was used in

section 38 in conjunction with the words “detention and arrest,” and principles of statutory construction suggest that molestation should be interpreted as being analogous to detention or arrest. An actual interference with the person was required, he felt. By extension, he felt an actual interference with the member for Huron did not take place.

Mr. Kellock then referred to the express prohibition in

section 37 against civil actions arising from statements made before the assembly or a committee and he argued that it should be presumed no further immunity from civil action was intended unless specifically stated elsewhere in the act.

The member for Huron, when he came before the committee, argued that service process amounted to molestation. He noted that the Ontario Legislature, in 1876 and thereafter, specifically included the word “molestation” in its legislation and did not simply content itself with adopting the United Kingdom position which specifically negated immunity from civil proceedings.

The member also noted that

section 45 of the Legislative Assembly Act, relating to privilege and contempt matters, provides a separate paragraph for molestation. That is paragraph 45(1)11. If you read

section 45(1) it says, “The assembly has all the rights and privileges of a court of record for the purposes of summarily inquiring into and punishing, as breaches of privilege or as contempts and without affecting the liability of the offenders to prosecution and punishment criminally or otherwise according to law, independently of this act, the acts, matters and things following.”

Then paragraph 11 says, “Causing or effecting the arrest, detention or molestation of a member of the assembly for any cause or matter of a civil nature during a session of the Legislature or during the 20 days preceding or the 20 days following a session.”

Paragraph 2 refers to “Obstructing, threatening or attempting to force or intimidate a member.”

Therefore, molestation must mean something different from physical interference with a member. This is what the member argued at the time. It is important that in its report the standing committee on procedural affairs, the predecessor to the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly, rejected the conclusion of its counsel, Mr. Kellock, and found that the member’s privileges had been breached. It did not, however -- and this is important -- recommend any further action by the Legislature.

Another case that we have to look at is one that occurred in 1986. It occurred in the standing committee on public accounts. I was a member of the public accounts committee at the time. I was there at the time it occurred. A summons was put in the hands of the former member for Brantford. He was called away from the committee proceedings and it was given to him in the back of room 151. As a result of this particular matter, questions of privilege arose and the matter was referred to the standing committee of the Legislative Assembly. It held several days of hearings and subsequently wrote a report which was dated April 29, 1987.

The committee found that there had been a breach of privilege, but that no action should be taken against any individual involved in the matter. The committee went on to recommend that the Legislative Assembly Act be amended. It also recommended that an educational campaign related to contempts of parliament be undertaken. Repealing

section 38 and re-enacting it in the form set out in my bill was recommended. I want to quote the statement which came out of the Legislative Assembly committee hearings at the time:

“The committee is of the opinion that sufficient uncertainty exists with respect to the

interpretation of

section 38 of the Legislative Assembly Act that the

section should be repealed and provision made to specifically prohibit the service of civil process” -- I want to emphasize civil process here as opposed to criminal process – “upon any person in the Legislative Building, in any room in which a properly constituted committee of the House is meeting while the committee is meeting away from the seat of government, and in the legislative office of a member which is not located within the Legislative Building.

In the latter case, such an office would not include the constituency office of a member but would include a member’s office in the Whitney Block or a similar office assigned to a minister of the crown or a parliamentary assistant. Such an office would be designated to be an office for the purposes of this

section of the act by the Speaker.”

In looking at this, I want to emphasize the fact that it also would include, as was pointed out in this section, the travels of a committee. As members know, the committees from time to time travel to other parts of the province, and rightly so. They might travel to Thunder Bay, Windsor, Oshawa or wherever in the province and have hearings. As a result, wherever those committees are meeting those rooms could be designated by the Speaker beforehand and a civil process could not be placed on a member in those particular areas.

To go a little further, I want to look at the contempt aspect of this bill and the fact that someone might be found in contempt if he violated the act as it now states or as the amendment would have it. Subsection 45(1) of the Legislative Assembly Act gives the assembly the power to punish those who commit acts that breach parliamentary privilege or that amount to contempt. Paragraph 45(1)11, as I have read, provides that the molestation of a member falls within the category of breach of privilege and contempt.

Section 46 of the act provides that “Every person, who upon such inquiry, is found to have committed or done any of the acts, matters, or things mentioned in

section 45, in addition to any other penalty or punishment to which he may by law be subject, is liable to imprisonment for such time during the session of the Legislature then being held as is determined by the assembly.”

If we look at some of the other parliaments or assemblies in the country, we find that the Canadian House of Commons or the Senate “may commit a person found to be in contempt of Parliament to jail until the session is prorogued.” The commitment can be revived in the next session and even in the next session of Parliament. If someone were held in jail after prorogation or dissolution, that person could be released by the court by means of a writ of habeas corpus. This power has not been used since 1913. That is in Ottawa.

Just by looking at some of the other legislatures in Canada, we find that in Manitoba molestation is included. I presume that serving a summons on someone in a civil matter could be constituted as a contempt of the House. In Saskatchewan it is included, and imprisonment for any period of time determined by the assembly is the penalty. I am not sure how long that might be. In Alberta it is imprisonment during the session and a fine in an amount fixed by the assembly, and molestation is included. In British Columbia, molestation is included and imprisonment during the session.

Although in its history this House has had someone at the bar of the House for violating the rules of the House and of the building, the person apologized and was not put in chains or put in jail or anything of that nature.

Mr. Wildman: Do you advocate that?

Mr. Epp: A member asked whether I advocate it, and I am not advocating it.

If we look at the service of process in some of the other parliamentary precincts -- and by speaking about parliamentary precincts we are speaking about this building and two floors of the Whitney Block, as I indicated, which are usually referred to as the parliamentary precinct -- according to some of the history on this, the best information I have been able to gather on it, “The House has jurisdiction to keep order and maintain decorum within its precincts and may make rules with respect to the conduct of strangers admitted to the precincts.”

The matter of service or delivery of documents within the precincts of the House is not specifically mentioned in the Legislative Assembly Act or the standing orders. However, the principle is well established by parliamentary precedent and tradition that it is a contempt of the House to serve or to attempt to serve a civil or criminal process within the precincts of the House on a day on which the House or any committee thereof is to sit, is sitting or has sat, without having obtained the leave of the House or its chief officer, the Speaker.

A member of Parliament as such is not privileged from service of process. In other words, a member of Parliament can be served but must be served outside of the legislative precinct. However, if a member is immune from service of process within the precincts of the House while the House is sitting, it must be in virtue of a privilege enjoyed by the House in its corporate capacity. This privilege is enjoyed by the House in its corporate capacity on the ground that the service or attempted service of the process of an inferior tribunal in the presence, actual or constructive, of the House is clearly a violation of the dignity of, and an insult to, Parliament.

This was the conclusion that was reached in Australia, and it is also one that is concurred with by the Parliamentary Privilege in Canada on page 145, which was stated some time ago: “It follows that as the privilege is enjoyed by the House while sitting, service of process within its precincts must constitute a contempt or breach of that privilege regardless of whether the person served or attempted to be served is a member or another person.”

In other words, it does extend everything to beyond the members themselves, and I am very pleased that everyone in the building is protected. As a person indicated to me not very long ago, this individual was served in this House with a summons and was not a member. Under this particular amendment, that person and every other person would be protected from service because it is the privilege that extends to the House and not to the members.

The immunity and protection afforded by the House may in exceptional cases be withheld, but to draw a distinction between members and other persons in this regard would expose the House to the reproach of, as someone says, “Stretching the compass of dignity too far and applying it to the individual instead of to the House.”

We could go into a number of other examples, but I do want to say at this point, and I am going to leave the rest of my time to wind up later, that I think I have made the case that we should make a change in the present Legislative Assembly Act, that we should clarify the word “molestation” and that we should clarify what is meant by serving a summons in the House on a civil matter. Although I do not for a moment pretend that this act is perfect -- in some years’ time, if it is adopted by the House, it may need some changes -- nevertheless, I think it will serve better our particular needs in this chamber, in this building and elsewhere than the present legislation does.

Mr. Breaugh: I rise to support the bill and I want to begin by saying that the member for Waterloo North (Mr. Epp) has brought forward this morning a private member’s bill that deals with a matter that the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly has struggled with.

The question of privilege and serving of papers on a member is perhaps not very interesting to most folks, perhaps not even to members here. But the committee itself that dealt with the matter has had similar questions before it on several occasions and knows that there is a bit of a problem with it; it sought to bring forward a bill from a committee, which is a kind of unusual approach to take with legislation. That did not quite meet with everybody’s needs, so we struck upon the idea that perhaps the chairman of the committee should bring the bill forward as a private member’s bill.

I hope frankly that this will be one of those rare private member’s bills that actually becomes law. I do think that, although it seems a bit arcane in trying to discuss it, it is something that needs to be done.

In my office, I can tell when there is trouble brewing around here because the copy of an old document called Erskine May goes missing. That means that there are foul deeds afoot or about to happen somewhere in and around these chambers. For those members who do not read this kind of stuff, Erskine May’s Parliamentary Practice is a collection of parliamentary precedents, a thousand years of devious political minds at work and what happened after they did their devious deeds.

The question of privilege is probably not widely understood, but it is pretty important in a parliament that members be free to speak. We sometimes forget, of course, that in the early days of parliament members did not feel quite free to speak, and while it seems to be stretching the point a little now to talk about it, in the very first days of the British Parliament the members met in secret, and for good reason. They were quite afraid, logically, and the fear was real, that the monarchy did not want these jerks hanging around forming a parliament and said so with great regularity.

In addition to the monarchy not being terribly happy with the idea of a parliament, there were a lot of other people around who did not like it either. So Erskine May is fascinating stuff, because members in this assembly in this day and age get a little threatened when somebody serves them with a piece of paper. In the early days of parliament, they used to beat them on the head and there was not much of a discussion about molestation, everybody knew what that meant: somebody was going to beat you up on the way into your parliament. They did this regularly. They would kidnap members and throw them into the Tower of London --

Mr. Wildman: That happened particularly to the Speaker.

Mr. Breaugh: The Speaker was often very threatened by all of this. Now when we elect a new Speaker, there is a joking motion where the leaders drag him into the assembly. In the early days, there was no joke about this. The Speaker was the person who carried the bad news of the parliament to the monarch and if the monarch did not like what he or she heard, off came the head; off he went to the Tower of London. So at the beginning of the process, it was not quite as --

Mr. Wildman: Our Speaker went for the scalp.

Mr. Breaugh: Speakers should remember that. We could revert to earlier practices.

At the beginning of parliament, all of these kinds of theoretical, airy-fairy, arcane problems were very real to members. Even these days, it is important that we retain the right of the members of the assembly to speak freely, and so we roughly confuse that term of privilege with a lot of other things; but it is not the privilege of an individual member to do what he or she wants. It is the privilege of a parliament to deal with matters, to speak freely, to not be inhibited by means of fear of getting beaten up, which was a very real fear early on.

Perhaps these days, a more practical fear would be that someone would serve a member with legal papers on a civil matter and tie him up with litigation.

Most of the members in this assembly, I dare say, have not had this honour and privilege, but I have and so have several other members. On more than one occasion, we have said something in here or outside that somebody did not like.

Mr. Wildman: Oh, no.

Mr. Breaugh: This is hard to believe, I know, but even I have on occasion said something in the chamber or outside the chamber that someone took exception to.

I do not understand this at all and I must confess that the first time that some young, well-dressed person came up to me and handed me what is known as a process paper, I was a little disturbed by it all. I do not normally get sued by people for things that I say. They throw things at me and they yell at me a lot, but they do not normally take me to court. So on the first occasion when this happens, it becomes a little more real in your own mind about whether or not you can be intimidated by someone handing you a piece of paper. The truth is that you can.

As a matter of fact, this bill came about because of that very type of incident happening. I think it was the previous member for Brantford who had said something in here that somebody did not like. Where I come from, they would probably yell at you, and in other quarters it is quite a natural, normal thing that you call your lawyer and your lawyer serves them with pieces of paper and you threaten to take them to court; you are going to sue them for a great amount of money. Essentially, that is all this bill deals with.

It says that you can do that, but you cannot stand outside the door of the chamber and do that. You cannot go to the member’s office and do that. You leave him alone while he is in the parliamentary precincts.

In other jurisdictions, they have worked out different ways of doing this. In most parliaments around the world, they agree with the notion that you cannot invade the parliament with your legal staff and threaten the members. Some of them will say, “But you could do that outside,” and they will name a street corner where papers of a civil matter can be served. There is no protection here, nor should there be, for any member who has committed some kind of criminal offence.

There has never been an intention to protect members from criminal prosecutions, nor should there be, but the bill itself, in a straightforward way, attempts to put into modern language and modern practice a very ancient tradition and one that I think is important to the workings of a parliament, to the workings of this assembly, and that is to provide the members with a reasonable amount of latitude in terms of what they can say.

It would be wrong to go through this discussion this morning without pointing out that members of this assembly, like the members of any other parliament that has offered privilege to its members, have a special obligation. The fact that they should not be sued for things they say in the chamber -- that definition is expanded somewhat under this bill -- brings with it the obligation to be mindful that they cannot abuse that.

This bill does not offer members any protection at all, nor should it, if they do abuse it. It does not say that they can come in here and call everybody under the sun bad names. It does not mean that they can come into this chamber and accuse someone else of lying or cheating or fraud or things of that nature and carry on in a way that would be irresponsible. Members should not think that they have any protection in that regard, because they do not.

What it does say is that they have a right to come into the parliamentary precincts and do what they were elected to do, and that is to represent their constituents and the people of Ontario in a free and responsible way. If they abuse that privilege, they will suffer the sanctions that all parliaments have, and we have gone through that exercise here, where we think that a member has misbehaved in some way, not in a criminal sense perhaps but not behaved as a member should. We have our own little disciplinary actions for that type of activity.

At the heart of what is in this bill is a very simple premise, that a parliament does not work unless the members of that parliament have some measure of protection to speak freely. In the early days, this was a very real problem and there was a reason why the benches are supposed to be two swords’ lengths apart and why the symbol of Her Majesty’s power is on the table. It is the old equivalent of a baseball bat, called a mace.

Those traditions are very much a part of this assembly as well. They change in their nature. There are very few members who are beaten up on the way in here, but there are still members who are threatened and impeded from doing their job properly by means of someone either threatening to sue them or actually serving them with papers.

Once this has happened a couple of times to them, the thrill does evaporate somewhat. The members will know that people cannot threaten to sue them, and if they come in here and raise a point of privilege, the Speaker will enforce the traditions of this parliament. Usually, it is sufficient for the Speaker of the assembly to notify the lawyer that they should not have done that. Usually, process servers will know that they should not be serving such documents on members inside the assembly or in the precincts as they are defined here.

That does not stop a good lawyer from doing it, though. Good lawyers know that what you can do and what you legally should do are often two very different things, and although you may have no intention of ever carrying through with a lawsuit, it is not a bad practice to serve people with paper. It kind of gets their heads up and they start thinking about what they are doing.

This bill, I think, is supportable by all members. It is unique in the sense that it is the first time I have seen a committee put forward a bill and the chairman of the committee present it as a private bill. I believe it deserves members’ support.

Mr. Sterling: At the outset of my remarks, I would like to thank the member for Waterloo North for bringing forward this bill. As he mentioned, this bill is not only his bill but a bill of each and every member of the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly. The member for Waterloo North, like every other member, has only one opportunity each year to bring forward a private member’s bill, and I want to thank him for putting on the back burner some of his own individual pet desires in bringing forward a private member’s bill and taking on the mandate of the Legislative Assembly committee.

We have heard, both from the member for Waterloo North and the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh), the reasoning and the logic behind bringing forward this bill. I will only add that when the incident took place in 1986 with Mr. Gillies, I happened to be a member of the committee when Mr. Gillies was served in a committee room with civil documents relating to a libel and slander suit against him by someone who was under discussion that very day in that committee.

I am not dealing with the merits of whether members should be served or not served in their offices or staff should be served in this building or not served in this building, but what this piece of legislation will do is clarify for the public at large what they are to do when they have to serve either a member of the Legislature or someone who is on the staff of a member of the Legislature. If this bill does become law, which I believe it will, they will know that they have to do it outside these precincts and that normally that is done by phoning the member or phoning the staff member and arranging to meet somewhere outside of these precincts.

That way, we do not have the embarrassment of it happening here or the allegation that someone is being intimidated in his or her duties as a member of this Legislature in what he is elected to do, which is to represent his constituents. I think that is the whole idea behind all of these sections: A member of the Legislature, as an elected representative of his constituents, should not have his personal life, with regard to suit against him in a personal capacity, mixed with that elected duty.

I wanted to comment briefly on the process that we are going through today, because it is somewhat historic in that we have never before, to my knowledge at least, in the last 11 years that I have been elected, had a committee chairman bring forward a bill before this Legislature on behalf of his committee.

I want to talk about three kinds or levels of legislation that we deal with in the House. The first kind of legislation and policy that we deal with is legislation which has a wide-ranging effect on all the public of Ontario and has a very, very high profile. I would group into that kind of legislation and policy-making matters like Sunday shopping, auto insurance, the free trade debate, amendments to the Human Rights Code and those kinds of matters. Generally speaking, that kind of legislation is only brought forward by the government, with strong participation by the Premier and the chief members of his cabinet.

Then on the second scale I would put matters of medium significance. They may be of great significance to some people in our province or some groups of people in our province, but generally speaking, they do not affect the lives of each and every member of the province. I would put into that category a minister’s legislation, such as some of the legislation we are dealing with right now from the Ministry of Agriculture and Food. It is very important to our agricultural community, but probably of little general interest to the rest of the population of the province.

Their interest is only general as far as the health of our farming community is concerned; it will not be touching them in a very direct manner.

Another matter which I would put into this medium-significance category because of its nature would be my involvement with the Niagara Escarpment plan, where it geographically only deals directly with a number of people, although environmentalists from across the province are interested in it in a certain manner. Generally, those kinds of pieces of legislation are brought forward by a minister and carried forward by him.

The third kind of legislation is the kind of legislation we are dealing with today, and this legislation concerns a relatively small number of individuals in our province and is generally of a procedural nature. It deals with inconsistencies in our laws and situations where it is unclear what the law is or is not. It is in this third category that I would like to see the leadership of the member for Waterloo North and the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly carried forward by other committees of this Legislature.

I do not think that we, as members of the Legislature, should continue to write reams and reams and volumes and volumes of different reports on problems we encounter as legislators, recognize them through long hearings, put them in reports, let the reports sit on the shelf, and then because they are not of a high-profile nature, they are never brought down off that shelf and put into legislation.

We go through life in Ontario with unclear laws, procedures that are cumbersome and inconsistencies in our laws, when in fact a committee of the Legislature has recognized those inconsistencies, has recognized the lack of clarity and could bring forward a bill before the Legislature for us to consider.

At the present time, we have three types of legislation that can be brought forward to the House. We have government bills, which normally pass all the way through the Legislature. We have private members’ bills, which we are dealing with here this morning, which rarely pass through the Legislature, although I think Mr. Epp’s will be an exception because of the all-round party support on it. We have private bills, which deal with individual corporations and very minor matters.

I would like to see a fourth kind of legislation. I would like to see a committee-sponsored bill that would receive not only a passing glance, but a serious look by the government House leader, and would be brought forward not only for second reading, as we are doing today, but also for third and final reading. I do not expect the government to allow a committee to bring forward a huge, significant bill that is going to deal with changing the lives of each and every citizen in Ontario. I believe that is the prerogative of the government. That is what they were elected to do.

I see it as very distasteful in the legislative process that as we legislators sit on the committees and recognize there is a small problem here or a small problem there, yet we have no power to change that law, but only to note it in a report and hope that some time in the next 20 to 25 years the minister will be changing his legislation and will include this small change in that legislation.

I do not believe in the maxim, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” I believe that if you see it is broken even a little bit, you should rush to fix it. That is what we are doing here today. We are fixing a minor cloud in terms of the law in Ontario. I would like to see this government accept more and more committee bills, as I believe it will accept that of the member for Waterloo North. I congratulate him on his leadership in terms of the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly and give him my wholehearted support.

Mr. Campbell: I rise in support of the bill of the member for Waterloo North. I want to outline some of the jurisdictional situations that occur in other jurisdictions and deal a bit with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and its relationship to this bill. I understand other members wish to speak to this and I will not use up my full time so that other members may participate in this debate.

To start, I reiterate a couple of things that have been pointed out by a number of previous speakers. The first thing is that this bill deals with the ability of members to effectively operate and perform their elected duty. It ensures that the historic rights of parliament, which we have inherited as part of our legislative history, are protected. It does not allow members to avoid responsibilities and duties outside their lives as elected officials. Writs may be served for any private matter, but not within the precincts of the Legislative Assembly.

The House has jurisdiction to keep order and maintain decorum within its precincts, and may make rules with respect to the conduct of strangers admitted to these precincts. The matter of service or delivery of documents within the precincts of the House is not specifically mentioned in the Legislative Assembly Act or the standing orders; hence the need to try and clarify this situation.

However, the principle is well established by parliamentary precedent and tradition that it is contempt of the House to serve, or attempt to serve, a criminal or civil process within the precincts of the House on a day on which the House, or any committee thereof, is to sit, is sitting or has sat, without having obtained the leave of the House or its chief officer, the Speaker.

A member of parliament, as such, is not privileged from the service of process. However, if a member is immune from service of process within the precincts of the House while the House is sitting, it must be in virtue of a privilege enjoyed by the House in its corporate capacity. This privilege is enjoyed by the House in its corporate capacity on the grounds that the service or attempted service of the process of an inferior tribunal in the presence, actual or constructed, of the House is clearly a violation of the dignity of and an insult to parliament.

The immunity and protection afforded by the House may in exceptional cases be withheld, but to draw a distinction between members and other persons in this regard would expose the House to the reproach of stretching the compass of dignity too far and applying it to the individual instead of to the House. This has been recognized in two cases at the House of Commons in London -- the report of the committee of privileges in Inspector Henderson’s case, 1945, and the report to the committee of privileges in the case of Ray Carter, MP, 1972. Both dealt with and support these reasons for the role of parliamentary law that prohibits the service of a legal process within the precincts of parliament.

In 1972, a complaint was made to the Australian House of Representatives that a summons had been served on a member sitting in the precincts of the House while the House was sitting. At the time it was raised in the House, the Attorney General said he thought that when it was necessary to serve such documents, those concerned ought not to serve them while the House was sitting in any way that may be regarded as an interference with the movements of honourable members in the House, that those serving a process had ample opportunity to act without coming within the precincts of the House when sitting, and that it was a practice that was to be reprehended.

After looking into the matter, he advised the House that he was of the opinion that the case should not be further proceeded with because the person who had served the summons had not intended to commit a breach of privilege.

Committees of the House are microcosms and extensions of the House itself. The report of the committee of privileges in Inspector Henderson’s case had stated: “Indignities offered to committees of the House are resented as indignities offered to the House itself. It will, therefore, be a breach of privilege to serve process whilst the committees are sitting, even though the House itself is not sitting at the time.

“The breach of privilege should not be limited to service of process in the actual view of a committee. Unless each case is to be decided on its particular facts, it is difficult to see how this area, within which protection will be afforded by the dignity of the committee, will be restricted to anything less than the precincts of the House.”

In a number of these cases, it is clear right from the beginning of recorded parliamentary history that there is a certain need for allowing members to perform their duties in such a way that they can fully represent their constituents.

I would like to turn to a short discussion on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, just to remind members of the House of the parts of the charter that would apply in this situation.

Section 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms “guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.”

Section 7 says, “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.”

Section 11 deals with a person charged with an offence and his rights.

Section 11 states that, “Any person charged with an offence has the right,” and paragraph 11(

d) which applies here says, “to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal.”

Subsection 32(1) says, “This charter applies

“(

b) to the Legislature and government of each province in respect of all matters within the authority of the Legislature of each province.”

The balance then, as I see it, is a situation where a member is not impeded in any way in performing his or her duties and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is adhered to as well.

A number of things happened in the cases that have been cited, and I will not cite them again. Members should be allowed to perform their duties without a sword of Damocles hanging above their heads or else the interests of the people in this province cannot be served properly.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: I too would like to rise in support of Bill 181. I would like to compliment the member for Waterloo North for bringing this bill forward. My colleague the member for Carleton (Mr. Sterling) mentioned this in his speech. I think it is most important to give credit to this member for devoting his private member’s time to the betterment of all the members of this Legislature. We should certainly give him credit for that. He is an excellent chairman of the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly and has always done an excellent job.

I might just mention that I had a personal experience this year when I was faced with the prospect of receiving a summons to appear at an Ontario Municipal Board hearing. I was notified that I would be served with a summons. I advised the young lady who was serving it that I did not intend to accept it in the Legislature. She asked when she could meet with me. I told her that Mount Forest on Friday would be an appropriate time, but that did not seem too convenient for her. I discussed the matter with the lawyer for the case who decided that rather than have a hostile witness, he would be better to leave me out of it. So the case was dropped.

During that period of time, I spoke to T. C. Marshall, director of the crown law office, Ministry of the Attorney General. He advised me that with regard to the service of civil process, summons or subpoena, etc., while the House is in session a member cannot be served within the precincts of the Legislative Building, that it is a breach of the member’s privilege.

That sounds well and good, but the unfortunate thing is that many of the members do not understand that. The member for Grey (Mr. Lipsett) was here earlier this morning and has left. I asked him if he had received a summons of the same nature, because it was the same 0MB hearing, and he said he had been served in the House. He said they had not served him personally; they simply left it in his office. I question whether that is legal, but the fact is members are being served in the House. That is just one example that has happened this year.

I congratulate the member for bringing this bill forward, because possibly it will clarify the situation for the benefit of all the members. I encourage members to pass this and then have the government, possibly through the Speaker’s office, notify all the members of their rights and privileges, so they will not have to go through the turmoil of making the decision themselves or appealing to the Speaker to determine if they have that right.

I had the opportunity to sit on the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly that made the determination to present the report to the Legislature, Report on the Service of Process within the Precincts of the House, April 13, 1988. I fully supported the recommendation made in that report.

Once more, in closing, I would like to compliment the member for Waterloo North, chairman of the committee, for taking the added responsibility, as I mentioned earlier, of taking his own time in private members’ hour to bring forward this very important piece of legislation. If it is not important to the public, it is certainly important to the members of this assembly so they can better serve their constituents.

Mr. Epp: I am cognizant of the very little time I have left. I just want to thank all members, particularly the member for Oshawa, the member for Carleton, the member for Sudbury (Mr. Campbell) and the member for Wellington (Mr. J. M. Johnson) who have spoken very forcefully in support of this proposed legislation. I ask all members to support it and I hope it will then be adopted by the government and become part of the Legislative Assembly Act of Ontario.

ANIMALS FOR RESEARCH AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Wildman moved second reading of Bill 190,

An Act to amend the Animals for Research Act.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. M. C. Ray): The member will know that he has up to 20 minutes for his presentation and may reserve any portion thereof for a windup.

Mr. Wildman: At the outset, I would like to pay tribute to the legislative intern who is working with me this session, Brian Wylynko, to my research assistant, Carol Freeman, and as well to Tita Zierer, who have assisted me in the preparation of this legislation.

I would like to reserve some time at the end of my remarks for the windup at the end of the debate.

The purpose of Bill 190 is to prohibit the use of animals in nonmedical experimentation involving the Draize eye-irritancy test or the classical LD 50 acute toxicity test and similar tests. These are the two most commonly used tests involving animals.

Bill 190 prohibits the use of animals in these tests unless the researcher is granted a licence by the director of the veterinary services branch of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food. A licence shall be provided only in the event that the test is necessary for the advancement of medical research.

It is impossible to accurately identify the number of animals used in testing of consumer products and household goods. The Canadian Council on Animal Care estimates that approximately 200,000 animals are used in the testing of various products in Canada each year. In Canada, of the 23 commercial facilities that engage in animal testing, 15 are located in Ontario. United States congressional reports indicate that several million animals are used in similar testing in the United States each year.

In the Draize test, originally developed before the Second World War for purposes of chemical warfare, a concentrated substance such as bleach, shaving cream or deodorant is dripped into one of the animal’s eyes, the other serving as a control.

The damage to the rabbit’s or dog’s eye is measured according to the size of the area injured. The animals scream, claw at their eye and frantically try to dislodge the painful product, but are restrained from doing so. Needless to say, the animals’ eyes suffer ulceration, bleeding, gross destruction and ultimately blindness.

The lethal dose 50 per cent, or LD 50 test, is designed to indicate the minimum dose of a product required to kill 50 per cent of the animals used in the experiment. Introduced in 1927 as a means of helping doctors evaluate dosage levels of medical drugs, the LD 50 has been expanded widely and absurdly into the testing of every consumer and industrial product on the market.

The procedure typically involves force-feeding a given substance -- lipstick, shampoo, nail polish, shaving cream, ink, floor polish, oven cleaner, cloth fibre, pencil lead, furniture wax, plastic, paint, etc. -- to rabbits, dogs, cats or rats; or forcing the animal to inhale hair spray; or shaving a portion of the animal’s coat and applying the substance directly to the skin; or injecting the substance into the animal’s mane, muscle, abdomen or under its skin.

Most tests last 14 days: two weeks of diarrhoea, gasping, loss of appetite, salivation, vomiting, excess defecation, bleeding from the eyes, nose and mouth, wheezing, convulsions, paralysis and, for some, death. Any survivors are then killed and examined or sometimes recycled for use in other tests. For each test, 60 to 200 animals are used, all with next to no pain relief administered.

But none of these tests are required by any provincial or federal law. No law exists which specifically requires the use of animals in cosmetic testing. Current legislation places the onus on proving product safety on the manufacturer, who may in turn supply the results of any type of recognized safety testing, be they animal or alternative tests.

Rather, noted scientists maintain that this testing continues simply because of industry inertia. Major manufacturers have no incentive not to test animals. The Draize test is often used to test compounds, such as oven cleaners, which are already known to be harmful to humans. Often manufacturers run excessive and unnecessary tests as part of product promotion. Moreover, these tests are requested by manufacturers as a supposed instrument of protection against consumer liability suits.

These tests are outmoded, unnecessary, impossible to accurately assess, irrelevant to the human condition and cruel. These tests are cruel and alternative methods of testing do exist, methods that are safe and more accurate; alternative methods including cell and tissue cultures using human skin or eye tissue, as well as computer and mathematical models, literature searches, etc.

New ingredients can be tested through the use of computer or mathematical models by comparing the test ingredient’s molecular structure to that of other known ingredients. A number of companies have developed software specifically for this purpose. The use of a battery or combination of tests would produce more accurate results than the use of animal testing.

There are thousands of cosmetic products, in addition, that are already known to be safe and require no testing. Some companies eliminate the need for animal testing by using natural food ingredients, such as avocado or almond oil, seed oil or fruit pulp, where safety is not an issue. Other ingredients are deemed to be safe by the ministry, simply because they have already been in use for decades. Over 200 North American companies produce a variety of high-quality products without resorting to animal tests.

Further, ambiguity of animal-based tests raises the possibility of risk to human health. Animal tests do not guarantee that products will not cause injury to humans. The reliability of the Draize test has been called into question and the LD 50 has been shown to be inaccurate in many instances. Indeed, there are many examples of personal injury, complaints varying from hair loss to death, as a result of using a variety of products which have previously been tested on animals.

There are a number of problems establishing validity and reliability of animal tests, including the differences between species, the subjective nature of the tests and the difficulties in extrapolating the results to humans.

The usefulness of information derived from the LD 50 and Draize tests has been highly criticized by prominent scientists. They argue that the toxicity test is ultimately meaningless, providing no information that is useful to medical practitioners in emergency situations.

Consequently, an increasing number of doctors are supporting efforts to ban these tests. In Maryland last spring, Paul Berson, MD, Stephen Kaufman, MD, and Neal Barnard, MD, joined Dr. Ruy Tchao in explaining to the House of Delegates in that state that the Draize test is a cruel test with no applicability to humans.

A number of well-known American physicians are opposed to the continued use of these animal tests for cosmetic and household products.

This is an issue that has received widespread public interest in Ontario as well as other jurisdictions. An Angus Reid poll conducted in January 1987 indicated that consumer and household product testing of animals was an issue which the majority of southern Ontario residents -- 76 per cent -- are concerned about.

And 44 per cent felt that the use of animals in these tests “should not be allowed to occur at all.” Also, 36 per cent said they think “animals are used too often and, whenever possible, researchers should be required to use other methods.” Furthermore, last week I introduced a petition into the Legislature which was signed by 20,000 Ontario residents requesting the banning of the use of animals for testing of such products.

The introduction of this bill has produced a great deal of interest and a good deal of concern among certain elements in the population. I emphasize that, if one looks at Bill 190 and the provisions of the bill, it is not designed to deal with any kind of testing other than a testing of cosmetic products and household products. It does not, in any way, inhibit medical experimentation and experimentation on pharmaceuticals which are being developed to try to alleviate human disease and suffering.

Under the bill, the director would have to license testing, and the researcher would be required to show that there was a medical application of the test. If he could show that, the director would be able to issue a licence. If the director deemed it was not for medical testing and simply a consumer product, the applicant would have the right to a hearing to be able to present evidence and to have the decision of the director changed; the director could indeed change or confirm the original decision.

There has been some suggestion that in some way this bill would impinge upon the treatment of farm animals either by veterinarians or by livestock producers. First, I do not know of many livestock producers who participate in animal experimentation as part of their breeding program. Certainly there are animal growth hormones that are used in some cases but, in my view and my

interpretation, this bill does not in any way affect that.

I would hope that members of the House would consider the bill carefully. The reasons for the use of animals for testing is subject to a great deal of legislative concern in other parts of the world. Several current bills or resolutions banning animal testings have been passed or are under consideration in the United States, in such states as New Jersey, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, California, Hawaii and Illinois. In addition, federal Bill 1635 would ban the classical LD 50 acute toxicity test and encourage the use of alternatives to animal tests in the United States. Similar legislation has been passed in West Germany and Australia.

In

summary, the Draize and LD 50 tests are barbarically cruel. They are not required by any law. They continue more out of industry inertia than anything else, yet many of these tests are entirely unnecessary. Many of them are entirely irrelevant, if not dangerous. More accurate tests already exist and are available; for our own protection, I believe they should be used.

Finally, much of the population supports this measure and precedent-setting legislation exists in other jurisdictions. For all of these reasons, it is clear that this is a measure whose time has come, and I hope that members of the House will consider it carefully and pass it for second reading. If it is successful we can refer it out to committee for hearings so that cosmetic and household products companies, laboratories and other parties interested in animal welfare would be able to present their views on the bill and how it might be improved and made more effective. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I reserve the rest of my time.

The Acting Speaker: The member has reserved six minutes and 30 seconds.

Mr. Villeneuve: I rise to participate in the debate on Bill 190, a bill which, in my opinion, must not be the thin edge of the wedge which may ban outright the use of animals for research. I think it is of concern to a great many people, as was suggested by the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman), who is sponsoring this bill.

However, I have to quote from a very credible organization, the University of Western Ontario Health Science Centre. I believe it has some concerns to be brought to this debate and I will be quoting in part from correspondence recently received from that university.

“The letter that Mr. Wildman has circulated is a classical hallmark of the animal activists, and we suspect that they are the ones who wrote the letter for Mr. Wildman. It has a great number of ill-informed and grossly exaggerated statements.

“For instance, where did the figure of ‘200,000 animals’ come from, ‘subjected to immense suffering’? There are only about four businesses, to our knowledge, in Ontario involved and they generally function under federal contract and by federal requirement. Not much cosmetic and household-product testing is done in Canada. The number of animals, species not specified, bears no relation to the facts.

“The Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food and the Canadian Council on Animal Care carries out inspections and would not permit ‘immense suffering’ as stated in the correspondence.

“The intent of the act, Bill 190, is to prohibit the use of animals in the two specified tests, irritancy and toxicity, and similar other tests which are not specified, and this is alarming to the university. The testing is done to ensure public safety. Thousands of children swallow cosmetics and household products every year. The paint used on toys, etc., must be tested for safety. The consequences are very much medical. If such a bill is passed, it would create chaos in relation to federal law. Companies would not be covered and would move to Quebec or the United States.”

That is an observation by a very credible organization, the University of Western Ontario.

There are many reasons animals are needed in research and medicine and why animals cannot be replaced by tissue culture or computers. I will quote here again from a University of Western Ontario booklet, Why Do Animal Research?

“The benefits which animal research have brought to mankind are astounding. The extension of the average human lifespan from 45 years at the turn of the century to 70-plus now is largely due to research done with animals. Some of the countless examples of how research involving animals has enabled millions of people to live longer, healthier and happier lives include the production of insulin, penicillin, polio vaccine, smallpox vaccine, cortizone, etc.

Short of experiments on humans themselves, animals offer the best hope for finding the cause and treatment and cure or the prevention of diseases such as cancer, Alzheimer’s, AIDS, multiple sclerosis, cystic fibrosis and muscular dystrophy. We must make sure that this is not the thin edge of the wedge.

“Tests on research animals are necessary to test chemicals being developed for use in agriculture. Such testing will have to continue and is necessary as long as consumers,” and we are all consumers, “insist on cheap food policies from their government and from agriculture. Cows, hogs, sheep, poultry are not the only animals used in agriculture; mice, rats, chickens, fish and ducks are used as test animals for basic agricultural research and for product development and to establish the various toxicity levels.

“The reality prompts the following questions: What are these test animals used for? Is it right to use animals in this way? Can the number of experimental animals be reduced by developing alternative testing procedures? Our opinions about the animal rights issue affects the way we think about animal testing.” There is a great deal of emotion attached to some of the statements that come from this organization. Toxicity tests are required for many commercial products used in agriculture. Before such a product is allowed to be marketed, Agriculture Canada, Environment Canada and Health and Welfare Canada have to review applications for permission to market.

“Products are tested for toxicity -- the ability to kill animals -- on mice, rats, ducks and fish. The product may also be tested for irritability on rabbits, on goat skin, etc. A company that produces herbicides carries out these tests or the company contracts out the testing to an appropriate firm.” Test results are supplied to and reviewed by the government agencies mentioned above.

Herbicides may also be tested by government labs in order to establish the ability to cause harmful changes in the genetic material of organisms. We use products and we want to be able to say that they are safe for both animal and man. Large animals such as cattle can also be used as test animals, of course. Recently, this became a matter of concern in Alberta where beef cattle were force-fed crude oil in order to test the ability of cattle to withstand exposure to oil in oilfield areas. Dr.

Stephen Threlkeld at McMaster University in Hamilton condemned the experiments as impractical and inhumane, but we still have to know what would happen should we have the misfortune of having livestock contaminated in an oil well area.

Alternatives to the rabbit eye test, the test for irritation by chemicals, are being developed. These must be looked into. We always are concerned, particularly in the field of agriculture, that animal rights activists, who are very prominent in our society, make very emotional statements. This always creates a lot of nervousness in the agricultural community, not only affecting farmers directly but affecting the products that they use -- the herbicides, pesticides, fertilizers and some of the medication that must be used to keep a herd of animals or whatever, livestock or domestic animals which are being used in the production of income.

The type of test that most people object to, that is the use of research animals by cosmetic companies, seems to account for a very small portion of research testing on animals. A November 1985

article in the Economist, for example, found that in England only one half of one per cent of research animals were tested for cosmetic and toiletry companies.

The two tests mentioned in Bill 190, the Draize eye-irritancy test and the classical LD 50 acute toxicity test, came under criticism in the United States as far back as 1981. The US Food and Drug Administration had dropped requirements for LD 50 data for virtually all cosmetic and drug products. The Environmental Protection Agency also dropped its LD 50 requirements in favour of new acute toxicity testing guidelines.

Companies such as Du Pont, Dow Chemical, Avon, Colgate-Palmolive, Procter and Gamble, Union Carbide and many others have all adopted new testing procedures which either utilize fewer animals or which have replaced tests on mammals with tests on lower-order life forms such as earthworms. We just wonder what animal rights activists would say, indeed, if testing were to be done on earthworms as opposed to some of the testing that is done now. These steps represent clear progress, but are still unacceptable to many animal rights activist groups.

Traditional supporters of animal welfare will support this bill, but it will probably not have the support of the real radical animal rights activist groups.

I, as a farmer, one who lives from the land, am very concerned about this bill, and as I said before the very real possibility that it is the thin edge of the wedge. I believe that if this bill does proceed successfully today, it should go to a committee where we could have a clearing of the air.

The facts have to be set straight. I think emotions can only go so far. We have to bring forth the facts, both from those who are concerned -- and I believe that is everyone -- and those who are doing the testing and providing us with the materials, particularly as agriculturalists and as humanitarians -- there should be assurance that the tests are indeed done in a humane fashion.

Mr. McGuigan: If this bill is passed, it will prohibit the use of animals for consumer product testing. I just want to point out that among the consumer products are the products that keep our households clean and free from rats, mice, cockroaches and a whole host of biological items that prey upon and live with man. Of course, the people who use these and the children who live in those houses need to have animal tests to prove safety.

Under present federal regulations, manufacturers of cosmetics and household consumer products are required to prove that products are safe when used as directed, and in some instances this requires animal testing. However, cosmetics that use formulas and ingredients that have been used for many years are not tested.

I would like to say at the outset, just to lay it out, that as part of the hazardous material standards, the workplace hazardous materials information system repeatedly refers to the use of the LD 50 and the LC 50 tests for assessing the toxicity of chemicals to which workers will be exposed. Here we are talking about the hundreds of thousands of workers in this province who work with chemicals. Those chemicals must be tested and, unfortunately, they must be tested on animals.

Mr. Philip: Why?

Mr. McGuigan: To prove their safety.

The member’s presentation surrounding this bill contains flaws and errors which require clarification and further study. The member for Algoma claims that each year in laboratories across Canada, and particularly in Ontario, 200,000 animals are subjected to immense suffering when used to test cosmetics and household products.

Ontario veterinary inspectors maintain that registered research facilities in this province use less than 300 rabbits per year for skin irritancy and eye tests. About 1,700 rats and some rabbits are used for acute oral and skin toxicity tests on consumer products. It is obvious then that Ontario is not a major contributor to the member’s claim of 200,000 animals.

The member also maintains that testing of bleach is conducted by introducing the substance into the eyes of animals. Veterinarians responsible for inspecting facilities under the Animals for Research Act have never seen or heard of such tests conducted in Ontario. They consider this notion ridiculous, as a simple litmus paper check will confirm the harmful properties of bleach, without using such a substance on animals.

Quite a few years ago, the child of a neighbour of mine drank some bleach. I meet this person and he is still carrying the bad effects of it.

If the irritancy of a product such as baby shampoo or fabric softener cannot be classified as safe or as harmful through a nonanimal test, an animal may be used to determine a product’s safety for consumer use. If the testing of such a product calls for an eye-irritancy test, local or general anaesthetics are required to prevent unnecessary pain when there is a risk of eye tissue damage.

The member has focused on the Draize irritancy test, the classical LD 50 test and other similar tests. The bill is ambiguous on other similar tests and its description of the tests to be prohibited. This ambiguity must be cleared up. Moreover, the classic LD 50 test is not done frequently in Ontario. In a majority of cases alternatives are used, such as the repeated-dose oral toxicity test. This test requires fewer animals, causes less mortality and provides more information.

The nature of consumer products which can no longer be safely tested within this bill require more thought and definition. I am concerned that the term “consumer products” when used in this bill goes beyond cosmetics and everyday products to encompass preventive products such as sun blocks for sunburn and skin cancer. These are tested and can be classified as consumer products.

While I am in agreement with the principle of this bill, that is that we should not unnecessarily cause any pain or suffering to animals, its present form is unworkable, as the federal government and the courts have not yet accepted nonanimal testing alternatives. The Minister of National Health and Welfare, the Honourable Jake Epp, has stated that there is no alternative to the LD 50 test for toxicity assessment and that this test must continue in use until such time as an alternative can be found.

The chlorioalantic test using egg yolks to test the irritancy of products on tissue is still deficient in that it does not show the varying degrees of irritation. It simply shows irritation or nonirritation. Furthermore, the egg yolk test does not demonstrate healing. Once the egg yolk tissue is damaged it cannot heal.

Any information is important should there be a human accident with a substance. It is not possible to totally abandon the testing procedure involving animals in favour of nonanimal procedures until it is demonstrated that the latter produce results that are at least as reliable as those obtained from animals.

As part of the hazardous material standards, the workplace hazardous materials information system repeatedly refers to the use of the LD 50 or LC 50 test for assessing the toxicity of materials to which workers will be exposed.

The Minister of National Health and Welfare has also made it clear that the Draize eye irritancy test, for which there is no present alternative, is essential to determine the hazards to human eyesight which are posed by commonly used materials at home or in the workplace. How can we endorse legislation requiring such testing and then make it difficult, if not impossible, to carry out the tests in Ontario?

Alternatives are not sufficiently developed to replace animal testing. It will have to be phased in as progress is made. It is my understanding that the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Riddell) has asked his staff to work on a strategy to encourage the development, acceptance and use of nonanimal alternatives for testing.

Mr. Philip: Another study. You guys should apply for Ontario student assistance program grants. You do more studies than university graduates do.

Mr. McGuigan: That is why we do the proper thing. There is a chair at the University of Guelph designated to advance quality care of animals. The care of all research animals in Ontario is inspected by veterinarians under the Animals for Research Act. It is the only comprehensive animal care legislation for research animals in Canada.

An Act to amend the Animals for Research Act contains too many ambiguities in its wording that might prove detrimental to veterinary, scientific and beneficial product advancements.

Just on a personal note, I graduated from the Ontario Agricultural College in 1946, a time when a great many of these chemicals were coming on the market. I remember reading shortly after about a group of workers in one of the southern states who did not return from the tobacco field when their work was done in the evening. They sent out to find out what had happened. They were all dead, about 12 of them. They were all dead because they were using a product that had been recently put on the market.

I do not know whether the proper tests had not been conducted or whether the workers simply had not been given the proper instructions about using the chemical, but it was an indication -- I raise this as an extreme example -- of what can happen when we do not have proper testing and we do not have proper information. We cannot get that information to give out to people until the testing is done. Unfortunately, in some cases it does require some sort of animal involvement.

We have only a few seconds left, so I will relinquish the floor.

Miss Martel: I am pleased to speak on behalf of my colleague the member for Algoma and in support of Bill 190,

An Act to amend the Animals for Research Act. I know there have been several concerns raised from both sides of the House about the issue. My colleague has reserved quite a bit of time for a response and I will allow him to do that.

I do want to say that I support the bill and I support its aims. The bill, which is the first of its kind in any jurisdiction in Canada, is designed to ban the use of animals in nonmedical testing. Currently, we all know that animals are employed in a wide range of experimental research involving psychological and medical research and testing of food additives, pesticides, tobacco, drugs, etc.

Bill 190 does not deal with medical or psychological research or any of the above that I have mentioned. Let me repeat, it does not involve any of the above. What it does is concerned solely with those animals that are now used in testing of cosmetic and household goods and products. The use of animals for such testing is cruel and unnecessary.

It is not acceptable that animals suffer so that a product, in terms of cosmetics which are neither vital nor necessary, may be produced. Cosmetic and household product testing is a far cry from testing for medical or pharmaceutical research. Surely the former cannot be sanctioned merely to satisfy some notion of vanity, especially when alternatives to animal testing do exist.

Bill 190 proposes to prohibit the use of animals in nonmedical experimentation involving the Draize eye-irritancy test or the classical LD 50 acute toxicity test and similar tests. Note that these are tests used for cosmetic and household products and not for medical research.

In Draize or similar eye-irritancy tests rabbits are used because the structure of their tear ducts means that they cannot rid themselves of substances in the eye. Products such as shampoos or hair sprays are tested by dripping or spraying them into the eyes of conscious rabbits which are restrained by stocks. This can continue for up to seven days to measure the amount of damage done to the eyes.

The reactions that laboratory employees are looking for include the degree of swelling and the amount of blood, pus and irritation that form. Blindness due to corneal damage often occurs. Throughout, the animal is often tightly restrained to prevent removal of the irritant. Palliative treatment is often nonexistent and attempts to minimize the pain of the animal are token at best.

In the second test, the LD 50 or toxicity test, substances are tested to see how potentially poisonous they might prove to be. A group of animals is force-fed large quantities of a substance, such as lipstick or floor polish, until at least 50 per cent of the chosen group perish. If all of the animals die in the first test, the test is repeated with lesser doses of the materials being used each time on a new batch of animals until just 50 per cent perish.

It is estimated that 200,000 animals are used each year in Canada to test these products. There have been suggestions on both sides, from the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry (Mr. Villeneuve) and the member for Essex-Kent (Mr. McGuigan), that the number 200,000 is not correct. Let me explain where that figure comes from.

In 1980, Dr. John Gilman from the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies did a survey of 204 separate Canadian institutions that did testing using animals. Of those, 144 or 70 per cent responded. That included 71 of about 84 government agencies; 50 per cent of industrial labs or laboratories also replied. The total number, in terms of animals being used by the group that did reply, was 212,727 animals utilized for testing. I must say that, even though the survey was done in 1980, I would not think that the number of animals used in testing has decreased since then, given the proliferation of both cosmetic and household products on the market now.

The member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry mentioned that there were only four firms in Ontario that were using testing of animals for cosmetic and household purposes. The member for Algoma has pointed out to me that the executive director of the Canadian Council on Animal Care, Harry Rosell, has said there are at least 15 firms in Ontario that use animals for cosmetic and household testing. There are 23 across Canada.

The question remains why these tests are used. Cosmetic and household companies which use animal testing, for example, Avon, Procter and Gamble, Lever Bros. and Gillette, just to name a few, state that human safety is their prime concern. They want to ensure two things: first, that their customers can use products without any harmful side-effects; second, that workers in their factories are safe when they handle ingredients and products in large quantities. Industry officials claim that the most effective way of meeting these concerns and of complying with safety regulations is to test on animals.

The facts remain, however. First, neither the federal nor the provincial governments in this country require these tests. Government officials require only that manufacturers introduce products that are considered safe for public use. They do not specify the tests that have to be used to ensure safety. Second, the real reason that companies conduct these tests is to protect themselves from possible consumer liability suits. Proof of that is that many of the products that are tested, such as septic tank cleaner and oven cleaners, have been tested previously and are known to be toxic.

Companies, however, can redo the tests so that they can be used as a fallback position in a court of law if necessary.

But now it also seems that some courts are no longer accepting these tests. Over the past year, when companies have produced the test results in United States courts, the judges have thrown the evidence out of court, ruling that it is impossible to extrapolate from results on animals to humans.

There are alternatives that can be used to avoid animal testing. To begin with, companies can use what is known as “GRAS ingredients,” that is, those that are generally recognized as safe. They include ingredients which have already been tested before through continuous human use or ingredients that are derived from plants and vegetables, which have been used for a long time without ill effect. The Body Shop, for example, particularly uses honey, beeswax or almond oil in all of its products.

Other tests which do not involve animal testing are also being perfected at this time. The Food and Drug Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Consumer Product Safety Association have accepted some of these tests as of September 1988. These include bacterial testing -- in vitro tests are used where, instead of testing on a live animal, cells are taken from an animal and preserved in a cultural dish for future testing -- and the use of computer analysis. Data about a substance can be fed into a computer to predict how it will behave when it is combined with other chemical substances and used on human skin.

Companies continue to test their products on animals because they believe this will protect them from any possible lawsuit. Industries are slow to adopt alternatives to animal testing because officials have no incentive, whether financial or otherwise, to do so.

The process of switching from animal testing to alternatives will cost money, but implementing alternative tests in the long run is going to save industry money. One company, the National Testing Corp. of Palm Springs in California, has claimed that it can test three concentrations of a chemical for $99.50, compared to a cost of more than $1,000 for a Draize test of similar scope.

I believe change to alternative testing is inevitable but, as legislators in this province, we have an opportunity to accelerate the process to avoid unnecessary suffering of animals and rid the province of this practice.

The public wants animal testing to stop. In an Environics survey conducted for the Toronto Humane Society, two thirds of Ontarians surveyed indicated they would support a law to ban the use of animals for cosmetic and household testing. In a survey released by Cosmopolitan magazine in January 1987, 98 per cent of those who responded replied they were against the use of animals to test cosmetics.

As mentioned earlier, my colleague the member for Algoma tabled a petition with 20,000 signatures on it in this House last Thursday. I think that ought to be evidence enough of how the public would like to see this House act today.

Other jurisdictions, such as Australia and Germany, have already passed laws to stop the use of animals in product testing. Legislation on testing is also being debated in Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, California, Pennsylvania and Massachusetts, and there are two bills in the American Congress at present.

It is something to consider that, of the 23 Canadian commercial facilities which engage in animal testing for cosmetic and household products, 15 are located in Ontario. Is it not about time that we in Ontario took the lead in this issue?

Please consider what we have heard today: the cruelty of the tests involved, the lack of the need for them and the alternatives that are being presented. Also consider what the public has had to say on this issue.

We have a chance to implement changes that the public is in favour of and that companies are slowly moving forward to. I hope that everyone in this House will consider supporting Bill 190 so that it can go into committee where a more fruitful discussion on all of the alternatives and the entire situation can take place.

Mrs. Marland: In rising this morning to speak to Bill 190,

An Act to amend the Animals for Research Act, I want to reconfirm for the record the explanatory note of this bill. The purpose of the bill is to prohibit the use of animals in nonmedical experimentation involving the Draize eye-irritancy test, the classical LD 50 acute toxicity test and similar tests.

As the mother of a child who died of leukaemia, I think I understand as well as anyone the necessity for medical research and the necessity to use animals in medical research. I want to make it very clear that I am not standing here this morning with any remote suggestion of support for this bill based on the use of animals in medical research. I support the necessity for the use of animals in medical research.

What this bill is addressing is the unnecessary use of animals in nonmedical experiments. The bill is not even general in its terms. The bill has specified two particular nonmedical experiments. In fairness to the public, it is important to put on the record exactly what those nonmedical experiments are.

One of the experiments referred to in the bill is the Draize eye-irritancy test. I would like to quote from a doctor of veterinary medicine by the name of Michael Irving:

“The Draize test has long been used in research as an indicator of the tissue irritancy of a chemical or combination of chemicals. It is performed by applying various concentrations of a product into one eye of the research animal, usually a rabbit, while using the other eye as the normal control. These animals are restrained and observed for 48 hours after this application. Because of the lack of similarities between the eyes of rabbits and humans and the subjective nature of qualitative analysis, this test has been refuted both medically and legally for years. Moreover, it is not required by law for the final marketing of any nonmedical product in both Canada and the United States.

“Furthermore, with recent technological advancements, there are multiple humane alternatives: the CAM test, cell cultures, Epi-packs and computer modelling software. The CAM test utilizes the outer membrane of the chicken egg without pain, at lower cost and with equal or greater accuracy. Epi-packs have been developed by tissue culturing animal and man and exhibit excellent parallels to previous animal tests. Health Designs Inc. has also developed a computer software package, Top Cat, that can extrapolate results as an alternative to both the Draize and the LD 50 research.”

That is an opinion of a doctor of veterinary medicine.

I also want to read into the record a letter from the Honourable Jake Epp, who is the Minister of National Health and Welfare:

“There is no requirement for premarket approval of cosmetics by the health protection branch. In order to sell such a product, it is sufficient for a manufacturer to have data available to him which shows his product to be safe when used as directed. This policy is based on the knowledge that materials commonly used in cosmetics have been tested extensively in the past and have been shown to be nontoxic. Thus, manufacturers of ‘pain-free’ cosmetics are simply saying that they have not tested the ingredients in their products. lean, however, assure you that they have previously been tested elsewhere.”

I think if the Minister of National Health and Welfare is saying that premarket approval of cosmetics by the health protection branch of this country is not a requirement, either we do not feel secure in the policies of the Department of National Health and Welfare or we accept the knowledge of the people within that ministry. I would suggest with respect that if the health protection branch of any department of the federal government is saying that there is no requirement for this kind of testing then who are we to argue?

It certainly goes without saying that the people in that federal department are people with all kinds of background and experience and medical and nonmedical scientific qualifications.

I know we cannot avoid having people on both sides of any issue, but I do rather wonder if this debate would be the way it is if perhaps we were talking about using thoroughbred horses for testing instead of mere rabbits in some cases. If we were to use purebred dogs or a very valuable species of any highly bred animal, either domestic or otherwise, I wonder whether in fact we would think that it was okay.

Are we saying that it is okay to use dogs, eats and rabbits because they are not thoroughbreds? Are we saying we use animals based on their ability to understand the experience they are being subjected to? Are we saying we would not use thoroughbred horses and precious and valuable animals of any species because they have a higher intellect? I did hear a reference this morning suggesting we might next want to protect earthworms. I must say I did take rather strong exception to that suggestion.

I think that when we are debating something, we had better be sure that we are debating what is before us. At the beginning of my comments this morning, I read what was before us in this private member’s bill. We are talking about a very specific area of nonmedical experimentation. We are talking about a very specific area of testing for some very specific reasons. I would not be standing here suggesting that I would support this bill if there were not alternatives. What I am suggesting is that where that kind of testing is necessary there is an alternative, and where there is an alternative it behooves all of us to be responsible enough to make sure that it is used.

I hope the members of the Legislature this morning will support this bill in its context, which is for nonmedical experimentation on animals.

Mr. Speaker: In view of the time reserved by the member for Algoma, there are approximately two minutes.

Mr. Mahoney: I understand the member for Algoma would like about four minutes to wrap up at the end, so I will try to work within that time frame.

It is interesting this morning that this is a unique opportunity for me, because I have had many chances to rise in this House following the member for Mississauga South (Mrs. Marland).

Today, I rise in substantial agreement with many of the comments that were made. It is a shock to many members perhaps, but there are issues that come along once in a while that are not clearly black and white, that are not simple, whether we are talking about capital punishment, on which side of the line we want to stand, or the abortion issue. This issue, frankly, is an issue that belongs in that category. As individuals elected to represent the people of this province and our own constituencies, there comes a time when we have to decide where we are going to draw that line and which side of that line we are going to stand on.

I understand the arguments from the farming community. I understand the agricultural people who say this testing is necessary. They feel it is pragmatic and should be done. I tried to listen with a certain amount of understanding and sympathy, perhaps relating to their background. But again I say, in the 1980s and 1990s, do we really need to subject other living beings to such incredible tests to determine whether or not it is safe to use a certain kind of mascara or lipstick or furniture polish? I find it barbaric.

The member for Mississauga South referred to a couple of tests; I also understand they have not been adopted by the federal government yet, but at least they are tests. Perhaps we need to work more towards refining those tests and coming up with something the federal government could accept. I do not think the fact that we would be out of step with the federal government and its recommendations should bother this House.

In fact, we could show leadership in this area and try to work with the federal government and other jurisdictions to encourage them to accept other tests, and we could work with the technological industries to come up with better ways of testing, be they through computer-aided facilities or whatever.

I find, in the short time I have, that I have difficulty dealing with extremes on either side of this particular issue: the extreme of some of the animal rights groups who say, “Don’t test for any reasons,” and I quite agree with the previous speaker that we must test for medical purposes. In fact, one of the reasons I am able to support this bill is that by implication it clearly supports testing for medical reasons because it clearly says that it is only in the area of cosmetic and household products that this testing should be banned.

The other argument about its being the thin edge of the wedge is exactly the opposite. In fact, instead of being the thin edge of the wedge to lead to further banning of testing for medical purposes, it clearly excludes that sector of the testing industry, the scientific community. I think it serves the opposite purpose.

Let me just say that even though I do support this bill, normally I have found that policies and philosophies coming from the opposition party are somewhat ideological and based on emotionalism rather than coming from a pragmatic point of view, but I think this bill is very pragmatic and I congratulate the member for taking what I consider to be a very liberal, middle-of-the-road, understanding position on this issue.

Mr. Wildman: I thank all members for participating in the debate, particularly the member for Mississauga West (Mr. Mahoney), the member for Mississauga South and the member for Sudbury East (Miss Martel) as well as the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry and the member for Essex-Kent.

The member for Mississauga South explained very well the purpose of the bill and I appreciate her support, particularly in relation to her personal concerns about the medically necessary testing.

The member for Sudbury East explained exactly how many tests were found in the 1980 survey to be done on animals by 70 per cent of the institutions that responded in Canada to that survey. We do know now that there are many more than four firms, as was suggested.

I want to emphasize that I can understand some of the concerns of members of the farming community that have been expressed this morning, but I reiterate that this bill does not touch anything related to farming or to the kinds of studies being done which are related in any way to human health and the health of food products. Those are not touched by this bill at all.

We are dealing with cosmetic products and household products. If this bill passes second reading, as I hope it will, it is my intention to request that the bill go to the standing committee on resources development for debate and for hearings so that it can be amended to resolve some of the ambiguities some of the members have found in the wording of the bill to make it clear that it is for nonmedical experimentation. It is not designed in any way to inhibit testing that will be done to assure that human disease is ameliorated.

Now that the members have heard the debate, I hope their concerns will have been allayed, particularly by the members for Sudbury East and Mississauga South, so that they will now find it possible to vote for second reading, so that we can send this to committee for hearings and amendment, so that we can be one of the first jurisdictions in North America to ensure that we do not impose suffering, pain and death unnecessarily on other species in our jurisdiction on this planet.

Mr. Speaker: I believe that completes the allotted time for private members’ public business. It is so close to 12 o’clock, we will deal first with Mr. Epp’s motion for second reading of Bill 181,

An Act to amend the Legislative Assembly Act.

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Epp has moved second reading of Bill 181.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: So this bill goes to committee of the whole House?

Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, I understand the three party leaders and the whips are in full concurrence with this bill and I ask for unanimous consent that it be ordered for third reading.

Mr. Speaker: The standing order certainly states that a private bill shall go to committee of the whole House unless the majority wishes it to go out to committee. However, you have asked for unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent that this stand in Orders and Notices for third reading?

Agreed to.

Bill ordered for third reading.

ANIMALS FOR RESEARCH AMENDMENT ACT

The House divided on Mr. Wildman’s motion for second reading of Bill 190, which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes

Farnan, Faubert, Hampton, Henderson, Johnson, J. M., Johnston, R. F., Kormos, Laughren, LeBourdais, Mackenzie, Mahoney, Marland, Martel, Miclash, Morn-Strom, Nixon, J. B., Offer, Philip, E., Ray, M. C., Reville, Runciman, Ruprecht, Velshi, Wildman.

Nays

Adams, Ballinger, Bossy, Brown, Campbell, Cleary, Collins, Cunningham, Daigeler, Elliot, Epp, Fawcett, Fleet, Leone, Lipsett, Lupusella, McCague, McGuigan, Miller, Neumann, Oddie Munro, Pelissero, Poole, Reycraft, Roberts, Smith, D. W., Sola, Sterling, Sullivan, Wilson.

Ayes 33; nays 30.

Bill ordered for standing committee on resources development.

The House recessed at 12:10 p.m.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1:30 p.m.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

LEAD IN DRINKING WATER

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Lead is a highly toxic substance that can affect the human nervous system at extremely low levels. Concerns over lead exposure were recently highlighted when levels of lead in the drinking water at several elementary schools in Ontario were found to grossly exceed the federal guideline.

At that time, the leader of my party and the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore (Mrs. Grier) asked questions of the Minister of Housing (Ms. Hošek) about the use of the lead solder and the banning of the substance under the Ontario Building Code. The minister announced the ban in response to our questions. That was on November 29.

The minister said, in part: “...this whole area has been out for discussion to the concerned groups, including environmental groups, since August. None of them have raised this issue of safety.” We wondered just who these environmental groups were, so we contacted the Canadian Environmental Law Association, a leading group on lead problems, and they had never been consulted.

We contacted the buildings branch of the Ministry of Housing to see which environmental groups had been consulted. The answer was -- just hold your breath now – “the Ministry of the Environment.” We would like to set the record straight for the benefit of this House and for the public. The Ministry of the Environment is not an environmental group. We would be happy to provide the Minister of Housing with a complete list of the real environmental groups in Ontario which could have helped her on the issue of lead in the buildings of this province, had she asked. It seems her only contact is the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley).

ABANDONED URANIUM MINES

Mr. Pollock: The subject of decommissioning the Madawaska Mines has been raised in this Legislature once before. It was to be terminated on November 30. It has not been terminated as of yet. The question still remains: Who is responsible for these abandoned mine sites?

Whether the Madawaska Mines is decommissioned or not, it at least has a gate across the entrance and keeps out the general public. There are two other abandoned mines in the area, Dyno and Bicroft. The public have open access to these uranium mine tailings and occasionally have the odd beer party on them and trespass on the site. What the immediate danger or long-term danger is, no one seems to know. Neither the federal nor the provincial government is accepting responsibility.

In a letter to the reeve of the municipality, Marcel Masse, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, stated that: The question of jurisdiction is a complex one and has not yet been fully resolved. This should be addressed before decommissioning takes place.

In the case of the Madawaska Mines uranium tailings, there is no grass over these particular tailings, and the wind blows them around. This will have to be addressed.

HUMAN RIGHTS

Mr. D. R. Cooke: This year marks the 40th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights proclaimed by the governments in the United Nations. It offers a vision of a world without injustice, without discrimination and without cruelty, but that promise has not been fully kept. Not only are the basic rights to food, housing and security denied to millions, but in some countries people are jailed for their beliefs, tortured or killed. Often, even these people who speak up peacefully in the defence of human rights become victims themselves. They suffer years in prison or are abducted and never seen again.

These abuses create a climate of fear. They are an affront to human dignity, and they must be stopped. Working towards that end is Amnesty International, a worldwide movement of people trying to ensure wider respect for the fundamental rights proclaimed by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Their petition has been translated into 58 languages, and copies have been sent to nearly every country in the world.

At 10 am. this morning at the United Nations headquarters in New York, more than 2,700,000 signatures from 120 countries were presented on petitions calling for urgent action to protect human rights throughout the world. Nearly 250,000 of those signatories are Canadians.

Group 71, one of four Amnesty International branches in the Kitchener area, contributed a significant number of signatures to those petitions and should be congratulated on its commitment to ensuring justice for all.

NORTHERN SUPPORT GRANTS

Mr. Hampton: When the auditor released his report, he mentioned on page 107 the need to re-examine northern support grants. It is a revealing statement. He says, “The northern support grant was established...to reduce property taxes below the levels prevailing in the rest of Ontario.” He makes the note, after some other comments, that he feels that perhaps the northern support grant is too large and gives too much benefit to communities in northern Ontario, and he makes some comparisons, specifically using the communities of North Bay and Thunder Bay in terms of housing prices.

I want to say to the House that I would be quite willing to take the auditor and his staff on a tour of what I consider to be at least part of northwestern Ontario so that the auditor’s staff might understand how usefully these northern support grants are put to work.

For instance, we would go to Ear Falls, where the mines have closed and there is a large degree of unemployment; or Atikokan, where the mines have closed and there is 25 per cent unemployment and the community has a great deal of trouble paying for its municipal infrastructure; or Ignace, where the mines have closed, throwing 200 people out of work, and the town must now find the money to pay for a municipal sewage system that was built some 15 years ago; or Rainy River, where the railroads have left; or Nakina, where the railroad has left; or Longlac or Geraldton -- many of the communities in northern Ontario that need these municipal grants.

EASTERN ONTARIO

Mr. Villeneuve: The Liberal government has ignored eastern Ontario for the last three years, drastically and dreadfully. From school and health unit funding to funding for conservation authorities, there has been nothing but neglect. Even the provincial government’s own operations have been scaled down.

One example is at the G. Howard Ferguson Tree Nursery, where employees of many years have been let go. At the time, the government pretended that these staff were not necessary and that their work could be done on a less regular basis. The facts, of course, are completely different. At this time, entire varieties of nursery stock are no longer available from the nursery for 1989 transplanting in eastern Ontario.

This coming Monday, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. Kwinter) plans to announce the government’s new initiative for economic development in eastern Ontario. It is difficult to take the Liberal government seriously when it talks about economic development in the region at the same time that the region is neglected in the government’s own operations.

Some members in this House will remember that it was the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party that began moving government operations eastward towards Kingston, and that is where eastern Ontario starts. However, the Cornwall area, in particular, has been neglected by this government. While the federal government has Parks Canada and the Department of Transport training institute at Cornwall, there is no comparable provincial presence.

If this government is serious about bringing growth to eastern Ontario, it should do so in a real and effective way.

ROBERT FOSTER

Mr. Kozyra: It is with great pleasure that I rise to pay tribute today to a new Rhodes scholar from Thunder Bay.

As members may be aware, the prestigious two-year award, now worth approximately $25,000, was established by the British colonizer Cecil Rhodes to honour scholars for academic, humanitarian and athletic endeavours, as well as strong personal character traits.

Robert Foster, age 23, of Thunder Bay, is an outstanding young man. Presently a fourth-year student at Lakehead University, he will be taking his masters degree in zoology at Oxford, England. No stranger to awards, Robert Foster last year was the first Lakehead University student selected to attend the Annual Conference of World University Services. He also spent six weeks in an intensive program in Mali, northwestern Africa, researching Third World development projects.

I am certain that the members of this assembly will join me in extending congratulations to Robert Foster and his parents, Joan and Brian. Robert Foster’s selection as one of only two in Ontario and one of 11 for all of Canada makes all of us justifiably proud.

HOSPITAL SERVICES

Mr. Farnan: As the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan) will be aware, I have called for public hearings into the closure of outpatient laboratory services in Cambridge. These hearings were to take place next Monday evening.

The closure of the outpatient laboratory services have caused considerable concern to all of the residents of Cambridge, particularly those who make use of this service on a regular basis.

Today I am making a plea to the minister to direct that these services be reinstated in full to the residents of Cambridge, and to make these hearings redundant. It certainly would be a sign to the people of Cambridge that the minister is listening and I would ask that she take appropriate action.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

TEMAGAMI DISTRICT RESOURCES

Hon. Mr. Scott: This morning the Court of Appeal for Ontario considered the government’s application for an injunction regarding the blockade of the Red Squirrel Road extension and the threatened blockade of the Goulard Road extension. All parties were represented by counsel and argued their positions.

The Court of Appeal has adjourned the application to be dealt with immediately after the hearing of the appeal of the Teme-Augama Anishnabai from the judgement of the Supreme Court of Ontario dismissing their land claim, which appeal commences January 9, 1989.

The adjournment was granted by the court on the following terms:

I. The court ordered that the defendants be restrained from doing anything to interfere with or impede surveying or other preliminary matters related to the construction of extensions of the Goulard or Red Squirrel roads.

2. The court ordered that the defendants cease blockading the site of the proposed extension of the Red Squirrel Road.

3. The court ordered that no other work be undertaken on the road extensions until the motion is heard, other than the work referred to in paragraph 1, the surveying and other preparatory work.

HUMAN RIGHTS

Hon. Mr. Phillips: Saturday, December 10 of this year marks the 40th anniversary of the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It was on that day that the General Assembly of the United Nations passed a resolution -- the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. That declaration has become a strong force for human betterment in the world. It is a goal that is contained in the opening statement of that declaration which says, the “recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.”

On this special anniversary we can and should reflect on the advances that have been made in bringing us closer to true equality everywhere. But there is always more to be done. We cannot close our eyes to the fact that in certain places around this world there continue to be serious human rights abuses.

Canada is a charter member of the United Nations, and four decades ago our country’s representative cast our vote in favour of this universal declaration.

Here in Ontario, we can take pride in the fact that our province has played -- and continues to play -- a significant role in recognizing the importance of human rights. But we can never become complacent. We must all of us ensure that we maintain and enhance our commitment to human rights here in this province.

Human rights protection means much more than just a commitment to an abstract principle. It means individuals -- all of us -- taking steps to change our attitude and to change our behaviour, and it means that all of us must work together to bring about those changes throughout society.

I am pleased to inform the House that the Premier (Mr. Peterson) has declared December 10, 1988 Human Rights Day and the week of December 10-16 as Human Rights Week throughout Ontario. The observance of this week will encourage each of us to reflect on the fundamental right of all people in this province to be treated with dignity, justice and respect.

As we approach this 40th anniversary of the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, I would invite all members of this House to join me to mark the observation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. To commemorate this occasion, a plaque bearing the words of the declaration in the two official languages of Canada will be unveiled on Saturday in the foyer of the Macdonald Block. I would invite all members of the House to be present on that occasion.

COURT SYSTEM

Hon. Mr. Scott: There is widespread concern in the justice community and among the public about delays and backlogs in our criminal justice system, particularly for those who are out of detention pending trial. These delays are unacceptable to me, to the bench, to the bar, and, of course, to the public. Today, I am pleased to announce to the House that we have embarked upon a co-operative plan with the bench and bar to try to reduce these delays.

Members will recall that in his report on our court system, Mr. Justice Zuber recommended co-operative management as a means of dealing with some of the problems he identified. In the six communities in Ontario facing serious out-of-custody delay problems, my ministry, together with Chief Judge Hayes of the provincial court (criminal division), have established local delay reduction committees. These projects are now operating in Ottawa-Carleton, York region, Simcoe, Scarborough, Durham, and Peel.

The committees are composed of the senior criminal division judge, the court administrator and representatives of the crown attorney’s office, the defence bar and the Ontario legal aid plan. Together they will work at analysing the unique nature of the problem in their community and establish goals and timetables to reduce their backlog.

We are already, in a very short time, seeing some positive results. The Ottawa-Carleton committee, in less than two months, has taken steps to reduce the backlog in that area by at least two months.

We are also encouraged by the fact that this team approach has had positive results in other jurisdictions. We know from studies and experiments in these jurisdictions, particularly in the United States, that commitment to establishing and following a management plan can lead to results of major significance within a two-year period. We also know that there is clear evidence that court delays are not caused solely by a lack of resources. In fact, some of the evidence shows that adding extra resources without changing the case-flow management process does not cure but exacerbates the problems.

The work being done in these six communities will, I expect, provide us with valuable information that can be used in other parts of the province which have backlog problems.

I also believe there will be another benefit. I believe these delay reduction projects, which are bringing together, often for the first time, the key people involved in the administration of justice, will prove the wisdom of Mr. Justice Zuber’s recommendation with respect to co-operative management of the system. I am confident that the participation of the committee members will serve to alleviate court backlog and delays.

CORONER’S INQUEST

Hon. Mrs. Smith: As the members of this House are aware, a number of questions have been raised concerning the progress of the inquest into the death of Bernard Bastien on August 14 of this year. Members will recall that Mr. Bastien died as a result of a shooting incident involving an Ontario Provincial Police tactics and rescue unit in a case of mistaken identity.

Recently, counsel for the family of Mr. Bastien alleged bias on the part of the presiding coroner, Dr. R. D. MacKinlay, and has instituted proceedings in the Supreme Court of Ontario to prohibit the coroner from carrying on with the inquest and for the purpose of quashing the inquest proceedings to date.

I have recently been advised by the chief coroner of Ontario that Dr. MacKinlay has denied the allegations of bias made against him. Dr. MacKinlay has indicated his distress over the allegations and his concern that the integrity of this inquest and the inquest process generally not be seen to be compromised. Accordingly, Dr. MacKinlay has advised the chief coroner of his intention to relinquish his position as coroner at the Bastien inquest and to discharge the jury.

In light of this, Dr. Ross Bennett has advised me that a new inquest will be convened at an appropriate time.

Members of the House will be aware that the activities of the tactics and rescue unit of the Ontario Provincial Police involved in the death of Mr. Bastien have been subject to close public scrutiny during this inquest. The government is anxious to ensure these matters are examined in substantial depth and on a broader scope.

Therefore, I have asked the chairman of the Ontario Police Commission to conduct a hearing and review into all aspects of special police units such as tactics and rescue teams utilized by police forces in Ontario. The commission will provide as soon as possible a comprehensive report that will include recommendations respecting the need and rationale for and the training, operation and composition of such units or teams.

The Ontario Police Commission is an autonomous, quasi-judicial body enacted by statute. It has recently been reconstituted, and now it is the most appropriate body to conduct this review. I am assured that the process contemplated by the Ontario Police Commission will be an open and independent one, including a forum for public comment on these matters.

The hearing and review to be conducted by the Ontario Police Commission will ensure a thorough airing of the concerns that have been raised over these matters, and the public interest will be well served by this open process.

RESPONSES

CORONER’S INQUEST

Mr. B. Rae: There is much to comment on, and I would like to take this opportunity to say that we have many questions arising from statements that have been made today.

If I can say so in response to the Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith), just so she will have time to think about some answers, the critical question is: Is this inquiry that she is asking the Ontario Police Commission to begin, or the review she refers to, a public inquiry or is it a particular inquiry established under subsections 58(1), (2), (3), (4) and (5) of the Police Act?

If it is not, it is inadequate, because if she has not given the inquiry the capacity to subpoena witnesses, to cross-examine, to determine what has happened since the tactics and rescue units were established in 1975 and to inquire as well into all the events surrounding this tragic incident recently near Windsor, then she has failed in her responsibilities to get to the bottom of this question.

I did not see in her statement a clear indication as to whether or not this is in fact going to be that kind of inquiry, as my colleague the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. D. S. Cooke) and I asked in our letter to her, which is dated August 30 and which I am sure she received soon after we sent it.

We are determined to get to the bottom of this. I can tell the minister that our view is very strongly that it would be much more preferable to have a full public inquiry which would deal both with the particular incident in question and with the broader question of the use of TRUs. It would be easier to proceed by way of public inquiry to do that, and she would not have to have two separate reviews now ongoing at the same time.

It strikes me as unduly cumbersome and, frankly, unfair to put the family through two separate kinds of ordeals rather than simply to deal with one inquiry, where an independent person, independent of the police and independent of the government, would have an opportunity to look at all these questions. In our view, that would be far preferable to the route that has been taken.

I will be asking questions, and my colleague the member for Windsor-Riverside will be directing questions to her today to try to clear up exactly what it is she intends to do.

TEMAGAMI DISTRICT RESOURCES

Mr. B. Rae: With respect to the announcement made today by the Attorney General (Mr Scott) on the court decision, I do have a couple of words to say, and that is simply this: I think when the full history of the exchanges between the Attorney General and Chief Potts are known and are widely understood, we will see, frankly, how unwilling this government has been to go the extra mile to reach a final conclusion with the band on the question of the land settlement.

The Attorney General has not told the House, but I will tell the House, that in his correspondence with Chief Potts he said that the offer was a 90-day offer. It was an offer that was put on the table and then withdrawn at a date established unilaterally by the government.

Hon. Mr. Scott: We are prepared to negotiate today. We will meet today.

Mr. B. Rae: I will read the correspondence out, which is more than you have done.

Hon. Mr. Scott: I am telling you we will meet today.

Mr. B. Rae: I will read it out, which is more than you have done before this House in terms of precisely what your position has been.

I say to the Attorney General that when the day comes that the Attorney General of this province and the government of Ontario seek, in the middle of a very difficult negotiating process, to cut off that timetable and say, “Here’s our offer; take it or leave it”; when the Attorney General writes to Chief Potts and says, “We are not prepared to negotiate under any other principles than the ones we have established in our letter to you of September 1986,” that, I think, is an action that speaks of a government which is more interested in getting a cheap headline than in solving a problem, a government which is not interested in solving this question, which is not interested in dealing with the question of environmental rights and which has simply come down on the side of the lumber companies, whose interests could far better be served by a government willing to take on other interests in seeing that they get a fair timber allocation.

CORONER’S INQUEST

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I was hoping that the minister’s statement today would clear up this matter on the Bernard Bastien tragedy; however, her statement has not answered all the questions.

I am not sure, as my leader has said, whether she has called an inquiry under

section 58 of the Police Act. If the minister has not, I would say that the last six weeks have been difficult not only for our community but also for the Bastien family and that I cannot understand why the minister would reappoint another coroner’s inquest today after what has happened in the last several weeks: $600,000 of taxpayers’ money and the anguish that this family has been going through day after day after day.

We deserve better in this community and in this province, and I hope that this inquiry has been under

section 58.

COURT SYSTEM

Mr. Sterling: I would like to respond to the Attorney General’s statement with regard to his project to reduce trial delays.

In this province today there are 35,000 cases to be heard with regard to trial for impaired driving charges across this province, and that has resulted from the fact that this ministry, this minister and this government have paid little attention to the administration of justice in our province.

In the area of Ottawa-Carleton, I believe that there are the same number of provincial court judges, criminal division, as there were in 1970 and 1971. The morale of the bench is low, or was low as recently as I talked to them. There are a number of judges who have retired over the past few months, and it seems that there are more and more judges considering retirement because there never seems to be an end to t