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

June 3, 1991

35th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

EASTERN ONTARIO

Mr Cleary: Under the former government, the Ontario Development Corp was a key player in job creation and regional development. However, it is clear that the decision of the new Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology to eliminate the interest incentives for loans and guarantees to Ontario's businesses will counter this basic goal.

In these exceptionally trying times of high unemployment and a depressed general economy, the extermination of incentives will undoubtedly create undue hardship for businesses and technological entrepreneurs alike who previously relied on this assistance. Specifically, it seems unfathomable that the minister would eliminate interest incentives for Eastern Ontario Development Corp loans and guarantees.

I remind the minister that eastern Ontario does not have alternative support structures available to other parts of the province. In addition, eastern Ontario must compete with Quebec and the northeastern parts of the United States where various incentives already outweigh any advantages eastern Ontario may have had.

Clearly the minister is discouraging small business formation in eastern Ontario. I insist that eastern Ontario be allowed a level playing field. The minister must reinstate the EODC interest-free incentive loans.

TAX INCREASES

Mr Stockwell: Last Thursday and Friday, the Mike Harris task force on the Ontario budget continued its hectic

schedule across the province listening to the concerns of citizens of the cities of Ottawa, Cornwall and Kingston and their surrounding regions. We heard a steady flow of witnesses opposed to the concept of raising the provincial deficit to a level which will force future governments to raise taxes and further erode our competitiveness with the neighbouring United States.

Nowhere was the message heard more clearly than in the city of Cornwall where cross-border shopping has become a popular pastime. The Cornwall Chamber of Commerce has recently formed a committee to look into the problem of cross-border shopping. The chair of that committee, Brian Hunt, made a presentation to our task force.

He told us that the phenomenon of same-day return trips to the United States has increased by 87% since 1989 in the Cornwall area. He cites as the major reason for Canadians flocking south the high Canadian gasoline prices buoyed up by 25 cents a litre of tax, a phenomenon which has been exacerbated by gasoline tax increases in this government's budget.

The people of Cornwall recognize that what is needed to help their struggling business is not government grants but a proper business environment.

Our task force has found numerous citizens of this province imploring the politicians to wake up and realize that higher taxes mean diminished competitiveness. I have spoken of only two. I hope that the parliamentary committee on the budget will review the presentations to our task force, which we will make available to it.

ITALIAN NATIONAL DAY

Mr Dadamo: It give me great pleasure to speak to members of the Legislature today in honour of Italian National Day, the celebration of the referendum on 2 June 1946 which proclaimed Italy a republic. It is celebrated on the first Sunday of June and is a holiday in Italy. Given the importance of Italian heritage within Canada's multiculturalism, it is now customary to celebrate this festivity right here in Canada.

Italians have made a significant contribution to Canada's social, economic and cultural life. Early-arriving Italians contributed through railroad construction, lumber camps and building projects. Italians helped build the transcontinental and urban communications network in Canada.

Today, Italians are a vital part of this country and help to define the multicultural character of Canada. Children of Italian descent are proud Canadians and are present in every aspect of public life -- in the sciences, education and business as well as political life, as the members know.

Italians form the fourth-largest ethnic group in Canada, after the British, French and Germans. Sixty per cent of all Italians in Canada live in Ontario, with the greatest concentration here in the Toronto area. Celebrating this holiday is a reaffirmation of the multicultural character of our nation.

I am sure members of the Legislature will join me in congratulating the people of Italy, the President of the Republic, Francesco Cossiga, and of course our consul general, Dr Gianluigi Lajolo. Congratulations and best wishes for a festive celebration on Italian National Day.

TOURETTE SYNDROME AWARENESS MONTH

Mrs Caplan: I am pleased to stand in the House to continue the tradition established by the former member for Brantford, David Neumann, of making members aware that June is Tourette Syndrome Awareness Month. Tourette's is a neurological disorder that is characterized by rapid, involuntary, sudden motor tics and vocalizations. There is no known cure for Tourette's syndrome.

Early and proper diagnosis is critical for the sufferers and their families. However, that depends on a well-informed medical community. A misdiagnosis can lead to wrong treatment and sometimes severe psychological problems. It can also be frustrating for the family which is trying to understand and cope with this disorder.

Considerable research is being done in locating the gene marker for Tourette's to understand how the disorder is transmitted from one generation to another. Researchers are also studying specific groups of brain chemicals to help identify new and improved medications.

While this exciting research is going on, some families are having difficulty getting appropriate services and treatment in the province. It is my hope that this government will further recognize the special medical needs of Tourette's sufferers and provide appropriate services for them here at home in Ontario.

I know the former member for Brantford, David Neumann, would continue this tradition as he has in the past. On behalf of him and others who have great concern for Tourette's syndrome, I rise today to note June is Tourette Syndrome Awareness Month.

NURSING HOMES

Mr Tilson: As we are all aware, the month of June has been designated Senior Citizens' Month, so it is very appropriate that I stand today to inform this House of a very serious and grave problem involving seniors in my riding of Dufferin-Peel and throughout Ontario.

Avalon Care Centre in Orangeville is threatening to close its beds due to the government's ongoing inequitable treatment of nursing home residents in Ontario. Homes for the aged receive 30% more support than privately run nursing homes. It is becoming increasingly difficult for centres such as Avalon to ensure that regulatory standards set by the Ministry of Health are maintained.

In addition to these problems that Avalon seniors are facing, Avalon Care Centre employs 180 full-time and part-time staff, who are all at risk of losing their jobs. In a desperate attempt to deal with the government's funding and equity stance, the Ontario Nursing Home Association and its 188 members recently made a decision to reduce staffing for over 30,000 nursing home residents by 15 October 1991.

This government is aware of this funding bias and has not announced any major long-term care reform initiatives in the nine months it has been in power. I urge the Minister of Health to examine this serious situation immediately. Her ministry's inaction on this issue has already forced 15 nursing homes into bankruptcy in Ontario and is threatening the livelihood of many more such as Avalon.

It is becoming very clear that this grave situation is a result of the government's obvious hidden agenda to abolish the private sector from the long-term care industry. Unfortunately, this narrow-minded approach is ultimately at the expense of the seniors and the long-term care workers of Ontario.

ENVIRONMENT WEEK

Mr Hansen: As members are aware, it is Environment Week in Canada. I would like to inform the House of an event that took place last weekend. It was the commemoration of the boat NIMBI, which means "Now I must become involved," founded by Pat Potter, a constituent of the member for Brant-Haldimand.

On Saturday, I attended the third annual NIMBI celebration in Port Maitland where the ambassador for the Great Lakes, musician Ken Lonnquist, entertained environmentalists from across our province with an exciting repertoire. There was a shared excitement about the opportunities to increase awareness on environmental issues and there was also a deep concern over the lack of funding for environmental education.

Despite limited financial support, the NIMBI project has received not only national but international attention. On the weekend, a proposal for NIMBI school ships was presented. This included a boat for each of the Great Lakes to operate as a resource centre and provide an opportunity to schoolchildren throughout the province to learn how to get involved and to make Ontario a more healthy place to live. The work of each of the ships will be co-ordinated by the mother ship, NIMBI.

Many say the environment is a top priority, but until people understand how to make the most appropriate decisions, we will be unable to make real progress. We protect diamonds because we are taught they are valuable. People will protect our Great Lakes watershed when they are taught its value. The health of our lakes affects the wellbeing of those who live near them.

NIMBI has shown that the commitment and dedication of the citizens of the province can make a difference. It is now time for those concerned about the environment to get involved. The greatest environmental problem we face is our collective silence.

Mrs Sullivan: I rise in the House to speak to the celebration of Environment Week. In particular, I want to recognize the hardworking people in volunteer enterprises, organized environmental groups, industry and the government sector who have been making great strides in both increasing our awareness of the environment and finding ways to protect it.

While it is hard to visualize the scale, scope and complexity of the environmental challenges that our earth faces, it is important to have events like Environment Week to mark and underline the ramifications of our lifestyles on the planet.

The environmental challenge will only be dealt with successfully if everyone co-operates to achieve the goal of a healthy and clean environment, a goal which I am sure everyone in this House will strive to achieve.

We will all be aware of the environmental consequences of the decisions we make in this House. We must utilize properly the legislative and regulatory tools which have been developed, such as the environmental assessment process, and we must open our minds to sound and creative approaches to ensure that the mistakes of the past are not compounded and that new errors are not made.

WAGE PROTECTION

Mrs Witmer: The Minister of Labour's recent responses to my questions about the wage protection fund would seem to indicate that there is nothing particularly new in Bill 70. The minister stated on 16 May, "Officers and directors...can be liable now under the Ontario Corporations Act." But the minister will be aware that only directors are liable under the Ontario Business Corporations Act. By including officers, Bill 70 will make individuals who may not have any direct control over the operation of a company personally liable.

The definition of "wages" has also been expanded. The Ontario Business Corporations Act holds directors liable for six months' wages and 12 months' vacation pay. Bill 70 adds eight weeks of termination pay and 26 weeks of severance pay for companies with more than 50 employees. The liability could be as high as $20,000 per employee.

The minister has also failed to address the issue of the availability and cost of directors' and officers' insurance to cover the personal liability. In fact, the minister has required that I submit a freedom-of-information request to obtain a report prepared by the Ontario Insurance Commission on this issue.

Bill 70 does represent a significant change in the amount of wages that officers and directors will be held personally liable for. The minister should stop attempting to pass this legislation off as business as usual and start to honestly respond to and address the growing level of concern with this legislation.

PAL PROGRAM

Mr Mammoliti: I rise today to praise the work being done by Pal, a community program in my riding of Yorkview.

The media are not always kind to my riding, and I am very concerned about this. We do not often hear about the good things about Yorkview. Today I am very proud to tell everyone about Pal, a program run by the Jamaican Canadian Association and the Dellcrest Children's Centre. The program matches a black youth and a caring adult and gives a child in need a supportive atmosphere. Volunteers become positive role models for kids in the black community who are having a tough time coping with the problems of growing up. At the same time, it educates the children about black culture and black heritage.

I would like to take this opportunity to commend the program's co-ordinators, Newton Van Riel, Christine Brown, Bill Roy, and the very special volunteers for the job they are doing. Keep up the good work.

VISITORS

The Speaker: I would like to invite all members to welcome several guests to our chamber this afternoon: first, seated in the Speaker's gallery, Chief Steve Jourdain and members of the Lac La Croix first nation, Elder John Boshey, Bob Ottertail, the traditional chief, and council members. Welcome.

I also invite you to welcome, seated in the members' gallery, Muriel Smith, who is former Deputy Premier of Manitoba.

Last, but certainly not least, is a long-standing former member from Rainy River, Patrick Reid.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Hon Mr Cooke: Today I am pleased to release two papers about housing policy for public consultation. The first deals with an overall framework for housing, the second with the use of government land for housing.

The government's housing strategy has four parts. I would like to remind members quickly what they are. First, we want to increase the supply of affordable housing, especially co-ops and non-profit housing. Second, we want to make sure that surplus property owned by government is used for housing. Third, we are developing a fair and understandable system of rent control. I will be presenting it to the House very soon. Fourth, I believe we must improve the quality of life for people who live in public housing. I will be releasing a consultation paper about this also in the very near future.

But let me return to the documents we are releasing today. The first paper prepared by the Ministry of Housing is called A Housing Framework for Ontario: Issues for Consultation. It looks at the big picture.

There are many things we already know about housing in Ontario. For instance, we know there are more than 100,000 households without decent, adequate housing. We know that rising land prices have to a large degree driven up the cost of building homes and apartments. We know that most of our existing low-rise apartment buildings and many of our high-rise buildings are over 25 years old. But there are many things we do not know enough about, and they are what we want to consult on.

The paper I am releasing today lays out our objectives and describes some current problems and options. It presents choices on nine topics. For instance, how can we make sure that the non-profit housing we are building today will stay affordable in the future? Should the government provide direct financial assistance to the private sector to encourage construction of affordable houses and apartments? How can we make sure there is enough funding to maintain and repair non-profit housing? How can the costs of housing construction be reduced?

Over the next few months, we at the Ministry of Housing will be meeting with a range of groups and individuals to explore answers to these questions. I want to hear from organizations such as the Ontario Non-Profit Housing Association, the Co-Operative Housing Association of Ontario, the Ontario Home Builders' Association, the financial institutions and many other groups across the province.

I am also very eager to hear from people who are disadvantaged or poor or homeless. I realize they are harder to reach, but it is important that we hear their views about housing. I believe the best way to develop a sound housing policy is to listen to people who will live in that housing and to groups that will build, manage and finance it.

The second paper we are releasing today is called Government Land for Housing: Questions for Consultation. Starting today, we are implementing changes to make more effective use of government-owned land for housing. My colleague the Minister of Government Services will have more to say about that in just a moment.

We are inviting interested individuals and organizations that want to comment on these papers to give us their views by Friday 30 August. Their views will be considered when we refine the policies.

There are two organizations that represent not-for-profit housing in Ontario: the Ontario Non-Profit Housing Association and the Co-Operative Housing Association of Ontario. They will be holding meetings across the province on our consultation papers. At this point, I would like to acknowledge their partnership with us and thank them for their efforts. They have worked hard with us in putting these consultation papers together and I am sure they will continue to support us in our efforts.

The consultations we are beginning today will help us develop an integrated, comprehensive housing strategy to serve the people of Ontario for years to come.

The Speaker: The Minister of Government Services.

[Applause]

Hon F. Wilson: Thank you for that well-deserved applause. As my colleague the Minister of Housing has indicated, the government is making policy changes to make better use of government land for housing, especially affordable housing.

As members know, the province has had a Housing First policy that gives housing priority when government lands become surplus. Under this system only about 5,000 units have been marketed on such lands over the last four years. We believe that we can reform and improve on this performance.

Our new housing priority policy for the government land includes these changes: First, we will give housing priority on government sites when is no longer needed by an individual ministry or agency, not just when the government land is surplus to the government as a whole.

Second, the lands of virtually all government agencies will be covered by this policy, not just selected agencies, as under the previous policy.

Third, we will require all ministries to prepare a list each year of their underutilized properties. This means we can identify many new sites that are now being used for commercial or institutional purposes but which can be redeveloped to include affordable housing.

There are other steps that we believe would increase the amount of affordable housing produced on government land. That is why we are consulting. We want input on measures such as these: By how much should the percentage of affordable housing on government sites be increased, beyond 35%? Should a certain proportion of land be assigned for non-profit or co-operative housing and should a site be held if there is no appropriate housing group that can take it immediately? What about new land?

Should the government buy new land for housing in communities that have a strong need for housing but have little suitable government land? Last but not least, should municipalities, school boards and other agencies which receive provincial government funding be required to offer their surplus property to the province to buy for housing?

The consultation paper, which all members have, outlines some approaches that we think would work for each of these issues discussed, but I want to stress that no final decision will be made until after consultations are completed on 30 August.

We realize that, by itself, government land cannot provide the entire answer for the affordable housing problem, but we believe it can be an important part of our overall solution.

LAC LA CROIX BAND

Hon Mr Wildman: I would like to inform members of a number of initiatives the government is pursuing to address historic grievances and to improve the economic and social conditions for the Lac La Croix first nation in northwestern Ontario.

The 250 members of the Lac La Croix first nation live on a reserve on the southwestern edge of Quetico Provincial Park, on the international boundary between Ontario and Minnesota. There is no road access to the community and employment is seasonal and restricted because of the isolation of the reserve. One of the few employment opportunities that currently exists is to guide visitors in Quetico Park.

For nearly 90 years, this first nation has demanded that the province honour its rights and provide it with more meaningful economic opportunities. Until now, successive provincial governments, and also the federal government, have not responded positively.

Before I announce our initiatives, I would like to outline some of the history of this area.

The Lac La Croix first nation signed Treaty 3 in 1873. Briefly, Treaty 3 guaranteed that the first nation can exercise its pursuits of hunting and gathering in its traditional area, subject to some conditions, such as non-native settlements, lumbering, mining and other land uses. It was not contemplated in 1873, when this treaty was signed, that the idea of other uses would include establishing a provincial park like Quetico.

It is also important to note that when Quetico Provincial Park was created in 1913, the Lac La Croix first nation was not consulted by the Ontario government.

This lack of consultation has led to a number of injustices since 1913. These injustices include removal of families from their traditional lands; the prevention of first nation members from visiting sacred ceremonial grounds; the disturbance of traplines by provincial officials, and the detention and incarceration of community members for trapping, hunting and fishing.

We cannot undo these injustices. We can, however, recognize that the traditional activities of this first nation have been interfered with.

We understand that the first nation has been hurt by the fact the federal government, as its trustee, has not acted in a manner fitting to the crown. In addition, successive Ontario governments have failed to recognize the aboriginal and treaty rights of the Lac La Croix first nation.

The elders and chief of the Lac La Croix first nation are in the Speaker's gallery today and have been introduced. I want to say very directly and personally to them, as well as to the members of the House, that our government is prepared to make a public apology to the Lac La Croix first nation for the lack of respect that has been shown to its people and to its rights. We are committed to honouring the rights of the first nation. We are also prepared to move ahead and to begin to create conditions that will help solve the economic and social problems of this community.

Lac La Croix has made a proposal to the province to add six new lakes within Quetico Park where its members will be allowed to use motor boats as part of its guiding activities. At present, the community has motor boat access to six lakes on the west side of the park and an aircraft landing site at Beaver House Lake.

The first nation has also requested additional landing sites and docks within the park, again for guiding purposes.

On an interim basis, the province has accepted part of this proposal in order to provide some immediate and much-needed economic stimulus for this community. Through an exemption order under the Environmental Assessment Act, the first nation will be allowed to access three additional lakes, Cirrus, Jean and Conk lakes, which are adjacent to the area where they already have motor boat access and a landing site. The motors for these boats will be small, with a maximum of 10 horsepower.

I recognize that there is considerable and legitimate public interest in any changes to Quetico Park, particularly changes that deal with motorized access. Therefore, I am committed to a program of full public consultation on all the elements of the proposal for more access to the park by the Lac La Croix community. I am very pleased to inform members that the Lac La Croix first nation is willing to participate in public consultations. Public consultation will be conducted in accordance with the Ontario Provincial Park Management Planning Guidelines.

In addition, before any amendments are made to the Quetico Park management plan concerning the Lac La Croix proposal, I will ask the Provincial Parks Council to conduct a review of the proposed amendments.

We trust that the public consultation and the parks council review will be completed within a year to conform with the exemption order that provides the community immediate access to three additional lakes.

We are also prepared to move immediately to assist with economic development at Lac La Croix. The province will provide $72,000 so the community may buy its own canoes and motors and increase the benefits from its guiding activities. At the moment, the community rents canoes and motors. The Ministry of Natural Resources will also hire four members of the community to act as a fire protection crew for Quetico Park.

In order to address other outstanding grievances of the community, I am pleased to announce that Ontario has appointed a special representative who will discuss a number of issues with the first nation. Our special representative will be Lloyd Girman, a former Deputy Minister of Northern Affairs and native affairs in the Manitoba government.

A key issue to be resolved is the land claim of the first nation. The claim involves an area referred to as the Sturgeon Lake Indian reserve 24C, which is adjacent to McKenzie Lake in Quetico Park. The area was surveyed for a reserve in 1877.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Wildman: Mr Speaker, this is very important.

The Sturgeon Lake Band settled on the reserve until the reserve was cancelled in 1915 by Ontario. Thereafter, the families were removed.

We will invite the federal government to participate in the land claim discussions. However, the province is prepared to move quickly and negotiate matters that are within provincial jurisdiction. Mr Girman will also discuss with the first nation the exercise of its aboriginal and treaty rights to hunt, fish and trap in its traditional area, which includes Quetico Park.

The discussions between Ontario's special representative and the first nation will also focus on improving housing and social services and on providing road access to the community. The Ministry of Natural Resources is prepared to commit $500,000 to the construction of a road or trail to the community. This road will be outside the boundaries of Quetico Park.

Ontario is determined to move forward quickly, to acknowledge past wrongs and to work constructively and respectfully with the Lac La Croix first nation. The provincial government is also committed to full and fair public consultation with all, with an interest in improving the park values that make Quetico Park a very special place. Meegwetch.

MINING INDUSTRY / INDUSTRY MINIERE

Hon Mr Pouliot: Today we mark the dawn of a new era for mining in Ontario. Today the regulations of the new Mining Act, as well as the balance of the amendments contained in Bill 71, come into effect. It is, I feel, very appropriate that the new regulations are being proclaimed during Mining Week in Ontario.

Le secteur de l'industrie minière constitue un element crucial de l'economie de l'Ontario. Nous sommes d'importants producteurs d'or, de nickel, de cuivre, d'uranium, d'argent, de sel et de zinc, pour ne nommer que quelques-uns de nos minerais. Plus de 85 000 personnes travaillent dans le secteur minier en Ontario. La valeur de notre production de minerais s'elève a plus de 7 milliards de dollars. En tant qu'exportateur, le secteur minier se situe au deuxième rang de la province après le secteur de fabrication d'automobiles.

The new regulations update the administration of Ontario's mineral resources. They address a wide range of environmental and procedural concerns held by the industry and the public. The intent of this act is to encourage the prospecting, staking and exploration for new mineral resources, while ensuring that every phase of mining operations, including closure, will be pursued in an environmentally responsible manner.

Now, for example, public notice and approved closure plans may be required prior to advanced exploration and will be required prior to development. All existing mines will have to submit closure plans and financial assurance will be required for reclamation. New provisions address the growing desire to ensure responsible development of Ontario's resources.

Bill 71, members will recall, was introduced in October 1989 by the previous government, providing for the first major revisions of the Mining Act since 1906. Since then, my ministry has ensured, through public consultation and working groups, that it has sounded out the people who are affected by the proposed changes to the Mining Act. Fully 15 amendments were made to Bill 71, one of which, I am proud to say, I moved as opposition critic for Mines. Bill 71 was given royal assent on 6 December 1989 after consultation and the hard work of our civil service.

De nombreux groupes se sont joints a l'Association minière de l'Ontario ainsi qu'a mon ministère pour planifier les activites de la Semaine de l'exploitation minière 1991. Cette semaine permet d'accentuer l'importance du secteur minier pour les communautes, pour la province et pour le pays.

Par exemple, a Toronto, des elèves visiteront l'exposition sur les mines au pavillon L'Ontario a l'heure du Nord. À Timmins, une emission speciale televisee d'une demi-heure portera sur le secteur minier, et tous les elèves de la quatrième annee visiteront une mine souterraine de l'endroit. La Semaine de l'exploitation minière en Ontario est un evenement communautaire.

Also this week, the Canadian Mine Rescue Competition will be hosted by the defending champions from the Sifto Salt mine in Goderich. Highly trained teams will compete in skills developed to save lives and property in Canadian underground mines.

In this, the centennial year of the Ontario Bureau of Mines, I would urge all members here present, as well as all our constituents, to participate in these events and to reflect upon the vital role mining plays in all of our lives. Let's celebrate mining together.

I would like the members of this House to join me in welcoming Patrick Reid, the president of the Ontario Mining Association, accompanied by Warren Holmes, the chairman of the Ontario Mining Association.

RESPONSES

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Ms Poole: Normally I would be the first to congratulate the government in going into a consultation process but, frankly, given the history of this NDP government towards consultation, I fear it will be a totally meaningless exercise. If we take what they did with their consultation on rent control, for instance, they sent out one million questionnaires in -- believe it or not -- a seven-week consultation period, and 10 days before the consultation period was even up, they were well into their draft legislation. So forgive me if I do not place much credence in this government's commitment to consultation.

I have had only 10 minutes to peruse these two documents of some 200 pages, so I cannot give a comprehensive analysis, but my preview has shown that there is nothing new and creative in these documents and they are simply reinventing the wheel. It is all an exercise in semantics.

For instance, they talk about the fact that the Housing First program is now going to be called the Housing Priority program, as though this in itself is going to make a great deal of difference. Well, I am afraid it does not. They are drowning us in semantics, drowning us in rhetoric and drowning us in consultation instead of acting.

If we look at a number of the major issues in housing and what they should be doing with their lands, it is quite clear they are not showing direction and they are not willing to move. That is why, again, the words are there.

I will give members a couple of issues, for instance, which will show that this government has been unwilling to move. Bill 152, regarding the disposal of assets by a municipality, was introduced by the Liberal government just about a year ago, and this would enforce that the province would have the first right of refusal for any municipal surplus lands, that the province could buy them. Yet in this document, what does it say? It gives a passing reference to the fact that it is good policy, yet then proceeds to go back and reinvent the wheel and ask whether we should really be doing this.

Second, they skirted the whole issue of co-ops. They talk about it in their statements, but if you look at the real issues in co-ops they are completely missing from this paper. They are not asking who should be in co-ops, what the people in co-ops should be paying. They are not asking if there should be a centralized waiting list, the same as there is for other subsidized housing. They missed the boat, and I think they deliberately missed the boat.

I was looking through it to try to find references to land use planning for housing policy, Planning Act reforms, what is happening with Seaton, what effect this consultation paper is going to have on it. There was very little in there, yet these are issues that are crucial to the housing area.

It is quite obvious that this government, in its rent control legislation, legislated first, before asking the important questions. Questions they are asking here will not even begin to be answered before they go through their legislation later this week. This government should rethink what it is doing. It is time for action, not words.

LAC LA CROIX BAND

Mr Ramsay: We are supportive of allowing natives a greater level of self-determination, as I am sure all members of this House are, and also supportive specifically of allowing the Lac La Croix Band members a greater opportunity for economic development, which certainly includes allowing greater access by motor boat to several more lakes of the Quetico Provincial Park.

I will have to add a note of caution, though. What is the point of consultation after the fact? The minister did not give the previous government credit for allowing the initiation of the opening of six lakes the band presently has access to. We were sensitive to that, and we did that with consultation with the various groups out there. I would just warn the minister that this is obviously a very sensitive area, and one needs to be consulting with the public at large.

MINING INDUSTRY

Mr Miclash: I would like to congratulate the minister on the announcement he brought forth today. I remember working on a lot of that announcement with two previous ministers, the member for Renfrew North in Red Lake and the member for Quinte in Kenora. I must admit that I appreciate him bringing forth the issues that he did today.

But I must remind the minister that the mining industry today is in a very serious situation. We are talking about a mining industry where in 1990 we had nine mines closed, some 3,715 total layoffs, and 2,920 of these were permanent jobs. I appreciate what the minister has brought forth today, but I would really like to see some movement in the Ministry of Mines, movement that will ensure we do have good mining in this province in the future.

LAC LA CROIX BAND

Mr Harnick: In response to the minister responsible for native affairs, I am pleased that an attempt is being made to improve the economic situation on the band site, and I am pleased there will be public consultation to avoid some of the problems that arose in an earlier and similar situation in Algonquin Park.

I am also pleased that the values of the park will not only be improved and protected but in fact are going to be enhanced. For that, I thank the minister.

MINING INDUSTRY

Mr McLean: I want to say briefly to the Minister of Mines that we also recognize the important contribution the mining industry makes in this province. It is great for the economy. We have some of the finest mineral resources in the world, along with the technology and the people to make mining a very viable industry.

However, as I stated in the House last Thursday, we object to the new tax on certain mining lands that will quadruple existing rates over the next five years. We will not tolerate any measure which constitutes a confiscation of property from its rightful owners. I urge the minister again to rescind this tax and get out of the business of forcing land owners to surrender their rights to the government.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Mr Turnbull: I would point out to the Minister of Government Services, that this is the second government to announce the use of government land to alleviate problems of availability of affordable housing. It is significant that at a time when the Metro vacancy rate for rental housing is at the highest level in 16 years -- which, in other words, is at the highest level since rent controls were brought in -- and yet at the same time waiting lists for subsidized housing in Toronto are at historic highs, the government comes forward with this.

It is also significant that the Minister of Housing is going to make his announcement on rent review this week, which is obviously going to dry up all of the private sector initiatives to create housing; that instead of addressing the root problem of affordability, the government once again ducks its responsibility. We need to create private sector housing and get rid of education lot levies. Do not make taxpayers pay 150% of the price for which the private sector can create housing.

We have seen over and over again that this government has created so-called non-profit housing which is more expensive than for-profit housing. How can it possibly do this?

In British Columbia, when there was an NDP government, the then Housing minister sought to take away land from the University of British Columbia to create housing. Fortunately he did not succeed, and the university is now using that for expansion for what we need urgently in this country, increased levels of education.

Mr Tilson: To the Minister of Housing: Certainly his philosophy of making housing a public utility in this province continues, and it is a sad day when I see that after all the Bill 4 hearings we have been having, he is not changing his philosophy. The minister knows, his socialist friends know and everyone else in this chamber knows that the taxpayers of this province cannot afford that policy. We cannot afford the $10-billion deficit this province is encountering.

The minister continues to take no action with respect to the 30% of the tenants of this province who cannot afford any tax increases. He is doing nothing with respect to that all through the Bill 4 hearings and all through these announcements. The quality and standard of life of the tenants in this province are continuing to decline because of his policies. I groan at what this permanent legislation is going to cause to the people of this province when it is introduced this week.

He says there are two main organizations that represent not-for-profit housing providers in Ontario. Why will he not consult with the private home builders of this province? Why will he not ask them how to improve the quality of life of the tenants of this province? With respect to housing and government policy on government land, this question has been raised by his party for years and yet it has taken him all this time to introduce this green paper. Then he is still going to wait to the end of the summer to discuss it even further.

This is an amazing policy when you see the devastating effects of Bill 4 and when you see the list of families and individuals seeking affordable housing in Ontario growing daily, and in particular in Metro Toronto. The housing policy on the homeless of both ministers is despicable.

Hon Ms Ziemba: Mr Speaker, I would like to request all-party consent to commemorate seniors' month.

The Speaker: Do we have unanimous agreement?

Agreed to.

SENIOR CITIZENS' MONTH

Hon Ms Ziemba: I would like to have the members of the House join me in proclaiming June as Senior Citizens' Month. Hundreds of organizations are planning events that will honour older adults this month. Groups working with or on behalf of seniors, community-based service agencies, municipal offices, schools, recreation and multicultural centres, all of them and more will host special events for seniors' month.

One of the highlights of seniors' month is the series of stage shows produced, promoted and performed by seniors, including francophones, in 35 different communities in Ontario. These shows are a chance for older people to dust off old skills and polish new ones and they are a chance for seniors to give something to their community.

On 6 June we will present senior achievement awards to seniors who have made a significant contribution to their community after the age of 65. The awards, presented at a special ceremony by the Lieutenant Governor, will be held at Queen's Park. These are the highest distinctions presented to senior citizens in this province.

The province supports the many activities planned throughout this month. As a government, we want to emphasize that seniors deserve to live in dignity and, where possible, independently and within their own cultural diversity.

The theme of 1991 Senior Citizens' Month is "Following in Their Footsteps." It reminds all people that who and what we are is a reflection of the wisdom we have inherited from seniors. Seniors are our parents, our grandparents, friends, relatives and neighbours. We have the opportunity to celebrate the contributions of seniors to our society. They have marked a path for us, allowing us to follow and build on what our elders have provided for us. After all, we are a product of our ancestors.

We must work towards diminishing stress and hardship for our seniors. It is our responsibility to work towards such an environment. As well, it is a time when we must focus on the issues that are of concern to seniors. I am proud to say that the government is continuously reviewing the issue of access for seniors to ensure that information and services are provided in a culturally sensitive manner in our diverse multicultural society.

This government has begun several initiatives to address the special needs of seniors. In December, after a recommendation from a coroner's inquest, Mr Lightman was appointed as commissioner to conduct an inquiry into unregulated residential accommodations for vulnerable adults. This included board and lodging homes and rest and retirement homes.

On 18 April, the first Advocacy Act in Canada was introduced. This act is the centrepiece of a legislative package to address the needs of vulnerable adults. The companion acts, the Consent to Treatment Act and the Substitute Decisions Act, were introduced last week. The Advocacy Act will protect vulnerable adults, including seniors, and will empower them to live their lives in dignity.

Together we can reinforce the message to seniors that they are valued, respected and much needed in our communities so that we can continue to build a healthy province.

Mr Mahoney: Unfortunately, the role of critic of senior citizens' affairs has been one of the easiest I have had to perform in this House, because there have been literally no announcements of any substantive nature to criticize, either from a positive perspective or otherwise.

It concerns me that once again we get reannouncements from the minister. It is very revolutionary to stand up and declare Senior Citizens' Month, which of course our party supports. In fact, this is the 21st consecutive year that this particular announcement has been proclaimed. I should point out to members that the minister's statement announced what the seniors are doing in their communities, the stage show, and I think that is all very important. In fact, I participated in the opening of the official senior citizens' games for the province.

Many of them occurred in my own riding in Mississauga and in the riding of the member for Mississauga South, where some very wonderful activities took place.

But that is what the seniors are doing. The seniors are out there actively promoting their own existence and their own opportunities and they are helping this province by doing that. Certainly we as a party support everything those seniors are doing.

Hon Mr Laughren: Good.

Mr Mahoney: The Treasurer is probably close to joining the ranks and I am sure he will be out there running in the next senior citizens' games, leading the charge on the way to bigger and better things, because he will not have anything else to do. He certainly will not be around here.

However, let me get back on track. The former minister responsible for senior citizens' affairs, the member for Carleton East, my colleague in this House, established a procedure, and I should point out that he was solely the minister for seniors, not for four other portfolios. He established a procedure where he invited members of the opposition parties to sit on a committee to make the decisions on the awards and have input into the very worthwhile awards.

I understand that when the New Democrats were in opposition, in a somewhat belligerent attitude they refused to attend or participate in that process, but I believe the Conservative Party had someone meet with the minister to discuss it. I would just like members to know that I have received no such communication and no such request. Indeed, I have received nothing whatsoever from the minister responsible for senior citizens' affairs, yet the awards are coming out very soon, as the minister has announced.

We are delighted those awards are being given out, but we think that in a true spirit of this being a kinder, gentler place, as the Premier is often quoted as having said, it might have been an appropriate thing to contact the critics, even though he does not practise being kinder or gentler. It would have been an appropriate thing to contact the critics for the parties, to have us participate in that process and give us an opportunity to be involved with whatever is being done.

I should tell members that we as a party fully recognize both the past accomplishments and the continued, ongoing, very valued contribution of the more than one million senior citizens living in this province. We believe their contribution, if the backbenchers care about it at all, is very important to establishing and trying to maintain ongoing prosperity in the face of the damage being done across this province by this particular government. We think if there is anybody who can hold the fort --

Hon Mr Pouliot: Why don't you sit down?

Mr Mahoney: I say to the Minister of Mines that I will not sit down. I will when I am done. If anybody can hold the fort in this province, it will be our seniors, who have wise counsel and hopefully will be able to see us through the very damaging four years ahead.

I would like to quote, if I might -- I am not sure if it was a letter or Hansard -- from the current Solicitor General. If it is a letter, I am sure he authorized, wrote and signed it and probably even sent it out.

"Mr Farnan said in response to this very statement last year: 'If the government really wants to recognize seniors, to recognize the contribution they have made to society, then it would be nice if it did it in a practical, tangible, concrete way by giving them the kinds of services they truly need.'"

I quite heartily agree with that particular statement, but I see nothing that would indicate that type of thing is being done.

I take members back to Hansard during the estimates, when the minister said, "In opposition, my party was concerned about services for seniors," which may mean it is not now; I am not sure. In fact, in 1986 the Speaker, the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere, introduced a private member's bill, the Seniors' Indpendence Act, which was to provide for the integration of community-based support services with established programs and facilities.

I simply ask the government now, why does it not dust off the honourable gentleman's former private member's bill and bring it into this House so that we can see if there is something? I am sure it was brilliantly drafted. I am sure it would be supported in a very strong way and I for one would like to see the minister consider doing that. Seniors have worked very hard to build this province and it is extremely important that we recognize that contribution.

In closing, there is another quote that concerns me. If this is not the greatest example of an attempt at justification I do not know what is. Again, the minister during the estimates: "As you know, my cabinet responsibilities also include Citizenship, human rights, disabled persons and race relations. In the past, the senior citizens' office was represented by its own minister." I have already alluded to that with the honourable member. The minister goes on to say: "I want to stress, and I stress this emphatically, that the new arrangement in no way lessens the priority our government places on senior citizens.

In reality, combining these responsibilities has enlarged and enhanced the role of the minister responsible for their concerns and issues."

I would have some difficulty understanding how the government could take a single-minister ministry, turn it into a five-ministry operation with one minister in charge and seriously try to suggest that enhances the role the minister could play in the eyes of the senior citizens.

We find that extremely hypocritical and simply not acceptable, and we call on this government to appoint one minister -- the member for Durham East would be fine, or anyone else the Premier chooses -- who could be responsible for senior citizens' affairs. We hope this minister will become an advocate for senior citizens, not only during this one very important month of the year, but during the entire year.

Mr Jackson: It is one thing for the member for Mississauga West to express concern at the lack of statements coming from the government, but it is quite another for him to have saved them all up for the last nine months to treat the House to them this afternoon.

Having said that, I certainly would like to commend the minister responsible for senior citizens' affairs for her announcement. I, on behalf of my colleagues in the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario, would like to pay tribute to and acknowledge Ontario Senior Citizens' Month. I would like to take particular note of those citizens across this province who serve on the Ontario advisory council on Senior Citizens who have occasion to examine in an arm's-length way various issues and recommend to the minister responsible for senior citizens' affairs certain changes they would like to see in legislation and regulation and procedures in this province.

I would also like to acknowledge some very positive signs of the manner in which seniors in Ontario are becoming less an identified group and more an integrated part of a healthier, growing community. I would like to acknowledge, for example, a long-time friend of seniors, Earl Warren, who was known to many people for his over 30 years on CFRB. Earl Warren began a special program on Saturday 1 June at the beginning of seniors' month entitled Saturdays are for Seniors, on CING radio -- that is FM-108, for those members who would like to listen -- in the great riding of Burlington South.

I had the pleasure of sitting in with Earl and opening his program, and he has an exciting program every Saturday --

Interjections.

Mr Jackson: My colleagues the members in the Liberal Party suggest the ratings are down. Well, for a tired old party I should say it is required listening. They should listen in.

Let me suggest as well that with seniors living longer, healthier lives, having more meaningful and more active lives in our communities, it is all the more reason that we in this House, in all political parties, do not necessarily just sit back and observe a celebration, but rather use this as an occasion whence we can understand more the kinds of concerns that are being expressed by the seniors in our communities.

Certainly from our caucus's point of view, we have seen some initiatives because we have been trying to listen. The member for Carleton has brought in his Bills 7 and 8 on the living will to give dignity to those requiring medical treatment. The member for Dufferin-Peel has mentioned the problems with nursing home funding in this province. He is joined by persons such as Justice Howland, who in a recent court ruling indicated that it would be appropriate to base the funding on individual need, whether the individual be a resident in a nursing home, a home for the aged or a private home.

So we see that there is much room for this government to be listening to some of the kinds of concerns being expressed, not only by all members of this House and by the seniors community, but even by members of the bench who have been called upon from time to time to examine whether the rights of seniors are being affected adversely.

It has been brought to the attention of the Treasurer that this is the first budget in modern history in this province which has nowhere within it reference to senior citizens. That has raised some concerns, and we are hopeful that the Treasurer has earmarked some funds for senior citizens in that $10-billion deficit.

Interjections.

Mr Jackson: Well, it is going to be a rather large deficit, and the absence of a reference in the budget raises some legitimate questions. Even Seniors Today, a noted magazine read all across this province, has expressed concern. The verdict is not in; it is appropriate that the minister be given an opportunity to comment.

Certainly seniors are telling us that standards of safety are important for them, and if not met, seniors respond by becoming prisoners in their own homes. If the government will put a higher value on safety in our communities, it is appropriate that we recognize its effect on senior citizens.

We have reduction in access to beds in homes for the aged and nursing homes. Chronic care hospital beds are being cut back, and of course geriatric bed cuts are perhaps the cruellest cut of all to those seniors who are afflicted with Alzheimer's disease, with its absolute denial of any form of dignity for those who are afflicted with it.

There are many things which this government will be called upon to recognize during its term. The seniors of this province simply ask that they be treated with equal dignity and respect. If community living with dignity is to be an objective of this province for all its senior citizens, we must be mindful that they must be able to afford where they live; they must feel safe where they live and have security of their person, and they must be able to live out their remaining years with dignity.

On behalf of my caucus and all members of the House, I would like to pay our tribute to seniors during this very special month in Ontario.

ORAL QUESTIONS

MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY

Mr Scott: I have a question for the Solicitor General about the affair of the letters.

From the very beginning of this affair a little over a month ago, the Solicitor General has said that he was not aware of and did not authorize the letter, one of the three letters that were sent by his constituency staff to the justices.

His second line of defence from the beginning has been that in order to comply with the Premier's guidelines, which require him to take steps to alert his staff about the guidelines, he gave his constituency staff oral and written direction.

On 25 April he told the House, "I want to make it very clear that both in writing, through the conflict guidelines, and verbally through myself, I have consistently repeated the principle" that there can be no contact between the constituency staff and the justices. On 29 April he told the House: "I have communicated very clearly," orally and in writing, "that there had to be an arm's-length difference between my office and the judiciary. I have re-emphasized that, it has been in writing...." On a number of other occasions, he gave the same answer, that there was written confirmation of these instructions.

On Wednesday last, the Solicitor General released the only written communication to his Cambridge constituency office before 25 April, which was a memorandum to the Solicitor General from David Agnew headed "Conflict Guidelines and Constituency Work," dated 25 February. This memorandum makes no reference whatever to contacts between constituency staff and justices. Indeed, as the Toronto Star observed, it tells constituency workers that they may represent constituents in their dealings with tribunals.

Will the Solicitor General now at last confirm, notwithstanding his previous answers, that there was at no time any written communication to his constituency office before 25 April prohibiting contact between that staff and the justices?

Hon Mr Farnan: Obviously in the member's answer, he has clearly indicated that there was indeed a written communication. That written communication must be taken in conjunction with all the verbal directives I gave, not at the time the Premier introduced conflict guidelines but long before that. From the moment I assumed the office of Solicitor General, from my first conversations with my deputy, I went back to my office and I reiterated over and over again the principle of separation. That written communication reinforces my verbal communication, and I certainly will not withdraw what the member suggests.

Mr Scott: The Solicitor General is constitutionally unable to answer a question. The only written memorandum makes no reference whatever to contact with the justices. He knows it and it is about time he admitted it up front.

Now the Solicitor General goes on and says, "If you are going to talk about written, I want to talk about oral communications to my staff." From the beginning he said that. On 24 April he told the assembly, "I went back to Cambridge and I took my ministry staff and I said, 'Look, our policy is arm's length....I have emphasized it by telling them.'" On 29 April he repeated in this House that he had verbally communicated the principle to his constituency staff, and he went on to say, "I have from the very beginning transmitted that message to everybody I come into contact with." On 29 April he repeated: "I have re-emphasized that, it has been in writing, it has been oral...."

The

summary of the RCMP investigation which has now been revealed indicates that not one of the three constituency staff who were interviewed by the RCMP had received directions or guidelines, written or oral, in relation to corresponding with the judiciary. It is now the Solicitor General's word against his three constituency staff. If they had received oral advice from him as he says, I am sure they would be anxious to tell the RCMP that.

The Speaker: And your supplementary?

Mr Scott: The question I have for the Solicitor General, with himself on one side, his three staff on the other, on the question of advice is: Whom should we believe, the Solicitor General or his staff? Who is telling the truth about this matter?

Hon Mr Farnan: Let me be very clear. There are two letters in question around which the RCMP investigation took place. One of these was a part-time worker; one of these was a worker who was three weeks on probation. They are not on my ministry payroll; they are constituency staff. Their letters were not on ministry letterhead, they were on constituency letterhead, using my name and staff initials. It was my name as MPP and not as minister.

I am going to repeat to the member once again: I did not sign the letter. I did not approve the letter. I did not send the letter. I did not authorize the letter. In fact, the opposite is true. I have from the very beginning reiterated the principle of separation.

Mr Scott: From the beginning, the Solicitor General, to defend himself in this House, has said he gave written communication to his constituency staff. If the only memo is the memo of 25 February, that is mistaken. There is nothing in there about the justices at all. He says, when confronted with that, that he has given an oral instruction to them. The three who were interviewed by the RCMP in what I am sure was a thorough investigation, though we have not seen it, deny that. They received no advice from the Solicitor General.

The fact is, we are now getting to a more serious problem than the letters themselves, which is the answers the Solicitor General has given in this House about his instruction to his staff. What I want to ask the Solicitor General to do is to produce someone who will say, "I received advice from the Solicitor General," instead of saying to his staff, "I say; I know you deny it." We are raising real questions about the kind of information the Solicitor General is presenting to this House.

The Speaker: Your supplementary?

Mr Scott: I want to ask the minister, will he now submit his resignation?

Hon Mr Farnan: I am not going to be lectured in this House by the member for St George-St David. Let me put on the record that what I say in this House I say outside the House. On 24 April the member opposite made a scurrilous, unfounded accusation of criminal activity on my part. He had to withdraw that accusation in this House. He has been afraid to make the accusation outside the House because he knows if he does he will end up in the courts.

Mr Scott: I am saying in the House that there is no evidence from his own files that the Solicitor General gave any written communication to his staff, and his three staff members -- he has not got any more in Cambridge -- have all denied that he gave oral advice. I will say that here and I will say that out there any time the Solicitor General wants to hear it. How does that square with his answers in this House?

The Speaker: Your second question?

Mr Scott: I have a question for the Premier as a result of this. The Solicitor General, as the Premier has heard, has persistently said that he did not write or authorize the letters and that he had given written and oral instructions to his Cambridge office staff that such contact was not to occur.

In this House on 23 April, the Premier indicated that he had received and accepted the word of the Solicitor General in this regard. On 24 April, the Premier said: "I have the word of the Solicitor General. No one has suggested that he is not telling the truth."

As a result of the release of the

summary of the RCMP report and the release by the Solicitor General of his written communication of 25 February, it is now clear that there was no written direction. At least three members of his constituency staff, two explicitly -- the third apparently was either not asked the question or it was not summarized -- have denied, contrary to his assertion, that they received oral advice or direction from him.

I want to suggest to the Premier that this matter is escalating, that a real problem about credibility exists, and a problem about the propriety of answers that have been given in this House. Will he now give consideration, as was suggested by the Toronto Star, the Globe and Mail and the Ottawa Citizen last week, to accepting or demanding the resignation of the Solicitor General?

Hon Mr Rae: In a word, no. But I want to say to the member for St George-St David that I think he is drawing conclusions from the report, drawing conclusions from what has been said, that are at variance. I have read the same

summary which the member for St George-St David has read, and I would say to the honourable member that I think he is grossly exaggerating -- I will simply leave it at that -- what flows from that, and the level of his personal attack on the Solicitor General is simply not called for.

Mr Scott: I respect the right of anybody to read the

summary of the judgement, but if there is one thing clear from that

summary report it is that the Solicitor General says he gave oral advice and that the three people who worked for him say they received no advice. The Premier cannot get around that reality.

The RCMP report was commissioned to get to the bottom of the matter. The crown law staff, on the basis of the investigation, recommended, as we expected, that there was no breach of the Criminal Code. They, of course, made no observation about whether the Premier's guidelines had been breached. That was not their affair.

Last week in the House the Premier made plain that he had not read the report, as if there were something wrong in reading the report of the RCMP. It would be wrong to interfere with it; it is not wrong to read it after it is done. Presumably, he has not read the depositions obtained by the RCMP from the constituency staff and others.

In order to get to the bottom of this matter and to ascertain whether this House has heard the entire story or the correct story, will the Premier now undertake to read the RCMP investigative report, and the depositions associated with it, to determine who is telling the truth?

Hon Mr Rae: My initial reaction -- and I will obviously be taking advice on it -- is that this would not be appropriate on my part. I am saying that, but I have one other point.

The member for St George-St David has on a number of occasions in the House today asserted as a matter of fact -- he has not quoted directly, but he has asserted -- that staff members said they had never received any oral or verbal instructions from the Solicitor General. I am quoting from page 10 of the report of the

summary provided by the office of the Attorney General. It quotes staff member 2, who said she did not have any written guidelines or directions in relation to corresponding with the judiciary. The report is entirely silent on the question of what other conversations she may have had with the Solicitor General with regard to her obligations as a constituency assistant.

Mr Scott: That is about as thin a reed as you can get. If any of the witnesses had said, "Yes, the Solicitor General, just as he said, came down to Cambridge and told us," that would appear right in the report. The fact is he did not and that is apparent from the report. There is no question about how this has to be read. Five minutes in a courtroom and this explanation would not stand up.

On 24 April, Richard Johnston, a former member of the Assembly, a senior adviser to the Premier from time to time, said on the CBC that if the Solicitor General had not made it unequivocally clear to his Cambridge staff -- I presume so they would remember it -- that they were never to sign his name to a letter to a justice of the peace, he would clearly be obliged to resign. That is Richard Johnston. He was then and, of course, this is now.

What we now know is that no written instruction about communicating with justices was ever given by the Solicitor General to his staff. There is grave doubt, three to one, whether any oral instruction was given. In light of the fact that the Premier persists in refusing to read the RCMP report -- which no doubt got to the heart of the matter -- would the Premier now agree that what is required is an independent investigation in which the evidence and conclusions can be made public or, alternatively, that the advice of Richard Johnston should finally be accepted and the Premier should demand the resignation of the Solicitor General forthwith?

Hon Mr Rae: The member for St George-St David has already reached his conclusions with regard to what has happened. I want to read out for the benefit of the member for St George-St David, because in all of his reading of the reports he has never had the courtesy to do so, the one conclusion with respect to the conduct and character of the Solicitor General that the police officers did reach.

On page 8: "The Solicitor General impressed the officers as being a man of high integrity who was making a concerted effort to serve the people of Ontario in his role as the Solicitor General."

Mr Scott: That is the way he impresses me, but the facts are against him.

The Speaker: The member for St George-St David.

Mr Scott: It is too late, Premier.

The Speaker: The member for St George-St David, come to order.

Hon Mr Rae: It seems to me that in all fairness, that aspect of an independent RCMP investigation might have been considered by the member from St George-St David.

Mr Carr: My question is also to the Solicitor General. He has repeatedly told us that he clearly instructed his staff never to communicate with members of the justice system, but the RCMP report just as clearly states that one member of his staff did not receive this instruction. Who is not telling the truth, the Solicitor General or his staff?

Hon Mr Farnan: I want to commend the critic for the Conservative Party. He points out that one member of my staff clearly indicated that, in her view, she was not given that instruction. I will reiterate that I gave those directions.

One of the members of the staff was a member of three weeks' probation. The other member of the staff we are talking about who is quoted in this report is a part-time member. The full-time member of my staff can be asked -- I am sure she was asked -- and I know she will reaffirm, because it was discussed on several occasions, about the principle of separation, and the principle of arm's length.

Mr Carr: I would like to quote the Solicitor General of 24 April where he said: "So the answer is yes, both in writing and verbally I have said there must be an arm's length from the Solicitor General to the judiciary. Yes, yes, yes."

The RCMP report says staff member 2 did not have any written guidelines or directions in relation to corresponding with the judiciary.

The Solicitor General says yes, yes, yes; the RCMP says no, no, no; the public says explain, explain, explain. He has a choice now, explain to the people why there are the contradictions. How does he explain it?

Hon Mr Farnan: Very clearly, when the opposition parties look at any document they are selective. The member for St George-St David was very selective on the communication that was sent to my constituency staff. The critic for the Conservative Party is very selective. I would suggest to them that one must take all of this in its entirety. The statements to my staff, reinforced with the written communication, clearly indicate a separation, clearly indicate an arm's length.

I say inside the House what I say outside. Unfortunately, the members of the opposition keep to their slander inside the House.

Mr Carr: The Solicitor General sounds like Bart Simpson, "I didn't do it, nobody saw me do it, you can't prove a thing." The fact is that there are contradictions and the public cannot stand the cynicism any longer.

Will he admit that the mistake that was made was on the part of himself, yes or no? Did he mislead this House when he told us clearly that he informed his staff that they must never, never, never communicate with a member of the justice system?

Hon Mr Farnan: When I say to this House that I have talked to my staff, that I have given a written communication to my staff, of course I stand by that.

Mr Carr: Very clearly what we have here is a contradiction. The RCMP report says that they did not receive it.

We received copies of a couple of letters that were forwarded to us today. One, on 18 February, says very clearly that there was interference. Another letter was sent to the Attorney General. Therefore, he has in his constituency office in Cambridge two individuals, one sending to the Attorney General, the other sending to a justice of the peace within days of each other. Can the Solicitor General explain why one letter goes to the Attorney General and the other goes directly to the justice of the peace? How does he explain these two differences?

Hon Mr Farnan: In everything that has happened in this House concerning this matter, I have been totally open. From the time it has been possible to make information available, I have made it available. I have made it very clear that I want this to be like an open book. I took the same attitude with the RCMP; my office was open to the RCMP. If there is any evidence, if there is any information, if there is any request at all, and I have information that I can give to the opposition and give to the public, provided it is permissible for me to do that, I will give it to them.

I have been asked on two occasions for requests. I have complied with those requests. There is a fundamental principle here. When you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide -- period.

Mr Carr: That is why we would like to go to the standing committee on administration of justice. We have contradictions. We would like to get all the facts out so the public can rest assured that there has been no interference.

As chief law enforcement officer in this province, it was the Solicitor General's responsibility, and his alone, to instruct his staff that they were never to communicate with a justice of the peace or a judge in Ontario. The Solicitor General took office on 1 October. He should have informed them about this arm's-length policy on 2 October, not on 4 March. Why did it take him five months before he was able to communicate to his staff that they should never, never, never interfere with justice in this province?

Hon Mr Farnan: The member is precisely correct. On 1 October, after I was sworn in, I met with my Deputy Solicitor General. We had a very important conversation in which he impressed upon me the most fundamental principle. I went back to my office in Cambridge and I discussed that conversation with my staff. The substance of that conversation was that there has to be a separation, that there has to be an arm's length. That has been my consistent message. It is the model by which I work and it is the direction I asked my staff to follow.

Mr Carr: The problem is, this situation is clear only in the Solicitor General's mind. The rest of the public is not clear about it. If he was clear in his directions, then how does he explain that three different people on three separate occasions did not get the message? What does he say to the public? Why did they not get the message clearly? Was it his fault or was it theirs? Who is to blame for this?

Hon Mr Farnan: A part-time member of my staff made a mistake and a three-week probationary made a mistake. In every case where a minister has been forced to resign there has been --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Has the minister completed his remarks?

Hon Mr Farnan: It is very clear that in every case where a minister has been forced to resign, it has been because of direct involvement of the minister in an impropriety of contacting the judiciary, of contacting the police. I did not pick up the phone. I did not write a letter. I did not put my hand on a staff member's shoulder and say, "I want you to contact the justice of the peace." There is clearly arm's length.

Mr Scott: The Solicitor General is using words as if they are made of Plasticine. He said he gave written instructions to his Cambridge staff. I have offered him the opportunity to correct that, but in response to the member for Oakville South he again said he had given them written instructions. I have sent to him the one-and-a-half-page memo that he sent to Cambridge. Will he just read any paragraph, if there is one, in that memorandum that relates to writing to justices? Would he just read the bit that he says was the written advice?

Hon Mr Farnan: I am going to make two points. The first is that the written communication is taken in the context of verbal directives. If the member opposite will look at this particular document, he will note that it says, "In any adjudicative process." An adjudicative process, I would suggest to him, would include a justice of the peace. If you cannot interfere with the WCB, surely to goodness interfering with a judge is obviously more serious. Does the member not realize that?

Mr Scott: The Solicitor General is just getting in deeper and deeper every single day. When you ask him about a written instruction -- and there clearly is not one -- he says it was verbal. When you ask him about a verbal one, then he says it was a written one, as he said to the member for Oakville South. He cannot play fast and loose like this. Now I assume what I think is obvious, that there is no written instruction, contrary to what he said.

We cannot get the police report. We have to see the

summary of it, which indicates to me that three -- to my honourable friend, two of his constituency staff; that must be the whole staff -- not one of them remembered these trips to Cambridge that the minister made to give them instruction, which he did repeatedly, he says. Not one of them remembers it.

Will the honourable member permit these servants to come and answer questions about it before a parliamentary committee? If he wants the truth, he will agree to do that. If he is not prepared to do that, he will have to accept that every member of the House and the general public will draw their own conclusions, not about whether he signed the letter but about his attitude in this House, which at the end of the day is more important. Will the honourable member release the names of those people so they can be subpoenaed by a committee?

Hon Mr Farnan: The honourable member continues to confuse facts. One member of the staff was there three weeks into a probationary period, so if I were giving repeated messages I do not think the member can include this in his

summary.

Second, as the member for the third party had pointed out, two members perhaps can be identified; of those two, one is the three weeks' probationary. Now we are reduced to one member, and I am prepared to go on the record and say, if people wish to contact that other member of staff, they will find out very clearly that she supports my position, that I indeed discussed this matter repeatedly within my constituency.

Mr Sterling: I have a question of the Premier. I have listened for some days now to the questions and the answers regarding the conduct of the Solicitor General. There are obviously a lot of questions as to what happened or what did not happen, who said what, who received what type of instructions. I think the credibility of the Solicitor General and, quite frankly, of the government is in question, as was stated in a number of leading newspapers across this province. What harm can come of the Premier's referring this to a committee of the Legislature to determine what the facts really are?

Hon Mr Rae: In my view, the facts have been presented to the public as clearly as possible. The Solicitor General has made the position clear in the House. The investigation has taken place with respect to the RCMP, and in my view the facts are out.

Mr Sterling: Back in 1980, I was a member of this Legislature, and at that time there were some serious questions with regard to an Astra/Re-Mor Trust Co matter. At that time, there was a serious criminal investigation under way with regard to the principal of the Astra Trust Co. The New Democratic Party and the Liberal Party, in a minority Parliament, forced the government of the day to divulge all of the criminal investigations that were going on with regard to that very, very sensitive matter.

I sat in room 163 of this Legislature with a number of members of the other party going through 20 or 30 four-drawer file cabinets of criminal investigation material. The material that appears to have come to light or might be there, I am certain, does not equal the sensitivity of that kind of information. As a result of those hearings, three members from each party were given the right to look at those criminal investigation reports. They were held in confidence by those members. In fact, as a result of the criminal investigation there was a serious criminal charge laid, which resulted in a conviction and a subsequent severe sentence for the principal of Astra Trust.

In light of the record of this Parliament in looking at criminal investigation reports, why would the Premier deny in this case, where there are no criminal charges being laid, members of the justice committee, or perhaps two or three members of the justice committee, the right to look at the criminal investigation report of the RCMP so that the facts can really be determined as to whether the Solicitor General was in fact fulfilling his obligations as a minister of the crown?

Hon Mr Rae: I can only say to the honourable member that I do not see any parallel between the situation at Astra Trust and the situation today.

Mr Fletcher: I have a lot of faith in the Solicitor General and he has my support.

CAPITAL FUNDING FOR SCHOOLS

Mr Fletcher: My question is for the Minister of Education. On Friday I was pleased to hear the minister announce $2 million in capital funding for the rebuilding of Paisley Road Public School in my riding of Guelph. This school consists of five run-down metal satellite buildings built about 40 years ago. The minister will remember that I endorsed this project and the efforts of the Paisley Road Parent-Teacher Association.

I am also aware that the capital requests from Ontario schools totalled more than $2 billion, while the ministry had only $300 million available. I commend the minister for recognizing the special need at this school. My question for the minister is whether she can clarify when the money will be available for the construction so that construction may begin.

Hon Mrs Boyd: The previous government, recognizing the really major space problems that were occurring in the province, entered into a long-term plan of preflowing funds. The funds that we flowed the other day were for the 1994-95 year, the next year after the program. What has happened in the past is that some school boards, recognizing the need of their communities for these schools, have gone into debenture situations in order to finance the building of schools earlier than the year in which the funds will be released by the government. But these funds are for the 1994-95 fiscal year in terms of government grants.

MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY

Mr Scott: I want to ask the Attorney General, now that the decision has been made that there will be no criminal charges arising out of the affair of the letters, if he sees any reason at all why the Premier of Ontario should not be allowed, as the Attorney General has done, to read the full investigative report, together with any depositions that are attached to it. Is there any reason why the Premier should not read it?

Hon Mr Hampton: I suspect the member for St George-St David knows that when an investigation is undertaken by police for a particular person, the report that comes out of that investigation is to be used for that purpose and that purpose alone. That is the situation here. When I requested the RCMP to investigate, it was from the perspective of seeing if anyone had obstructed justice or anyone had attempted to obstruct justice. That was the basis upon which the report was prepared. That was the basis upon which the RCMP clearly was operating. It would be improper for me to release the report for any other reason.

Mr Scott: Once an investigative report has been made, the Premier has not the right, and would not exercise it even if he had it, to interfere in an investigation or to interfere before a decision has been made to lay charges. But once an investigative report has been made to the Attorney General and read by the Attorney General, can it really be that under this government the Premier of the province is not going to be allowed to read it? I leave that there. I have never heard of any such proposition in Ontario, anywhere else in Canada or in England, where most of this practice comes from.

But having got the Attorney General to make that very odd remark, may I say this: The investigative report was prepared for the Attorney General or the government by the RCMP, which acted as agent for the government in conducting an investigation. Will the Attorney General ask the RCMP to permit release of the report to the Premier or the public? We have often in government asked for that, and that permission has always been granted. I am sure if the Attorney General will undertake today to ask the RCMP to permit the release of the report, it will do so. Will he undertake that today?

Hon Mr Hampton: I have had a number of discussions, through senior legal advisers in the Ministry of the Attorney General, with the RCMP, and the RCMP is very clear. They regard their report as a report that has to deal with the criminal investigation. There are several privacy matters that they regard as important. They have asked that the report be used for the purposes of ascertaining whether or not criminal charges ought to be laid, and for no other reason.

LANDFILL SITE

Mrs Marland: My question is to the minister responsible for the greater Toronto area on the subject of waste management. I understand that she met last week with the mayor of Mississauga to discuss one of the regions in the GTA that is facing a garbage crisis. I also understand she was informed again by the mayor that there is a signed agreement as to the closing date of the Britannia landfill site. She has said she does not want Peel to close it because she may need it in an emergency to take more garbage.

However, as the mayor has pointed out, if that were to be the move, it would not be the result the minister needs. It would not be the solution she needs because there would be lawsuits from the people around that site, who were assured by a written agreement that the site was going to close.

I am asking the minister today if she will promise the people of Mississauga that she will not expand that site, which she herself in the past has criticized, because originally it was approved under the Environmental Protection Act and she was opposed to it when she was in opposition.

Hon Mrs Grier: The site to which the member refers was approved some years ago. I do not think I was in this House to criticize the approval process at that time, but I am certainly aware of the member's concern and that of the mayor of Mississauga, who has expressed to me on a number of occasions her desire that this site close as soon as possible. The reality is that no contingency planning had been done, until this government took office, about what happened in the long term with waste disposal.

As the member is well aware, I have undertaken to report back to this House about the measures my ministry has been investigating with respect to short-term contingency actions that would have to be taken if we ran out of landfill capacity within the GTA prior to the opening of the new landfill site. That undertaking still stands.

Mrs Marland: This minister was not in office when that site was approved. However, this minister sat in this House and criticized the fact that the site was approved under the Environmental Protection Act. Furthermore, the minister has stopped the progression of an approval of a site in Peel because it was under the Environmental Protection Act, the same as the site in Durham. She put a whole cap on that progress that was being made when those regions were independently finding a solution to their own garbage crisis.

Based on the fact that the minister now has an authority that has set up firms to go and do research into site selection for long-term sites, and one of those sites is to be in the region of Peel, is she going to reimburse the region of Peel any of the $4.5 million it has already spent on site selection? That information will, of course, be requested by the agents of the minister's waste authority. Is she now going to reimburse the taxpayers of the region of Peel for any of the work that has already been done in that site selection process?

Hon Mrs Grier: As the member has said, in fact the site selection process for the new long-term sites has begun, and I hope the site selection criteria will be available for consultation very soon. I think I have already addressed a question on that issue in the House.

I am also glad to be able to tell the member that while it was anticipated that the Britannia Road site to which she refers was due to close in the middle of 1991, the region of Peel and the city of Mississauga have been extremely helpful in sharing information with the GTA authority and it is now obvious that the Britannia Road site is going to be available for waste until March 1992, which is a tribute to the waste reduction efforts being undertaken within the region of Peel.

The issues the member raises with respect to the financing of the long-term search, the work that has already been undertaken, are all going to be part of the discussions and the negotiations the new waste authority will have with the regions as we proceed in the long-term site search.

PESTICIDES

Mr Drainville: I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Natural Resources. Last week, the American Journal of Public Health released a study on bacillus thuringiensis, otherwise known as BT. This is a bacterial agent that is used in fighting gypsy moth. In my riding of Victoria-Haliburton, since the release of that report, there have been concerns and questions raised by residents in my riding as to this agent, BT, and whether there are some hazards related to it. I ask the minister whether he could tell us how that is used by the ministry and what its disposition is towards using BT.

Hon Mr Wildman: This is a very important question. I am familiar with the study to which the member refers and I want to emphasize that the study concluded that BT has a remarkable safety record, considering how widely it is used in North America. However, it is important to recognize that the medical community is reluctant to label any bacterium as absolutely non-pathogenic to humans.

BT, it should be remembered, is a naturally occurring bacterium. The study did not provide any clear evidence that there is any threat, or what threat there might be, to people with weak immune systems. Having said that, however, if there is any municipality or individual or community that wishes to withdraw from the program, the ministry would accommodate that. It should be recognized that where municipalities have asked for participation, the spray program is advertised 30 days and seven days prior to any spraying.

Interjections.

Mr Drainville: I found it hard at times to hear what the minister was saying because of some of the outpourings of the opposition. This is a very serious issue and affects the whole of the north country in terms of the gypsy moth. I was wondering if the minister would be willing to talk specifically also about the gypsy moth program in Ontario and how that is being used by the ministry to fight the gypsy moth problem.

Hon Mr Wildman: This is a very popular program for fighting the gypsy moth in southern Ontario and, in northern Ontario, the spruce budworm. In the member's own riding we have 525 and 716 private land owners, respectively, in Victoria and Haliburton participating in the program. The ministry sprays a total of 36,500 hectares for gypsy moth. The program is cost-shared by the land owner and the municipality, with the administration of the program shared between the ministry and the municipality.

I should re-emphasize that the ministry only uses BT in an aerial treatment for insect pests. There are no chemical pesticides used in aerial applications in this regard.

NORTHERN ONTARIO

Mr Kwinter: I have a question of the Treasurer and Minister of Economics. Today the Liberal budget review tours in Sudbury, examining the impact of the NDP budget and what effect it is having right in the Treasurer's backyard.

Melinda Dozzi, the president of the Ontario Hotel and Motel Association, told the task force that her two main concerns are gasoline prices and loans for small business. For northern consumers and small businesses alike, the 30% increase in gasoline taxes is an incredible financial burden. This was recognized by the current Minister of Mines when, in a debate on 28 May 1986 and, more recently, on 26 June 1990, he decried the fact that gasoline prices were higher in the north. On both occasions, he said all it took was a stroke of a pen to change it.

Again in the Sudbury Star of Tuesday 21 August, the then leader of the official opposition said that if he were Premier, he would bring in one-price gasoline across the province. Could the Treasurer tell us what happened to that promise by the Treasurer and his government about gasoline prices in the north?

Hon Mr Laughren: There has been considerable debate across the north on the whole question of gasoline prices. As a matter of fact, I can recall some of my own utterances over the years about the unfairness of the pricing of gasoline.

During the time leading up to the preparation of the budget when we had groups in expressing their views and giving their advice, some of which I took and some of which I did not, that was one of the issues bothering me the most, the whole question of gasoline prices in the north. No matter which model we looked at in terms of making sure that prices were fair across the province, it seemed that it became ever more complex when we looked at all the possible solutions.

Since then, I have expressed the hope that rather than relying on the government in this particular case to move in and impose price controls on gasoline across the north, the private sector, without engaging in any collusive behaviour whatsoever of course, might think of a more logical way in which it, as individual companies, would price its product across northern Ontario.

Mr Kwinter: I would like to turn to the other concern that was expressed. According to the Ontario Hotel and Motel Association, the small business person has become a nonentity in the NDP government.

During the election campaign, the NDP proposed "to introduce a program of reduced-interest loans to small business for startup costs and to refinance existing high-interest loans." Some $40 million would be available. The Treasurer did not deliver this in his budget, and one of the things that is crushing small business in this recession is the refusal by financial institutions to lend it money.

Could the Treasurer tell us why he ignored the reality of this situation in his April 1991 budget, when in August 1990 he and his party were making promises about it?

Hon Mr Laughren: First of all, I must say I felt that the $9.7-billion deficit was high enough to start with and that to make it higher by a further program of more loans or grants simply would not be acceptable.

In thinking about the motel and hotel industry, when I was in New York recently being so warmly received, I noticed, when I paid my bill when I checked out of the very modestly priced hotel, three different taxes that applied to the hotel bill came to over 20% of the price of the bill. I think sometimes when we are comparing the whole question of taxes here versus other jurisdictions we simply do not take into consideration all of the taxes in other jurisdictions, and I think we should start doing that.

CHILD CARE

Mr Jackson: I have a question of the Minister of Community and Social Services. It is no secret that the NDP government is pursuing a course of action designed to wipe out private child care delivery service in this province.

The minister would be aware that a non-profit day care centre which was built at considerable expense to Ontario taxpayers on Observatory Lane in Richmond Hill was scheduled to open last September, but it still remains empty to this day. The doors have never opened. It did not open because an insufficient number of children applied and they could not pull together a management team.

It is my understanding that this is not the first case of a non-profit centre failing to open its doors after the taxpayers have built it. Can the minister inform all members of this House just how many centres in Ontario have been built and have not opened?

Hon Ms Akande: I thank the member for the question. I do want to once again correct the premise upon which this question is based. It is not a well-known fact that this government is trying to put for-profit child care out of business. I must say, though, that I have no knowledge of the centre to which the member refers. However, I certainly will look into it and I will promptly get back to this House with the answer.

Mr Jackson: In the minister's former life as a teacher, I do not know what the penalty for not having done her homework was, but in this instance we are looking at a $700,000 government screwup, and she does not know anything about it. That really shocks me.

I do believe that this minister is dancing to the tune of her ideology and not listening to the concerns of taxpayers. The truth of the matter is that on 7 March of this year, this minister announced a further $700,000 to go towards the building of another non-profit day care centre in Richmond Hill, less than two minutes' drive away from the Observatory Lane centre which has never opened its doors. This was all in her announcement under an anti-recession package.

The mayor and the members of municipal council visited these sites. They have expressed concern as to why the minister is spending millions of dollars building centres that never open, when that centre could have provided 110 subsidized child care spaces, where there is clear demand and where the public is asking for support and yet she has not given it in this area. Will the minister tell this House just how many centres are involved and how many dollars are involved in these non-profit centres that never open under her government's programs?

Hon Ms Akande: In actual fact, in my previous life the penalty for not doing one's homework was doing one's homework, and that is what I have suggested I will do. I will find out exactly the information the member requests and present it in this House tomorrow. However, I must say once again that the particular incident to which the member refers is being generalized in his question and we have no indication at this time that this is in fact a general concern.

SENIOR CITIZENS

Mrs Haslam: In my riding we do have a number of seniors. A couple of weeks ago I was attending the Ritz Lutheran Villa to open its new wing. I am pleased to report that we are giving consideration to some new housing for seniors in my riding, so I would like to ask the minister responsible for senior citizens' affairs, since this is Senior Citizens' Month, how this government is making changes that will affect the seniors in our ridings and in all of Ontario.

Hon Ms Ziemba: We believe, as a government, that seniors have played a very important role in all of our lives, and we also believe it is not just to make announcements during Senior Citizens' Month but to make announcements all through the year.

We have been making some very substantial changes to seniors' lives by introducing the Advocacy Act, which will have second reading this afternoon, and by appointing a commissioner last December to look into unregulated homes. The commissioner will come back in July with his recommendations on unregulated homes for the frail and for seniors. We have also introduced for first reading the Substitute Decisions Act -- the Attorney General introduced that last week -- and a new health consent act.

We have made provisions for more commitment to transportation: accessible taxis. We have announcements coming up which will address the needs of seniors when it comes to long-term care and also for housing.

We have also looked at the fact that affordable housing is very important for seniors and that Bill 4, when it comes to affordable housing, is extremely important and that we are making sure that seniors are well looked after in housing needs.

SKILLS TRAINING

Mr Daigeler: My question is to the Minister of Skills Development, if I could have his attention for a moment. The minister may recall that on 15 May my Liberal colleague the member for Renfrew North asked the Treasurer about new training initiatives and new training funds in his budget. In his response the Treasurer said, "We are working within government to put together a very serious proposal and effort on the whole question of training in the province."

I would like to ask the minister, is the $3.5-million worker adjustment program that he announced some 10 days ago all we can expect from his government on retraining, or will he keep the Treasurer's promise for a very serious proposal and effort on training, and if so, when will we see it happen?

Hon Mr Allen: The short answer is "soon," but I think the member would want a little bit more than that. He knows that recently we have put $6 million into ensuring that apprentices are able to complete their training regardless of depression circumstances; that we have put an extra $2 million into technology and technicians' upgrading programs; that we have put a further $1 million into pre-apprenticeship programs for women and for designated minorities so that they will be able to access apprenticeship programs.

But beyond that, there are two other initiatives that the member needs to be aware of. He may not realize it, but with 38% of the labour market in Ontario, we have been getting 23% of the federal training dollars, and our past governments, for some reason or other, have let about 14 or 15 percentage points slip out of their hands in terms of accessing federal training dollars. We are in the midst of negotiations with the federal government to make sure that it antes up its fair share of training dollars to Ontario so that we can in turn beef up training in the midst of our Ottawa-made recession.

Mr Daigeler: I am pleased to hear that the minister is in fact taking a very serious look at the whole question of training, and I am certainly looking forward to receiving some details on his plans very, very soon, because I think we all are agreed that the whole labour-adjustment industrial restructuring that is happening at this time and the effects of the recession are very tremendous for our whole economic future.

The minister will remember that some very valuable work has already been done by the previous government on this whole question of training, and I refer to the report which was issued last August, People and Skills in the New Global Economy. So clearly the minister has some very excellent work already on his desk, and I certainly hope that he will be coming forward very soon and very quickly with a comprehensive training outline and training plans for this province.

The minister also referred to the federal and provincial training agreements. I am glad he mentioned that, because we were supposed to hear very shortly -- in fact, by now -- that a new training agreement has been signed with the federal government. Can the minister advise this House when that training agreement with the federal government will be signed, what position he is taking and what we can expect from that new training agreement?

Hon Mr Allen: Globally, I think I indicated what we expect to achieve under the agreement, but there have been a number of very important technical discussions around the terms of reference, for example, as to what would constitute the fair treatment of Ontario in the context of the allocation of federal training dollars. It has been matters like that, like coming to an agreed-upon structure for the delivery of training dollars through local training boards, that have protracted these discussions at some length. But I expect it will not be long before that agreement has been signed.

The member should also know that we have been working very much on a fast track in order to develop an Ontario training and adjustment board not unlike but considerably different from the model that was presented in the People and Skills in the New Global Economy report from the previous Premier's Council, and that is at the same time, almost concurrently with the training agreement, coming to a head at this point in time.

I would expect the member should keep his eyes and ears open and there will be some good news fairly soon.

PETITIONS NURSING HOMES

Mr Tilson: I have a petition from the residents' families and staff of Avalon Care Centre in Orangeville that consists of 83 signatures. It is addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas we, the residents' families and staff of Avalon Care Centre, are very concerned about the funding inequities of nursing homes in the province of Ontario, and

"Whereas it is our understanding that the government funds homes for the aged at a much higher rate than nursing homes,

"We the undersigned petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"We demand equality in funding and staffing between homes for the aged and nursing homes in order to meet the increased needs and maintain the quality of life of nursing homes."

AMALGAMATION OF TOWNSHIPS

Mr Eves: I have a petition for the honourable Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

"We are against the amalgamation of Cameron and Papineau townships. If not stopped, we demand a plebiscite vote."

I have affixed my signature thereto in accordance with standing order 35(e).

CHILD CARE

Mr Mahoney: I wish to table a petition to the Honourable Zanana Akande, Minister of Community and Social Services, from 17 early childhood educators in Mississauga. They are protesting the minister's decision to provide funding to enhance the salaries of child care workers in non-profit day care centres only. This policy discriminates against workers in the commercial licensed day care centres in Ontario and they are demanding responses from the minister to their petition. I am affixing my signature as well.

Hon Miss Martel: May I ask for the consent of the House to revert back to motions, please?

The Speaker: Do we have unanimous consent to return to motions?

Agreed to.

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Miss Martel moved that Mr Callahan and Mr Cordiano exchange places in the order of precedence for private members' public business.

Motion agreed to.

COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTION

Miss Martel moved that Mr Curling be substituted for Mr Beer on the select committee on Ontario in Confederation.

Motion agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ADVOCACY ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR L'INTERVENTION

Ms Ziemba moved second reading of Bill 74,

An Act respecting the Provision of Advocacy Services to Vulnerable Persons.

Mme Ziemba propose la deuxième lecture du projet de loi 74, Loi concernant la prestation de services d'intervenants en faveur des personnes vulnerables.

Hon Ms Ziemba: Just over six months ago I told members about this government's plan to protect the rights and wellbeing of vulnerable adults by introducing legislation that addresses the long-standing issues of advocacy, substitute decision-making and consent to health treatment.

On 18 April I presented for first reading the centrepiece of this legislative package, the Advocacy Act, which, for the first time, will give our vulnerable fellow citizens access to a province-wide system of non-legal advocacy that respects their human dignity and safeguards their fundamental human rights. I am here today to ask for the support of all members on second reading of Bill 74.

As I said in April, Ontario has approximately 600,000 citizens, including the frail elderly, who have moderate to severe disabilities. While the majority of these people may be quite capable of making their wishes known, a great many, because of their disabilities, cannot. Some of them have been able to rely on the assistance of caring and competent family members, friends or service providers in making decisions. This type of advocacy often works very well, but when it does not, the consequences for vulnerable adults, whose disabilities make them unable to protest or to protect themselves against abuse, neglect or exploitation, have too often been tragic.

After widespread consultation I came to believe that this problem could only be solved through concerted and systematic action. The proposed legislation is thorough and far-reaching. I further believe that it will usher in a new era of empowerment for vulnerable adults. The heart of the Advocacy Act is the creation of a province-wide system of non-legal advocacy that will assert and promote respect for the rights and dignity of vulnerable adults.

Instead of often being forced, in effect, to accept whatever treatment is meted out to them, vulnerable adults will have access to the services of trained advocates. The advocates will assist vulnerable adults to make their own decisions, communicate their wishes and exercise their rights on matters affecting their own lives in the same way as all of us here take for granted.

While advocates will provide information and perhaps make recommendations, they will in all cases abide by the wishes of the individuals they represent. The advocates will assist vulnerable adults to engage in mutual aid, form organizations to advance their interests and bring about changes on all levels -- political, social, economic, legal and institutional.

The foundation of the system will be an advocacy commission which will operate at arm's length from government. A majority of the members of the commission will be disabled or will have experienced a disability, illness or infirmity. The commission members will be selected through a process that, to my knowledge, is unprecedented and in which people with disabilities are assured of leading and decisive roles.

Grass-roots consumer organizations representing people with disabilities and senior citizens will be asked to nominate the members of the appointments advisory committee. The committee will develop criteria and procedures for the selection of commissioners and interview applicants. It will also be the committee's responsibility to submit a list of the most qualified candidates for my consideration and subsequent appointment by the Lieutenant Governor. Once appointed, the commission will determine how advocacy services should be delivered, establish qualifications for advocates and select and train staff.

The commission will develop the policies, procedures and codes of conduct governing the service of advocates and establish procedures for monitoring and evaluating their performance.

Let me stress that advocacy services will be provided in a manner that is sensitive to the religion, culture and traditions of vulnerable adults. It is also our goal to ensure that aboriginal communities provide their own advocacy services whenever possible.

The commission will have the authority to make regulations and will play an active role in public education and awareness programs. To reinforce its connections with grass-roots organizations it will also have authority to enter into contractual agreements with or give grants to non-profit community programs which provide advocacy services on either a paid or voluntary basis.

Let me turn now to the three forms of advocacy that will be provided under the new system. Rights advocacy is specifically designed to help individuals who, because of an alleged mental incapacity, are at risk of losing control over some or all aspects of their lives. In such situations, the advocates' roles will be to advise vulnerable adults of their rights and options, to help them articulate their wishes and to ensure that they are not placed under unnecessary guardianship or subjected to medical treatment which they do not want.

Case advocacy comes into play when a vulnerable adult has a particular problem, such as obtaining appropriate health care or social services. Here the advocate's job is to uncover the problem and determine the person's wishes. The advocate will then speak on the individual's behalf to a person in authority about resolving the problem.

Systemic advocacy has enormous potential for changing the way in which vulnerable persons are treated. I believe that this level of advocacy is critically important and long overlooked. Its focus will be to uncover and change, wherever they are found, the institutionalized regulations, programs and practices that adversely affect vulnerable adults.

For example, an advocate working in a particular institution may encounter several individuals who are experiencing similar problems with their treatment. The advocate's function will be to investigate and to document the problems for the consideration of the Advocacy Commission. The commissioners may then bring pressure to bear to see that the problems are corrected.

Let me emphasize that the government is prepared to act on the recommendations and advice of the commission. If advocates' inquiries reveal widespread or chronic abuse or neglect, then we are ready to initiate systemic changes, including new laws, practices and policies. This is social policy geared towards social change through the identification and resolution of problems at their source.

It is obvious that advocates must have legal authority to visit vulnerable adults and examine the records relating to their care. Under this act, advocates will be able to enter publicly funded or regulated entities such as institutions for people with disabilities, nursing homes, hospitals and municipal homes for the aged. With the consent of a vulnerable adult, they will be able to meet in privacy and without interference at any hour that is reasonable under the circumstances. With the individual's consent, they will also have access to the institution's records relating to that person.

Advocates will also be available to vulnerable adults who live in premises that are operated for remuneration. Although advocates will not have access to the records held by the owners of these premises, they will have full authority to visit vulnerable residents in privacy and at any reasonable time.

Advocates will certainly encounter vulnerable adults living in private homes who may want or could benefit from their services. Again, with the person's consent, they will be authorized to visit between the hours of 8 am and 8 pm.

May I stress that the advocates, together with the commissioners and their staff, will be sworn to protect the confidentiality of any and all information obtained from vulnerable adults.

I would like to tell members that the response we have received so far to the proposed advocacy legislation has been overwhelmingly positive. Naturally, concerns and questions have also been raised which deserve serious and careful attention. We are anxious to proceed on this and I hope members will send this bill to a standing committee of this Legislature for consultation with all interested groups and individuals.

I would like to conclude by saying there are quality programs providing advocacy services already in existence as well as informal, community-based support systems. Dismantling such programs is not the purpose of this legislation -- quite the opposite. In fact, one of the act's major objectives is to encourage and stimulate informal support systems and community development.

We all know this demographic fact: Our population is aging. As the ranks of vulnerable adults generally grow larger, their needs are also becoming ever more diverse and complex. It is up to all of us to marshal our selective resources to address them.

It is my conviction that this act will go a very long way towards correcting some long-standing social injustices. It contains some strong measures and it will not be expensive to implement. In our view, however, we cannot afford to do anything less.

Mr Cordiano: I rise to speak on Bill 74 and would like to congratulate the minister for bringing forward this very important legislation. I would add at this time that I am glad to see that the government of the day is setting forward initiatives we undertook when we were in government and is bringing those forward.

Bill 74 and the companion pieces of legislation are clearly the offspring of the Fram report and other reports which we initiated when we were in government. The total legislative package the government has put before us includes the proposed Substitute Decisions Act and the Consent to Treatment Act. This means a three-part combination, as was contemplated when we were considering these acts in totality.

The decision of the government to debate these bills separately, however, I must say at this point, leads us to question whether the government recognizes the interrelationship between these three acts and how important that is. The three acts are interwoven and I think it is necessary. It would have been better if we could have dealt with all three acts together. I have that as a major concern.

Bill 74 and the companion pieces of legislation should be discussed together so that we can look at what omissions there might be and what overlap there certainly needs to be between the three acts, because I think that in order to fully protect the people we are talking about here, it requires that substitute decision-making be in place while preserving the individual freedoms of those who require perhaps a little less interventionist approach. I point that out to the minister as basically the concern I have at the outset.

There are five areas of concern in particular that I have with the bill and I am going to deal with each of those.

First, one of the major concerns I have is the broadness of scope and the vagueness of definition. The minister -- I heard her remarks -- tried to be a little more specific with respect to some of the areas of the bill and some of the provisions.

Second, there is a concern that I have with balancing of rights within the bill.

Third, there is also a failure to establish a rights advocacy program in any detail.

Fourth, the bill does not speak to a variety of items which perhaps will be dealt with in regulations, but there are a great many matters to be dealt with, with regulations coming after the bill is passed, that I want to speak to with respect to specifics on the bill.

Finally, the minister made some remarks wi