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

May 5, 1987

33rd Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L005 - Tue 5 May 1987 / Mar 5 mai 1987

GEORGE BUKATOR

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT

ROOMERS, BOARDERS AND LODGERS

EDUCATION FUNDING

NIAGARA REGIONAL GOVERNMENT

MINISTRY RELOCATION

GUELPH SPRING FESTIVAL

SCHOOL ATHLETICS

DENTAL HYGIENE PROGRAM

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

JUSTICES OF THE PEACE

ONTARIO FAMILY FARM INTEREST RATE REDUCTION PROGRAM

BUDGET

RESPONSES

BUDGET

ONTARIO FAMILY FARM INTEREST RATE REDUCTION PROGRAM

BUDGET

ONTARIO FAMILY FARM INTEREST RATE REDUCTION PROGRAM

MEMBER FOR KENORA

ORAL QUESTIONS

CONSTITUTIONAL DISCUSSIONS

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES

BUDGET

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

TECHNOLOGY FUND

PENSION BENEFITS

POLICE INVESTIGATION

WATER QUALITY

ONTARIO LOTTERY CORP.

EDUCATION FUNDING

MARKET VALUE ASSESSMENT

ROOMERS, BOARDERS AND LODGERS

BUDGET

NURSING HOMES

NIAGARA REGIONAL GOVERNMENT

CONTROL OF SMOKING

PETITIONS

NIAGARA REGIONAL GOVERNMENT

NATUROPATHY

DIALYSIS UNIT

NATUROPATHY

ABORTION SERVICES

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

MEMBERS' CONFLICT OF INTEREST ACT / LOI DE 1987 SUR LES CONFLITS D'INTÉRÊTS DES MEMBRES DE L'ASSEMBLÉE

JUSTICES OF THE PEACE ACT / LOI DE 1987 SUR LES JUGES DE PAIX

INSTITUTE OF MUNICIPAL ASSESSORS ACT

CITY OF LONDON ACT

QUETICO FOUNDATION ACT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE (CONTINUED)

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

Prayers.

GEORGE BUKATOR

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, may I have the concurrence of the House to bring to its attention the death of a former member?

Agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I wish to bring to the attention of the Legislature the death of a former member, a Niagara Falls politician and a long-time personal friend.

George Bukator, who died last week at the age of 74, enthusiastically served his province and his community for many years. He represented the former riding of Niagara in this Legislature from 1959 to 1971. He served as a councillor and reeve in the village of Chippewa before entering provincial politics. When he left the Legislature, he continued his distinguished political career by serving as mayor of Niagara Falls from 1973 to 1978. He also served as vice-president of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario and as Ontario director of the Association of Mayors and Reeves. In addition, he served for six years on the Niagara Parks Commission.

These accomplishments are ones for which George Bukator is best known outside Niagara Falls, but in my city, his name is also synonymous with dedication to the good of our community. His contributions to the community were honoured with the dedication of the George Bukator Park and the George Bukator Swimming Pool at the boys' club. That club held a special place in George Bukator's heart. An excellent swimmer himself, his fund-raising efforts in the club swimathon resulted in his being awarded a life membership.

Many other organizations and worthy causes benefited from the efforts of George Bukator over the years. For instance, Nancy Reynolds, writing in the Niagara Falls Review, notes that he was awarded the Carnegie medal for saving three lives in near drownings in the Niagara and Welland rivers. He also received the Bicentennial medal and was an honorary member of branch 396, Royal Canadian Legion.

I have known the Bukator family for many years, and it is with deep personal sadness that I extend the sympathy of this Legislature to his wife, Bernice, and his daughters, Yvonne, Karen and Nancy.

Mr. Partington: I would like to join with the member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Kerrio) in expressing the tribute he paid to the late Mr. Bukator. On behalf of my party, I would like to honour the high regard in which Mr. Bukator was held by all the citizens of not only Niagara Falls but indeed of the Niagara area as well. Clearly, his reputation was one of an outstanding politician, an excellent mayor and a good citizen of Niagara. We would also join in expressing to his family our sorrow in his passing.

Mr. Swart: On behalf of myself and my party, I also would like to pay tribute to Mr. Bukator. I knew him well from being on county council with him for a number of years. In fact, I was one of those who was instrumental in helping to get him elected warden there by a very narrow margin. I want to say that he brought a period of reform to that county council and had the respect of the members and the public in Welland county.

It has been mentioned that he was a brave man and that he saved, at great risk to himself, three lives in the Niagara River. Certainly in his service on council he was respected. He practised openness. He had a rapport with the public and endeavoured to serve the people of his municipality. Though I did not sit here in the Legislature with him, I assume that he practised that same kind of public service here.

I join with all other members of the Legislature in expressing sympathy to the family and acknowledgement of the tremendous service that George Bukator gave to his own municipality and to this province.

Mr. Speaker: I will make certain that a copy of this Hansard is sent to the Bukator family showing your expression of sympathy.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Harris: Northerners continue to suffer. The Premier (Mr. Peterson), who once described northerners as a bunch of whiners and complainers, now says he will take great delight in receiving northern solutions to northern problems. There are many northern solutions to northern problems, and we do not begin the search for them today.

The people of Nipissing have had a plan to address local health concerns. This plan was unfolding well before this government took office. Yet this Liberal administration responds by delaying new north-based joint hospital projects by two years so far.

Our community has a plan to address a serious environmental concern, the Nipissing watershed. It has been in the works for years. This Liberal administration responds by delaying the creation of a single watershed flood control body by more than two years.

It has failed to support plans by the major employer in Sturgeon Falls to reduce a flood threat that could close the mill, that of excavation of the tailrace obstructions below the power dam, which has been delayed by one year.

We have a plan to address winter tourism and development, brought forth by northerners to create more jobs. This Liberal administration responds by delaying the major ski development at Mount Antoine by more than a year so far.

Northerners have had a plan to address transportation concerns. This Liberal administration responds by delaying Highway 11 four-laning by two years so far.

It refused to lower gasoline prices, as was promised in 1985, which are clearly detrimental to all northern Ontario residents. In fact, the only elected voice from the north opposes lowered northern gas prices.

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

ROOMERS, BOARDERS AND LODGERS

Mr. Reville: What about the commitment of this government to roomers? Time is running out. It is not an amusing situation for the people who have eight days of security left. On May 13, the people at 433 Ontario Street will join hundreds of other roomers in this province whom this government has left totally unprotected by the Landlord and Tenant Act.

These are not just numbers. It is very interesting that today at the Toronto regional conference on homelessness the Minister of Housing (Mr. Curling) talked about the interest of this government in doing something about homelessness. One of the things that could be done very quickly and very easily would be to prevent people from becoming homeless by being evicted without cause from their rooming houses, so that Al Maddox, Gary Costello, Karen St.

Germain, Ken Austin, Larry Schaeffer and at least 120 other people I know of who are facing eviction at this moment will have the same kind of protection that every other tenant in this province has, and that is something this government has known about since it took office. It should move today to solve that problem.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr. O'Connor: I would like to address the $240,000, or less than two per cent, response of the Minister of Education (Mr. Conway) to the Halton Board of Education's $16-million needs.

His press release announcing this grossly inadequate funding boldly stated this was "proof of the commitment of this government to the importance and priority we place on education." His only commitment in Halton is to gasoline and buses instead of bricks and mortar.

Oakville desperately needs three new schools. We are experiencing areas of rapid, almost unprecedented growth. The prime concern of any family moving into a new neighbourhood is its school. It is the one institution that brings a neighbourhood together and creates a sense of community.

Yes, we are educating our 42,000 students, but what is the quality of that education when they are bused to school and taught in portables and are unable to participate in any extracurricular activities? We owe them an education in an environment that is conducive to learning.

We are the 10th largest school board in this province. How can the minister totally disregard the legitimate needs of our students? The message he has sent is loud and clear: less than two per cent funding, regardless of the actual needs or the rhetoric of his press release. We need those schools; we must have funding approval for them. If there is any commitment by this government to educating Halton's students, the minister must reverse this disgraceful decision.

NIAGARA REGIONAL GOVERNMENT

Mr. Swart: Today, I will be tabling a petition containing 8,868 names which calls on this government to do a comprehensive examination of local government in the Niagara region. The intent is that the Niagara regional government should be substantially revised or an alternative provided or abandoned entirely.

This request has great validity. There is substantial evidence that total municipal taxation is much higher in communities inside regional governments than elsewhere in Ontario. There was great hope that the Niagara regional government planning would preserve our fruit lands and other prime farm land. In fact, it has been an exercise in futility.

One only needs to drive from Toronto to Niagara Falls to realize that the bulk of the urban development in this province is still taking place on our best land, particularly in the Niagara region. Problems of the Niagara Regional Police demonstrate that regionalism has not convinced the Niagara Citizens' Committee that policing has been improved.

Simply, Niagara regional government is too big and unaccountable. Perhaps if my original proposals had been accepted, for two smaller regional governments in Niagara instead of the huge one, and governments with less power at the upper level and an elected chairman, these problems would not be so severe.

Simply, the comprehensive review is needed. It must look at all matters in principle and in detail. There can be no sacred cows or vested interest. I call on the government to carry out the wishes of the citizens' committee of Niagara.

MINISTRY RELOCATION

Mr. Ferraro: I have one message and a commercial to give to the House today.

The first message is a sincere thank-you from the people of my riding to the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Riddell), the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) and indeed the Premier (Mr. Peterson) and cabinet for their wise decision to transfer the Ministry of Agriculture and Food to the city of Guelph.

It makes all the sense in the world. Perhaps I should add that while admittedly I had very limited involvement with that decision I am fully prepared to take all the credit, for very selfish reasons.

GUELPH SPRING FESTIVAL

Mr. Ferraro: I should point out to the House as well that Guelph is not only famous for agriculture. This is the 20th year of the Guelph Spring Festival, which most members of the House will know --

Interjections.

Mr. Ferraro: They are criticizing my tie, Mr. Speaker. I want you to know it matches the flamingos in my front yard.

It is the 20th year of the Guelph Spring Festival, one of the world's up-and-coming and most famous cultural festivals and indeed something we are extremely proud of in the city of Guelph. I point out to the members of the House and all the people of Ontario that the festival will run until May 15. As much as I hate to admit it, a lot of the members of this House need some culture. I strongly invite them to the Guelph Spring Festival.

SCHOOL ATHLETICS

Mr. Pope: On February 10 and 11, 1987, the Minister of Tourism and Recreation (Mr. Eakins) and I had a difference of opinion on the reduction of government funding to amateur sports and sports organizations in this province. Since that time, unsolicited, I have received a letter from the Iroquois Falls Secondary School, signed by David Misener, which was sent to the minister personally with a copy to myself; and a letter directly from Sister Fay Edmonds, principal at O'Gorman High School. In both cases, they are complaining about the same thing.

I will quote two paragraphs from Sister Fay Edmonds's letter.

"Schools in northern Ontario must spend large sums to participate in their own associations due to the distance between communities. Most Ontario Federation of School Athletic Associations championships are held in southern Ontario, which is an added financial burden to qualifying northern Ontario schools. In the past, the grants covered 50 per cent of travel costs. This has been reduced to 25 per cent now.

"It is my hope that you will study the situation and recommend changes to the grant structure so that more Wintario grants will be made available to OFSAA."

Who is right and who is wrong?

DENTAL HYGIENE PROGRAM

Mr. Warner: Like many other people in the community that is served by the Durham College, I am asking the Minister of Colleges and Universities (Mr. Sorbara) to do something which is quite uncharacteristic of him, and that is to show some leadership and to help prevent the cancellation of the dental hygiene course.

As Dr. Douglas Smith writes:

"If you cancel this course you will be failing to fill your mandate to the community. If this course is cancelled at Durham College it will make it very difficult for the dental profession to meet the requirements of their patients and the public at large. The dental community can react on your behalf. Simply let us know what you need and give us an opportunity to help us to meet those needs." Do not cancel the program.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

JUSTICES OF THE PEACE

Hon. Mr. Scott: Later today, I will be introducing a bill which effects a complete revision of the Justices of the Peace Act.

Ontario's existing justices of the peace legislation has developed over the years in a piecemeal, haphazard manner. The bill I am introducing today represents for the first time since Confederation, I think, a fundamental rethinking and restructuring of the system.

Justices of the peace have often been called the front-line troops of the criminal justice system. It is through them that many Ontario citizens have their first contact with the system.

As most members are aware, justices of the peace perform a wide variety of functions, including receiving informations and issuing process in criminal proceedings, issuing search warrants, conducting bail hearings and presiding over trials of provincial offences.

Several years ago, Professor Alan Mewett of the faculty of law in the University of Toronto conducted a study of the justices of the peace system in Ontario. The recommendations in his report, long on the shelf, form the basis for much of the bill I will be introducing today.

A major structural change recommended by Professor Mewett was that a provincial judge should be appointed to the position of coordinator of justices of the peace, with specific responsibility for the supervision, assignment and organization of justices throughout the province. The bill implements this proposal. Provincial co-ordination will promote the effective provision of justice of the peace services in all areas of the province where these services are required. The co-ordinator will also be responsible for the development and delivery of educational programs designed to enhance further and maintain the high standards of competence.

Another major provision of the bill will abolish the archaic system of paying many justices of the peace by fee. My ministry has had grave concerns with this system of compensation since the advent of the Charter of Rights and its guarantee of independence for judicial officers. Although the Ontario Court of Appeal has ruled that safeguards included in the existing legislation permit the fee system to be used without contravening the Charter of Rights, I am of the firm view that reform of the system is nevertheless desirable, if not essential. Justice must be seen to be done.

This bill will provide that instead of individual fees for each service, a part-time justice of the peace will be paid a fixed, proportional salary based on the co-ordinator's determination of the justice's work load.

The genesis of this bill lies in the work of Professor Mewett and I again wish to acknowledge our debt and the debt of the province to him. Without his report, I expect we would still be struggling with some of the issues that are now addressed in this legislation.

The legislation also establishes a system of appointing justices and reviewing their conduct similar to the system that has long been in place with respect to provincial judges. The restructured Justices of the Peace Review Council will consider and report on all proposed appointments of justices and will conduct investigations of complaints according to the same procedures that apply to the Judicial Council for Provincial Judges. The Justices of the Peace Review Council will for the first time include a justice of the peace, as well as representatives of the public.

Moreover, a justice will no longer be subject to removal from office as a result of a review council investigation without a public inquiry first being conducted.

I believe this legislation represents one more step towards the goal of greater access to the judicial system. I know the bill will receive careful consideration by my colleagues in the House, by the justices themselves -- with whom it has been broadly discussed -- by the legal profession and by the general public. I look forward to receiving their suggestions and to discussing the bill with each of them in the near future.

ONTARIO FAMILY FARM INTEREST RATE REDUCTION PROGRAM

Hon. Mr. Riddell: I would like to inform the honourable members that a very important deadline is approaching.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Riddell: Should I tell them, Premier?

May 18 is the last day for farmers to apply for the Ontario family farm interest rate reduction program for the current year. We call this program OFFIRR Plus for short and it has been a real success story right from the start.

It is a four-year program to help farmers who have been hurt by low commodity prices and high interest rates. Since its inception in 1985, the Ontario family farm interest rate reduction program paid out close to $85 million to over 11,000 farmers. Thousands of applications are still being processed and we expect another flood of applications before the May 18 deadline. Applications must be postmarked by Monday, May 18, 1987, in order to be eligible for assistance under this program.

We are doing our utmost to ensure that farm families in Ontario who need this program and who want to take

part in it have every opportunity to do so.

I urge all rural members to ensure that farmers in their areas get their applications in before the deadline in order to qualify for interest rate assistance under the program. May 18 is the deadline. Members should let their farmers know.

BUDGET

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I would like to advise the House that I hope to read the 1987 budget to the Legislature on Wednesday, May 20, at four o'clock in the afternoon.

RESPONSES

BUDGET

Mr. Harris: I am pleased to respond to the Treasurer's statement and to indicate that it is the Treasurer's and the government's prerogative when they want to introduce the budget. We, of course, will be fully co-operative in ensuring that there will be no problems with the May 20 date.

I know how important this day is for a Treasurer and the planning and what not that go into an event of this significance and magnitude, and the security and all the preparations. As well, we look forward to a significant reduction in the tremendous tax burden that Ontarians now bear.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Of course, on the other hand, if you want to go on May 14 --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

ONTARIO FAMILY FARM INTEREST RATE REDUCTION PROGRAM

Mr. Andrewes: I want to respond briefly to the paid political announcement of the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Riddell). The minister chooses to treat the Legislature somewhat cynically in terms of using it to produce yet another Liberal commercial.

This program, of course, is not news. It is a rehash and a retelling of an existing program in order to keep the Liberal press machine going. Perhaps the minister could be as punctual in asking his colleague the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Grandmaître) to get out applications for the farm tax rebate program as he is in reminding members to remind others of his own programs.

This is a rehash of an existing program. It comes from a minister who is somewhat embarrassed about the speech from the throne that the government produced last week, a throne speech that offered nothing new to farmers who are facing some of the most severe economic conditions they have faced since the Great Depression. What does he offer as a solution? He will move his ministry to Guelph.

Perhaps that is helpful to the local member, whose accoutrements today are fading from red to some other colour, perhaps in contrast to the redness of his face. Although this movement of the ministry from Toronto to Guelph fulfils a dream, no doubt spawned in the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, to create a Cornell of the north, it certainly takes away from a very important facet of that ministry's function; that is, the interface between urban and rural people. That interface now will be sheltered in a smaller community. It is removed from the business sector. It comes at a very bad time.

It could not come at a worse time for him, his government and the agricultural producers of this province.

Mr. Villeneuve: I too want to reply to the Minister of Agriculture and Food. The Ontario family farm interest rate reduction program is a very important program to agriculture. Why is it that in certain instances farmers are denied rebates on interest rates just because they happen to do a capital expenditure on their houses? I have had a number of farmers come to me and say, "Because some money was spent on my house, that particular portion of the interest rate is not being allowed."

I think it is very unfair to the farmers of Ontario. It is calling them second-class citizens because they effected needed repairs to their homes, which were part of their family farms. A billion dollars of federal money came to the coffers of farmers in Canada through the federal government. Some of it came to Ontario.

Never has agriculture faced such a difficult time. We have never had the United States farm bill to face. We do not know what the repercussions and ramifications of that US farm bill will be.

Farmers are putting in a grain crop right now. They are just reducing their losses. We are not talking profit, we are talking reducing losses; and the minister moves his ministry -- his kingdom -- to Guelph. I must ask the minister to think about agriculture. It is the most important sector of Ontario's economy. It directly and indirectly affects some 25 per cent of the population in the province. When farmers have money, they spend it. Whenever they are really facing a very bleak situation, as they are with the crop going in right now, much more must be done for agriculture.

BUDGET

Mr. McClellan: I would like to reply briefly to the statement of the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) that the budget will be delivered on Wednesday, May 20. I am sure most members have noticed the level of petulance from the government over the course of the last week, and I just wanted to make sure it was clear on the record that standing order 46 is a mandatory requirement that the throne speech debate be concluded before the Treasurer brings in his budget. So it is, and was, necessary for the Treasurer to negotiate with the other parties and come to an amicable solution.

The reason the government got itself into this jackpot in the first place was that we were supposed to come back on April 21 and have enough time for a throne speech debate and the presentation of the budget in early May; but the Premier (Mr. Peterson) wanted to go somewhere so he could get a nice tan and we did not come back until April 28. That is why things got all bunched up together.

But I am sure all members are grateful that the spirit of conciliation and compromise has prevailed yet again, that minority government continues to work successfully and that we will give our unanimous consent to the Treasurer to deliver his budget on May 20.

ONTARIO FAMILY FARM INTEREST RATE REDUCTION PROGRAM

Mr. Hayes: I want to respond to the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Riddell). I want to thank him for giving us that valuable information. But I must say I am very disappointed that the minister has not got up in this House now and let us know he is going to make improvements to or amend the Ontario family farm interest rate reduction program. It is very unfortunate that many farmers have to take off-farm jobs to supplement and keep their farms going. Now, today, these people are being told, "Sorry, your farm is not viable, will not feed a family; therefore, you are disqualified."

I see the trend here. If this government keeps going the way it is with some of these programs and making the criteria so hard for many farmers to meet, the trend of going for larger and less farms in this province and across this country is going to go that much faster.

Many of these people have been very good managers. They have been efficient and productive. In many cases, through no fault of their own, because of low commodity prices, high interest rates and what have you, these people find themselves in a position where they need financial assistance from this government and too many of them are being disqualified.

I hope the Minister of Agriculture and Food will take a very serious look at this and amend the OFFIRR program so all farmers who are in need will get the financial assistance that is required to make them viable again.

MEMBER FOR KENORA

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, before you call the next order, I wonder if we might have unanimous consent for the honourable members to respond to the statement made in Kenora by the honourable member for that area?

Mr. Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?

Agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I was tempted to raise the matter yesterday, but the honourable member had not returned from northwestern Ontario.

I think the responses by political leaders and others are a clear indication of the high regard in which the member for Kenora (Mr. Bernier) is held by members on all sides of the House.

From my particular position, I suppose I can be particularly frank, as I can recall his first campaign, which was not as successful as his latter ones. In the good old days when the members of the Legislature were invited by the then Minister of Natural Resources -- or Lands and Forests, as I think the name of the ministry was -- to tour the north with the ministers and the Premier of the day himself, we had an opportunity to go through the town of Hudson.

In those days, under Tory rule, the main street was not even paved, and across the main street there was a very large banner, with the member for Kenora holding on to the string, saying, I think, "Premier and Members of the Legislature, Hudson Needs Housing."

That was really my first introduction to the member from the north who has served so well during these many years. It was a little hard to get annoyed with him even during the time when he had, more or less, an undedicated northern budget that could be distributed from the back of one of the planes as he flew across the territory, but it was a very impressive example for the democratic process.

Having said that, I do not think I would find very many taxpayers or people in the north who have not expressed publicly and privately their admiration for the honourable member's ability, his motives and his astuteness when it comes to politics but more than anything else the high regard with which he is held by members on all sides.

I do not want him to reconsider his decision, but I wish him well. Now that the Premier (Mr. Peterson) and the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) have negotiated an input in the naming of senators and judges and the like, we would be glad to talk to the honourable member and even the member for Muskoka (Mr. F. S. Miller) if he is over here on business from time to time selling us tickets.

Mr. Martel: I recall just about 21 years ago going to Kenora, long before I considered entering this place, to fight in a by-election against the "king of the north." I have to say he out-New-Democratted us up there. I mean he made us look like absolute pikers in what the Tory government was doing to the people of that part of the province. I guess he has been trying to make up for it ever since. I recall that week and a half up there well.

The member for Kenora and I were known to have our differences, but one of the things I appreciated was a major debate we once had over the dinner hour; he left, he was Minister of Mines at the time, and I was sitting with Stephen Lewis, and he came back in at eight o'clock and he said, "I have ordered a royal commission to look into the health and safety of workers in the province." I want to say to the workers of the province, we are not there yet, but it was a significant step forward. I think the member for Kenora will be fondly remembered for that royal commission and ultimately the legislation that finally gave workers some protection.

We all have high regard but, like my friend, we do not want to coax him back, do we? I mean there are all kinds of people leaving this place and we do not want to urge them back.

Some hon. members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Martel: It is always the member's friends he has to watch, not his enemies.

I want to join with my friend from across the way, the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk and other sundry places, in wishing our friend well in the years ahead.

Mr. F. S. Miller: As one of those who, like the member for whatever area our buddy comes from, is leaving this place, I want to join with the others in talking about the member for Kenora.

I came after him. Most of us came after him. He seems to have been here for ever and yet he is so young. He is younger than me. Any of us who dared get into the north as ministers quickly learned it was the member's preserve. I recall going there on May 30, 1974, when I was a brand-new minister and he sent me to Atikokan. Before the morning was over, they had a new hospital. My staff quietly told me I had no such authority as a minister to make a new hospital, which the member told me they needed, but they got it anyway. One learned that the member always got ministers to the points where they needed to be whenever a decision --

Hon. Mr. Nixon: More success with that than closing hospitals.

Mr. F. S. Miller: Yes. The member, as Treasurer, would have enjoyed having him as Minister of Northern Affairs. Where he managed to get the money to do the things he did, I will never know. I did not even know there was a program for nursing home beds in the north until, by mistake, he came before Management Board one day on the rare occasion when I was there --

An hon. member: To look for more.

Mr. F. S. Miller: To look for more. Absolutely. One went by Minaki from time to time.

Interjections.

His annual picnic was, I guess, the biggest event in the north. In Toronto, in southern Ontario or even in Muskoka, people will consider driving 30 minutes to an event. When they go to the member for Kenora's picnic, they have driven from Thunder Bay and back the same afternoon. They have driven from all over the place; one person said five hours. He got more members, more municipal politicians and more people out to his picnics than anyone I ever saw. I believe I won the horseshoe pitching contest one year at that event.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: That is not what you were pitching.

Mr. F. S. Miller: I was pitching horseshoes then. I did not become Minister of Natural Resources until later.

The fact is that the member for Kenora, both physically and politically, towered over the north. He was in every part of the north. Every riding in the north looked towards him for guidance and for respect, and in large measure the north owed a great debt to him personally for his interest in the north and for the wellbeing he brought to it.

We on our side love him. As somebody said, "He isn't a Leo; he's a pussycat."

Mr. Bernier: Thank you very much. If I may, I will first express my appreciation to the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk, the member for Sudbury East, the member for Muskoka and all the members of the House for their kind words and kind expressions.

I have to admit I really never thought this day would ever come. I never looked forward to it. I have to tell you the decision was one of the most difficult decisions I have ever made in my life, because the work here, the friends I have made, the challenges and the satisfying results of being a member of this Legislature are things that go through your mind when you have to make that decision.

Marj and I spent literally months and weeks thinking about it. We looked at all aspects of it. I think there comes a time in each of our lives when we say to ourselves, "The time really has come to move on, to look for a different career." Because of the distance I have had to travel over the last 21 years, I want to spend a little more time with Marj in northern Ontario. I certainly intend, when the day comes, to live in northern Ontario; it has been home for me and my family. I have enjoyed doing all the things I was able to do.

I want to say how honoured I was, not only to work in this Legislature but also to be under the leadership of great statesmen such as Premier John Robarts, Bill Davis, the member for Muskoka and now working with our leader, the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Grossman). I can tell you that, from my point of view, it has been an experience I will never forget. It has been satisfying and, I think, most rewarding.

I would have to admit the great speeches -- and I can well recall coming into the Legislature back in 1966 when the member for Sudbury East was up in the by-election -- and he left early; he did not tell you that, but he gave up the sponge. He said there was no way we could beat this guy. He went back home to Sudbury; he left early. Does he remember that? Anyway, we were successful, after I guess 15 years in the political wilderness in that riding; it was the domain of the Liberal-Labour Party, Albert Wren and Bob Gibson, who are well known to the Treasurer.

To come into the Legislature with really no experience in political life of this nature and to recall the speeches of Farquhar Oliver, who I think the Treasurer will agree with me was a great orator, and then to listen to the late Elmer Sopha -- the Treasurer will remember those great speeches he used to make about wolves. He made two speeches in the Legislature: one on wolves and, later on in the session, he would remake the Ontario cabinet. Those were two great moments in this Legislature in those days. Every member of the Legislature would show up for Elmer Sopha's speeches on those two subjects.

They were humorous and colourful. He would stand in his place and make up the language. I am sure the Hansard girls did not even know some of the words he was saying, but he would spell out the words to the Hansard girls to make sure they got his phrases right. It was absolutely unreal.

Then to be around for the orators in our own party -- I recall Bobby Welch, a great winder-upper of the throne debate or the budget debate, who would have everyone in stitches. He would have that side, because we were on that side for a long time, up and supporting him on every word.

The 21 years is something I will remember for a long time. I said to the press that one of the proudest moments I was given was to work with my colleagues René Brunelle, the late John Rhodes and the member for Algoma-Manitoulin (Mr. Lane) to set up the Ministry of Northern Affairs, a ministry that would have sole and unique responsibility for the vast area of this province I love so well, for which I fought so hard over those years. To see that pulled into reality, to sit with those gentlemen and work out terms of reference was an experience I will never forget. I will cherish that for a long time.

The 21 years have gone by relatively fast. It is hard to believe I have been around for 21 years. I am sure the member for Elgin (Mr. McNeil) will know they go by very fast. Certainly, the friendships and the camaraderie that exist in this great hall are things that are cherished by all. I have to say with sincerity that I will miss this House. I will miss standing in my place and being part of the process. It has been a great 21 years, and I thank you for your friendliness and your advice.

Mr. Speaker: Now we will continue with routine procedures in an orderly fashion.

ORAL QUESTIONS

CONSTITUTIONAL DISCUSSIONS

Mr. Grossman: I am sure the member for Kenora (Mr. Bernier) will think about those kind words during the remaining two years in his term of office in this Legislature.

My question is to the Premier. Yesterday, we were discussing the serious questions relating to the accord reached last Thursday at Meech Lake. I wonder if today he might be able to share with us his understanding of just how the immigration part of that agreement will be implemented, particularly whether that provision will restrict who can settle in certain provinces on the basis of language or any other criteria.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: My understanding of it goes as follows. The member knows that Quebec has had a special relationship with the federal government with respect to immigration, codified in a document called the Cullen-Couture agreement, that allowed Quebec to make a certain input with respect to immigration into that province. Obviously, the reason for that was the fact that Quebec did worry about assimilation at some point in the future. The theoretical possibility, and it is completely theoretical, is that five million anglophone immigrants could come into Quebec and swamp that province, so Quebec arranged certain controls and an accord with the federal government.

As a result of this constitutional amendment, that will now be constitutionalized. Although it does not set the overall quotas and it has to fit inside the overall federal immigration policy, it allows people to make their quotas with respect to francophones and French-speaking people. I am told that agreement works extremely well; it in no way restricts mobility inside the country. As I recall one of the questions the member raised yesterday, it does not prevent someone from moving to Quebec, to Ontario or back and forth and that kind of thing but only assists at the original stage in settling those new immigrants into the country.

The second point I will make is that this agreement will be constitutionalized. There is nothing new there. What has been operating and practised for several years will just become part of the Constitution. If in fact another province wanted to do the same kind of thing with the federal government, that could be constitutionalized as well. I should tell the honourable member, to the best of my knowledge I am not aware of any other province that wants to go into that kind of agreement at the present time, but it is a theoretical possibility and could be contemplated under the Constitution; so everyone would have equal treatment.

Mr. Grossman: It appears that the immigration provision is a fairly important one to Quebec. I must say it is new information to this House. I should just like the Premier to confirm with a supplementary that it is his understanding and the basis upon which he entered into the accord that this adds nothing new to Quebec's immigration authorities or procedures, save for the five per cent addition, than was already the case prior to Meech Lake last Thursday. Is it the Premier's view that it does nothing but codify the current state of affairs?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: As I said, in practical terms, this accord had been worked out over some period of time and was in fact happening. As I understand it, in practical terms, there is nothing new being added here except that it will be constitutionalized.

Mr. Grossman: Given the reactions of Quebec, at least from the distance -- and I will admit it is a distance -- we have observed them, and given the degree of importance in which it has held up the immigration breakthrough, as many have called it, the Premier will understand our concern at this stage that he has an

interpretation which seems somewhat at variance with the

interpretation of the impact of the new immigration agreement being understood in Quebec.

Given that and given the various other questions that have been raised in this House by the opposition here and in the federal House by the Liberal and New Democratic Party opposition there, I wonder if the Premier would agree today, in the spirit of openness and consultation, that prior to the signing of the final accord he might make appropriate arrangements, together with the House leaders in the other two parties, to ensure that there is an opportunity for public input and discussion in front of a committee of the Legislature, say for one week, prior to the signing of that agreement.

I think that would be helpful to the process, allow all of us to understand it better and certainly allow a lot of groups that might have some comments on this to participate in the process in a free and democratic way. Would the Premier give that undertaking today?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: First of all, may I say the Leader of the Opposition has every right to raise these questions and

interpretations. As he knows, others have their own

interpretations of this matter. Indeed, the experts are looking at it and the fine print as it develops -- people such as Senator Eugene Forsey and other acknowledged constitutional experts, who are giving their

interpretations.

Being a lawyer, the honourable member will be aware that when we put our intentions into words, they will be interpreted by courts at various times in the future, depending on the longevity of this Constitution, and constitutions tend to last a fairly long time. I am anxious to get his advice and any concerns he has. I can tell the honourable member that the concerns he expressed yesterday and today were discussed by the first ministers. Indeed, we had advice from a number of our advisers, and there was a great array of constitutional experts assembled from all across the country.

All of us had advice on those particular matters and drew the conclusions that I am sharing with my honourable friend opposite.

As he knows, it is our intention to have a major debate in this House with respect to any changes in the Constitution, and that will be an opportunity that obviously the House will speak on -- and I hope all members will take the opportunity to participate and share their views -- on the new accord. I suspect that is an appropriate way to move on the matter at this time. I certainly want the advice of the member opposite and I want to sort of quell any fears he may have about the situation.

I did ask the Attorney General (Mr. Scott), on Thursday night last, to phone the member and the leader of the third party to make sure they knew what we were doing at all times. I tell my friend opposite that this is a matter for every member of this Legislature. It is not a partisan issue. I want to share every piece of information we have with them. I will share the drafts as they come through, and anything that is negotiated, and get their advice on them. I would hope we would have an opportunity to debate this collectively in this House as soon as possible.

Mr. Speaker: New question.

Mr. Grossman: The bottom line is that the Premier will not undertake to allow the public to participate in this discussion through a committee of the Legislature. We disagree with that point of view. We think this is such an important document for the people that the experts and others should have an opportunity to come in and speak on this issue --

Mr. Speaker: New question.

Mr. Grossman: -- before this parliament is asked to vote on it and before the Premier signs the agreement. He and I disagree on that.

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES

Mr. Grossman: My second question is for the Premier on the freer trade issue. He has had a lot to say about the freer trade issue, including a passing nod in the throne speech. After the extensive work the Premier and his people are alleged to have done, I wonder whether today the Premier might be able to tell us precisely what sectors in Ontario might stand to benefit a great deal from a freer trade arrangement with the Americans.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: It obviously depends on what the honourable member is talking about by freer trade. Is he talking about a completely open border? Is he talking about some limited access? Is he talking about some new devices to control things that previously have been controlled by contingency protection? I will give him a theoretical example. The steel industry would probably do better. As he knows, our steel industry is quite competitive. It has been existing under a number of, shall we say, self-imposed quotas and monitoring over the last period of time, so presumably the steel industry would do better.

We have done work on a variety of industries and we could share that information, industry by industry, with the honourable member. Some would probably do less well. It really depends on what set of operating premises he is using. We do not have any fix from the federal government on what operating premises it is using. The big sawoffs and the big tradeoffs have not been established at this point. There has been lots of discussion about the details, but at this point we still do not know what Ambassador Reisman has in mind, what he really wants and what he is prepared to give up.

Mr. Grossman: I must say I am a little mystified by that. The Premier and his government are getting regular briefings on the freer trade negotiations. Simon Reisman is quite available to the Premier's officials in terms of continuing dialogue, as the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. O'Neil) has pointed out to us on many occasions. There was the famous leaked memo reflecting the views of one of the not most senior people, let us say, in the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology indicating ongoing dialogue. The Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr.

Riddell) and his people have had extensive discussions and briefings sector by sector in the agricultural industry on a regular basis, monthly if not weekly, with the federal officials. It is inconceivable that after this long period of time the Premier should be contradicting the evidence given by his own colleagues and the firm position taken by the federal negotiators, the ministers, Mr. Hockin, Mr. Reisman and others, that Ontario and all the provinces have been kept fully informed of all the operating premises to this date.

Given all that, the Premier said in his first response that he could share the information with us. I know he has talked significantly on this issue.

Mr. Speaker: The question is?

Mr. Grossman: I wonder whether right now, in response to this question, he can share with us perhaps five or six other sectors such as steel that could benefit dramatically from a freer trade arrangement.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: As I told my friend, it depends on the set of operating premises. He quotes some of the experts on it. To the best of my knowledge, Mr. Hockin has not been involved in this at all. A different set of cabinet ministers is responsible for this. I know he spoke at the member's own seminar on this matter, but he has not been a major player in this discussion.

There have been lots of discussions back and forth about positions and various views on various subjects, but I repeat to my friend that the overall shape of this deal has not been put forward. I know the various hopes and aspirations of some of the players. It is not unlike a constitutional deal. I know what some of the people wanted going in, but the question is what comes out at the other end. We also do not know what will wash in the United States.

I take the member's example of steel. I would love to see more access to the United States for steel, but what if Senator Heinz, for example, who runs the steel caucus in the US, mounts some kind of lobby and that is excluded from the deal? My friend does not know that and I do not know that and Ambassador Reisman does not know that. It has to wash through a number of levels, not only the administrative level but also the congressional level et al. I assume the negotiators, Mr. Murphy and Ambassador Reisman, are going to be putting forward a deal they think they can sell.

Mr. Grossman: May I remind the Premier that the first time he heard Senator Heinz's name was when we raised it in the House and asked him what action he was taking with regard to the Heinz legislation. He did not even know what sector we were talking about, let alone who Senator Heinz was.

Consistent with that, the Premier has told this House today that he knows hardly anything about the status of negotiations. That dramatically contradicts all the information available from the federal government with regard to the degree of sharing of information that has gone on between the federal and provincial governments.

Therefore, my question to the Premier is, if he cannot today, after two years of this debate, lay out for us his understanding of the sectors that may be winners in a freer trade negotiation; and if he today, after two years of discussions, does not know what are the operating premises -- his term -- of the federal negotiations, will he undertake today to put in the appropriate phone call or arrange the appropriate meeting with the federal officials who have said many times they are more than willing to share that information with him, so that he can finally get off the fence and become an active participant on behalf of the people of Ontario in fighting for a good freer trade arrangement for the people of Ontario?

Will he make those arrangements?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I want to try to be helpful in this debate. My honourable friend stands in this House and takes credit for introducing the name of Senator Heinz to me and to this Legislature. I guess he is not informed of the fact that I had met with Senator Heinz a year before my friend even mentioned his name. We met in Washington. I use that as an example of my honourable friend's lack of information with respect to this particular discussion.

I am sure my friend saw the interview quite recently with Premier Bourassa on this issue, knowing how closely he follows the media. His reaction was very similar to mine. As he said, and as I say, we have not seen any documentation on the shape of the final deal. Indeed, it may be only a gleam in Ambassador Reisman's eye.

Who knows what will wash with Mr. Murphy? We are happy to share that information with the member as it progresses, just as I am happy that he is sharing his view with me. I have been tracking his view on this subject for the last several years and it has changed almost as many times as some people change shoes.

BUDGET

Mr. Laughren: I have a question of the Treasurer. I know he would not want to reveal any specifics in his forthcoming budget, but what we are seeking are some commitments in principle.

The Treasurer may recall that about a year ago he stated: "I wish the tax reduction program could have been richer. I wish it could have been more, but in my judgement that was what we could afford at this time."

Now the Treasurer has more money in his pocket. At the same time, a family of four at the poverty level, as established by Statistics Canada, of around $21,700 has just paid approximately $909 to the Ontario Treasury, not to mention $1,800 to the federal Treasury.

In view of the fact that a single person earning the minimum wage in Ontario continues to pay taxes of $262 to the provincial Treasury and $532 to the federal Treasury, would the Treasurer make a commitment to put his money where his mouth was a year ago and, in the interest of fairness, relieve Ontario's 300,000 working poor from paying taxes in the province?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I appreciate the advice from the honourable member, who is the newly-named budget critic of the New Democratic Party. He was good enough to send me an annotated copy of his press release from a few days ago, which was also appreciated.

I am sure he is aware -- and actually his comments reflect that he is -- that in both budgets of the Liberal government we have put substantial funds -- although we would both agree not enough money -- in the tax reduction program that removed from the tax rolls for personal income tax many thousands of the working people in Ontario.

I simply ask the supporters of the Progressive Conservative Party to compare that with the initiative at the federal level, which was just the opposite. The honourable leader has tried to defend the situation involving the decisions taken in Ottawa at the federal level where the tax reduction program was moved in the opposite direction, while a $500,000 exemption for capital gains was added to the top.

We have also taken the initiative of adding a three per cent surtax on incomes over $50,000. Once again, we feel this is an appropriate initiative, which was part of the expansion of the revenue base the honourable member was good enough to support at the time it was before the Legislature, and I certainly am cognizant of that.

Mr. Laughren: If I can continue on the theme of fairness in taxation in Ontario, the Treasurer might know, if I can be very specific for the moment, that a home at 209 Canton Street in the city of Toronto was bought in June 1986 for $360,000 and in March 1987 was sold for $465,000, for a profit of $105,000 on which no tax was paid. At a second location at 228 De Grassi Street, a home was bought in the spring of 1986 for $124,000 and in the winter of 1987 sold for $167,500, for a profit of $43,500 on which no tax was paid.

To use that same $43,500 on which no tax was paid on a house sale, a family of four with an income of that same amount of money would pay taxes in total, provincially $3,300 and federally $6,800, for over $10,000 in taxes. Does the Treasurer think that is fair and why does he think that a tax on the speculation and the flipping of homes is so unworkable?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I gather that is applause for the well-known efficient research department of the New Democratic Party and there is no doubt this is right on the money, so to speak.

The honourable member will know there has been a tremendous escalation in the price of housing; not just in Toronto, I expect it would be in Sudbury. I went to New Liskeard and found it there. In South Dumfries, the price of homes has escalated at almost the same rate; in Brantford, Windsor, any place in the province or, as a matter of fact, in Canada or North America. If the honourable member has had an opportunity to travel abroad, then he is aware the same thing is happening under those circumstances. This is not precisely a phenomenon that is restricted to Ontario.

So far, the Income Tax Act of Canada, which we in Ontario parallel very closely, does not levy a capital gains tax on the sale of a person's home. The so-called speculation tax that was brought in, in circumstances where the economy was just as heated some years ago, was tried by the previous government with not much success. As a matter of fact, there was so much criticism of it that there was a royal commission investigating certain exemptions that were made. I remember the royal commission very well since I was a witness before it, having been one of the principal critics of the decisions taken at the time.

I am not interested in getting involved in such a mishmash as that. It appears that the market is starting to correct itself and we are watching it very closely.

Mr. Laughren: I remind the Treasurer that we are not talking about inflationary prices. We are talking about speculation on the sale of homes where people hold them for one or two months and in some cases sell before the deal is even closed; so the Treasurer is talking through his hat, so to speak.

I was glad to hear the Treasurer comment on the minimum personal income tax that has been established by the federal regime. Can the Treasurer tell me if he thinks it is appropriate that in Ontario, the last time we checked, there were about 40,000 corporations that had book profits but paid absolutely no corporation income taxes?

Does the Treasurer think that is fair? Will he introduce some kind of minimum corporate tax, which he supports so readily at the personal level but so far has not come to that position with corporations? Why will he not do that?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I know the member is aware that we also have a capital tax payable in Ontario, which means that most corporations have to make at least some contribution to the revenues on that basis. If they do not have a profit upon which the tax can be levied, then we are not in a position to apply a tax.

The idea that the honourable member has put forward for a minimum corporation tax is a very interesting one. It is not good, but it is an interesting one. I would say that it is also not new. I do not want to dismiss it out of hand because maybe this is something that should be done in the future, and while we have the extra week to contemplate our budgetary decisions, I can assure him that all these matters are under some consideration.

Mr. Rowe: Have you bought your new Guccis yet?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I am going to get some used ones from Ottawa.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr. R. F. Johnston: My question is for the Premier. The Premier brought in a speech from the throne recently that was the longest I have seen in the eight years I have been here. At a time when there is a billion-dollar windfall in profits for the Treasury of the province, somehow he did not mention those people who have been left out of the prosperity of Peterson's Ontario.

The only allusion to people on social assistance is that he is going to wait for the Social Assistance Review Committee to report. We know that the report will probably not be written until late fall, that it will probably not be in his hands in printed form until the end of the year and that we are not going to see legislation to change things significantly for probably another year, given that we have to have more public input when it gets to this level.

Why is it that there was no mention of food banks? Why is it, out of all the promises that were made in that throne speech, that there was no mention of things the government was going to do specifically for people on social assistance this year, now?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The member answered his own question in his own

preamble.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I presume the Premier is telling me that people can wait two years and, in the meantime, those people who are living in poverty and going to food banks should depend on them.

I am going to send over to the Premier some statistics which, as he knows, I gather out of the welfare statistics for Ontario, which this government still does not publish on a regular basis. Does he realize that over the last five years, the employables on welfare in Ottawa have gone up 132 per cent? In Toronto it is 94 per cent, in Sault Ste. Marie it is 173 per cent and in Thunder Bay it is 108 per cent. It has not got better since he has been in government.

Of the 14 municipalities I survey, only four have gone down. In Metropolitan Toronto alone there are now 5,000 more cases this March than there were last March.

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Why was there no program announced in the speech from the throne for direct programs to assist those people who want employment to get employment?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I need not remind my honourable friend that we are now enjoying the lowest unemployment rate in the country. I believe some 200,000 jobs have been created in the last couple of years in Ontario. The Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) tells me I am right.

We recognize that there are still people in need of social assistance, and the member's point is quite right in that regard. One of the phenomena I am sure he will be aware of is the massive migration into Ontario in the last little while. There are people coming here to find jobs, to find employment, and, of course, we welcome them and work with them.

I say to my honourable friend that I think we are dealing with these things in an evenhanded way. As he knows, we are looking thoroughly at the entire system and hope to be back much quicker. If my friend moves things a little faster in this House and does not delay and indulge in obstructionist tactics, we can move much quicker on these things.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: It is a preposterous notion -- because the Premier announced nothing in the throne speech -- that any tactics we might have may delay something that he is not planning anyhow.

There is a real question of fairness in terms of the way he has meted out his pot-pourri of promises in this throne speech while ignoring the poorest and probably the least politically influential people in this province. How does he consider it fair that over the last two years, by his minister's own admission, the increases in social assistance have essentially amounted to less than $40 per beneficiary in Ontario? At the same time, he has robbed, stolen, from Canada pension plan disability people this January and taken back federal government money that was rightfully theirs. When is he going to make this a priority?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I do not agree with my honourable friend. My friend attacks us, on the one hand, for addressing too many problems in the throne speech and, on the other hand, for not doing enough.

But if he looks at the thrust of the throne speech, the things we are doing with respect to the disabled, the elderly and others, and looks at the budget that will be coming forward, I think he will see a very compassionate government that is dealing with these problems in a very significant way, underneath an umbrella of fiscal health of the province, that is working with people to retrain them to get them jobs, working into our system.

I think if he would take the sum total of those programs, he would see not only one of the most effective but also one of the most compassionate governments in this country today.

TECHNOLOGY FUND

Mr. Gillies: I have a question for the Attorney General regarding the Exploracom mess and the victims of that mess, the 43 former employees.

The Attorney General will remember that it is about one year ago now that the Premier (Mr. Peterson) sent a letter to Mr. Schwartz announcing the funding for this project, a letter which makes no mention whatsoever of conditionality, but leaving rather the implication that the money would flow regardless of the performance of the project.

I have sent the Attorney General a copy of a letter that Mr. Marshall in his office has sent to the former employees' lawyer. I quote from that letter. Mr. Marshall says, "I attempted to explain to you that Mr. Schwartz's conduct and, in particular, what representations he made to each employee in light of his specific knowledge seemed to be matters of some significance."

The clear implication of this letter is that the Attorney General's office is saying Mr. Schwartz misled the former employees and that in fact he had firsthand knowledge of conditions being put on that $17.5-million grant. If that is the position of the Ministry of the Attorney General, would he care to tell the House what evidence he has of that accusation?

Hon. Mr. Scott: I do not read the letter in the way my honourable friend reads it. I do not draw the conclusion from it that he draws and I do not think anybody else would.

Mr. Gillies: The Attorney General is dead wrong because that is exactly the way the former employees are reading it. In the news conference they had yesterday, they were saying that, in effect, the government will not talk to them about any sort of reasonable settlement for the disruption that he caused their lives. Two of those 43 families are now on welfare. I quote from their release, "The litigation required to straighten this matter out is going to cost taxpayers tens of thousands of dollars, it is going to force the former employees to seek legal aid and it will allow David Peterson to evade accountability by hiding behind the courts."

In view of the fact that the settlement requested by these people seems, to any casual observer, to be fair and modest, why should the Attorney General not avoid all kinds of expensive litigation on the part of those people, who have already had a lot of disruption caused in their lives, and offer them some sort of reasonable settlement?

Hon. Mr. Scott: The first thing the member overlooks, because it does not suit the case he proposes to make out of this plot, is paragraph 3, in which a senior counsel in my ministry concludes there is no liability on the part of the government as the result of the Exploracom affair. He says, "I advised you that I have not completed my investigations but that I was of the view that no liability could be based on some generalized claim couched in vague terms such as you repeat in your present letter."

He then goes on to explain that if the employees of Exploracom or Mr. Schwartz want to advance more particulars of their claim, he will be glad to receive it and form an opinion based on that.

In my respectful view, that is precisely how counsel to any party in litigation is expected to behave. Frankly, I am quite satisfied with the position Mr. Marshall has taken in this case.

PENSION BENEFITS

Mr. McClellan: I have a question of the Premier. The Premier will be aware that on May 31, this month, a total of 1,557 Goodyear Canada tire workers will lose their jobs. The tragedy is compounded by the fact that a group of 300 of those workers will not get the benefits of reforms to the Pension Benefits Act unless some action is taken by the government.

I am appealing to the Premier to review with his minister the possibility of using the example of the rent review legislation -- where the government gave an effective date of August 1985, even though it was not passed until the fall of 1986 -- and proclaiming an effective date for the legislation as of May 15, 1987, so this group of 300 Goodyear workers get the benefits of pensions upon the loss of their jobs.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I appreciate the honourable member's question and his advice on this matter. My understanding is that the minister responsible for pensions is looking into this matter, and I will certainly discuss the member's suggestion with him.

Mr. McClellan: Further to that, I would ask the Premier if he and the minister would take this matter to cabinet as quickly as possible and issue a statement of government policy setting the effective date clearly in public in advance of May 31 and instruct the Pension Commission of Ontario to make sure that Goodyear does not run off with the pension funds and that the money is available to pay the 300 workers.

We will try to

schedule passage of the bill as quickly as possible and have already eliminated the committee stage in the general committee, so we have only committee of the whole to do here in the House. I ask the Premier, in the light of that, to make a commitment now to report back to the House as quickly as possible with a decision on this matter.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I appreciate the member's constructive view with respect to the movement of legislation through this House and, again, I will take up his constructive idea with the minister responsible. I understand the minister is looking at it, and we will see if there is anything we can do with regard to the member's suggestion.

POLICE INVESTIGATION

Mr. Pope: My question is to the Attorney General. In early April, Detective Inspector Ron Collins of the Ontario Provincial Police told a Toronto newspaper -- this was before the investigation into the Vaughan land sale was complete -- that the report was going to be sent not to a crown attorney but to the Attorney General of the province.

That point of view is the same point of view as that of the Solicitor General (Mr. Keyes) given in this House last Thursday and again yesterday. It is in direct variance with what the Attorney General told the House yesterday as to the process to be used. It is obvious the minister has injected himself into the process of deciding whether criminal charges will be laid in the Vaughan land sale. Will he tell us where that report is and why the laying of criminal charges is being held up?

Hon. Mr. Scott: As I understand the matter, notwithstanding every effort to inject innuendo into it, the OPP is conducting an investigation. I have not had any contact with them at all. When the investigation is complete and meets their standards, I have no doubt they will deliver the report in the normal way.

Mr. Pope: There is no innuendo. I am quoting directly from Inspector Collins. He made the statement -- I did not -- that they would be reporting to the Attorney General. It is not a decision that is being made in the normal course. It is not the normal course for the Attorney General to be handed OPP reports personally before charges are laid. The minister himself said that yesterday. Obviously, he is involved in this process.

We have a right to know. This is public knowledge; that statement of Inspector Collins is public knowledge. The police are publicly saying that the Attorney General is going to be involved in making a decision on a matter involving members of his own party. Where is that report and when are the charges going to be laid?

Hon. Mr. Scott: We have been through this before. The government invited the OPP to make an investigation. Indeed, I believe the investigation was requested by my honourable friend, among others. The OPP is making that investigation and, as far as my office is concerned, the OPP is not being interfered with or impeded. Indeed, we are not entering into any communication with them at all on the subject. When they make a report to the chief law officer of the crown, we will determine to what extent we should report to the House, if it is a public matter, or to what extent the matter should proceed in the courts.

WATER QUALITY

Mrs. Grier: Last Thursday, I asked the Minister of the Environment about the lack of drinking water standards in this province and received in reply not an answer but a rather wordy description of the world-class monitoring programs that his ministry was conducting. The minister will know that the more you monitor, the more you find. In Metropolitan Toronto, we are finding such things in the treated drinking water as toluene, dichlorobenzenes and methylene chloride. Can the minister explain why he has not used the results of his monitoring programs to develop standards for drinking water in this province that are legally enforceable?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I think the member will know that with the program we have that I described to her -- as she said in a lengthy sense last Thursday; I thought I was just trying to be comprehensive in my reply -- I described the very extensive program of surveillance of water supplies in Ontario, an ever-expanding program that gathers together the results. We will continue to report as we gather this information together. By and large, they have indicated that the drinking water in Ontario is of good quality. I indicated to the member that we always want to improve that.

Along with the federal government, we utilize that information to look at guidelines and eventually standards that can be utilized.

I guess I have concentrated most of my effort on ensuring that we get at some of the sources of pollution to ensure that the raw water supply we draw from is of high quality. In addition, the member will be aware that we have a plant optimization program under way at the present time in various municipalities where we are looking at the plants that are there now to see how well they are operated in terms of the training that takes place for the employees, the specific equipment that is used and the processes that are used. I can say that it is always improving the water quality in this province. I am pleased to have the member's support in that regard.

Mrs. Grier: I had a feeling the minister might refer to sources. While obviously his concern about sources is commendable, I am sure the minister, with all his knowledge and experience, knows that the sources of drinking water in this province are not only sources in Ontario; there is the possibility of spills and there are sources in the United States.

Prior to the last election, the minister and his leader both responded to an environmental questionnaire by saying they supported the establishment of safe drinking water legislation. He is now talking about standards eventually. Can the minister perhaps answer very directly whether he intends to introduce safe drinking water standards in this session of the Legislature?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: As to making that determination, I am not aware how long this session of the Legislature will last. I have a note here that reminds me that we have a Public Interest Liaison Committee on Drinking Water Issues that is giving advice and developing that process to set the standards. I think that is a significant step forward in the development of those standards.

I want to indicate to the member as well that we are certainly moving in that direction. The number of initiatives we are undertaking as a ministry is extremely significant. It is difficult to move as quickly as we would like on all fronts, but I can tell the member that with this Public Interest Liaison Committee on Drinking Water Issues and the other initiatives we are taking, we are working towards improving the quality of the water and attempting to set those standards.

I do not like saying this because it sounds like one is bragging it up, but the member for Sarnia (Mr. Brandt) will tell the member that he often said that when you compare the drinking water in this province with that in other jurisdictions, it is second to none in the world. I say it is of very good quality but we are always striving to improve it more significantly, moving in the direction the member is discussing.

ONTARIO LOTTERY CORP.

Mr. Rowe: I have a question for the Minister of Tourism and Recreation. The government House leader agreed to postpone the introduction of Bill 115 for third reading last February to give the Minister of Tourism and Recreation time to reflect on the serious impact this bill will have on the lives of 1,000 Ontarians. Today, I would like to ask the Minister of Tourism and Recreation whether he took advantage of this opportunity to obtain a legal opinion from the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) on the validity of this proposed legislation that will affect so many people?

Hon. Mr. Eakins: Yes, we have taken the opportunity. It is my understanding that the Conservatives want to debate third reading of the bill. If that is so, we will be delighted to present all the information we have at that time.

Mr. Rowe: I am pleased to learn that the minister has sought the advice of the Attorney General on the proposed legislation. Given that, to date, Bill 115 has already cost Ontario 80 jobs and $20 million due to the reallocation of six Ontario firms to British Columbia, Alberta and Manitoba, why has the minister not shared this important information with the members of the House? The people he is putting out of work have a right to know. Why has he not shared it with us?

Hon. Mr. Eakins: The credibility of the Ontario Lottery Corp. is most important. That is the reason we have Bill 115, to make sure that the people of this province, through the Ontario Lottery Corp., are in charge of the lotteries of this province.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I have a question of the Minister of Education. It deals with the capital announcements that were made last week for the province as a whole and the individual capital allocations for each board of education.

Why was it announced by his ministry and, in particular, by the local member -- I believe the member for Windsor-Sandwich (Mr. Wrye) made the official announcement for the Windsor Board of Education -- that we would be getting $1,012,000 in capital grants? The reality is that $724,600 of that was already allocated because of the transfer of a high school from the public board to the separate board and another $250,000 was allocated from the ministry equity reserve fund from the sale of a school site, for a total of $974,000, so the net capital grant from the ministry was $38,000.

Hon. Mr. Conway: Because I indicated some time ago in those regulations to which the honourable member made reference with respect to leasing and sharing of space, as was the case in Windsor where there were property transfers, that would be a credit to the next capital allocation. I did precisely what I said I would do.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I think the community has read this quite differently, and so do I. The ministry and the government have tried to make it look as though they are doing a lot more for capital in the education system than they really are doing. How many other boards of education and how much of his $226 million has been covered with other boards in exactly the same way that he deceived the Windsor Board of Education in our community?

Mr. Laughren: Con man.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Would the honourable member withdraw the word "deceived"?

Mr. D. S. Cooke: Rather than argue, I will withdraw the word "deceived" and I will let the people of our community judge for themselves.

Mr. Speaker: You withdraw it? Fine. Thank you.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I will be quite happy to supply the member with the information he has requested. There have been a number of school transfers under the provisions of the new regulations, and I will be quite happy to supply my friend from Windsor with that information.

I want to make it very clear that we have tried to be as even-handed as possible in the allocation of these funds. We have as well in this capital announcement very considerably improved the overall allocation. I regret my honourable colleague's feelings in this respect, but I want to say again that when the regulations were changed some months ago, I thought I had made it clear that there would be a credit to the capital allocation of the next year for any transfers that took place under the arrangements to which I made reference.

MARKET VALUE ASSESSMENT

Mr. McFadden: I have a question of the Minister of Revenue. When will he be releasing his ministry's study of the impact of market value assessment on property taxes in Metropolitan Toronto?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Very soon.

Mr. McFadden: I would like to ask the minister what he means by "soon." By "soon," does he also mean he will be releasing that study both to this House and to the general public for its perusal?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The report was requested by Metropolitan council. It will be up to them to decide its disposition. The report will be made available to them when it is available to us.

ROOMERS, BOARDERS AND LODGERS

Mr. Reville: I have a question for the Minister of Housing, to continue a conversation we were having earlier today at the Toronto regional International Year of Shelter for the Homeless workshop. I observed to the minister that one of the ways to reduce homelessness was to protect rooming house tenants. I raised this issue last week and I got a confused reply.

I want to tell the minister that since last week, another 20 roomers are facing eviction, those at 185 Canton and 17 Homewood. I would like to ask the minister to answer the question clearly. Is he prepared to stand up for the roomers of Ontario and provide them with the protection that every other tenant has by supporting my private bill; and if not, will he then introduce a bill of his own that will bring roomers under the Landlord and Tenant Act before they are all gone?

Hon. Mr. Curling: I saw my honourable colleague at the workshop. I am glad he is participating in our International Year of Shelter for the Homeless.

We are taking a tremendous amount of initiatives and seeing my colleague participating tells us they are in the right direction. One of the efforts we are making is to address the problems of people who are roomers, boarders and lodgers who do not have any tenure and to make the public aware of this. The Lieutenant Governor announced in our throne speech that we will do all we can to protect those tenants who do not have tenure. The commitment is there, and we will follow through with it.

Mr. Reville: Those are brave words, but they will be of no comfort to the 160 people who reside in the area that the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) seeks to represent. They will be evicted. Will the government now admit it has no intention of amending the Landlord and Tenant Act, but it is going to leave those roomers to be evicted without cause, day after day, in a city where speculation is rampant?

Hon. Mr. Curling: Lest the member did not understand, I will read from the throne speech again. We went further than that, actually, in that commitment. It said we "will introduce measures this session to improve conditions for roomers, boarders and lodgers." Not only are we going to protect them, but also we will build new supplies in order to accommodate those who will be faced with any action that will be taken.

BUDGET

Mr. Callahan: I have a question for the Treasurer. The people in my riding of Brampton were very impressed with a lot of the promises in the throne speech. Being the new boy on the block, I would like to inquire of the Treasurer whether the effect of the opposition blocking the introduction of the budget until May 20 means that any or all the promises in the throne speech are blocked until then or for quite some time after that. Is there any way they can be introduced in the meantime?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I consider it my responsibility as Treasurer to indicate in the budget, whenever it is read, how we expect to fund the programs that are new and those that are old, and expanded programs that were referred to in the speech from the throne. I can assure my honourable friend that, even though there is this rather inconvenient delay that makes some people think the Legislature is not working as efficiently as it should, his constituents will not suffer because of the intransigence and obstructionist attitudes taken by the House leader of the New Democratic Party particularly.

NURSING HOMES

Mr. Cousens: I have a question for the Minister of Health. He may be aware, or I hope this question will make him aware, that there is a crisis in confidence in Richmond Hill on the nursing home needs of that community.

There are two nursing homes in Richmond Hill. The Mariann Home, which has a three-year waiting list and has had a request in for additional nursing home beds, is about to be sold and could be closed down. The second is Country Place Nursing Home. The ministry took it over in February 1987. It took 60 patients and put them in North York General Hospital and moved another 20 patients to other places around Toronto; we do not know where. What are the minister's plans to look after nursing home needs in Richmond Hill?

Hon. Mr. Elston: The honourable gentleman is almost right. He is not quite right because the residents who were at Country Place were placed in many homes, some of them even closer to their own residences than Country Place, but there were a number of residents who agreed that they would prefer to be at the North York Seniors Health Centre which is sponsored by the hospital he mentioned.

We are quite well aware of the needs of the people in that area. In fact, one of the reasons we moved was that we were disturbed by the quality of care that was being provided. I am sure that during his supplementary the honourable gentleman would like to stand to applaud our action. I can tell the gentleman we are very aware of the need to look at what may be available for nursing home facilities in Richmond Hill. I am keeping my eye very closely on that situation, but we have not yet made a final resolution of how we would prefer to proceed.

Mr. Cousens: I think some members had a good laugh at the question. They would not be laughing if they were seniors in Richmond Hill looking for a place to go.

Mr. Speaker: Does the member have a supplementary?

Mr. Cousens: All that is serious. I think you should call them to order, Mr. Speaker, because this is a serious problem.

Mr. Speaker: Do you have a supplementary?

Mr. Cousens: The minister has still not addressed the question, which has to do with these seniors, and there are some 20 of them. I do not know where they are. I am sure the families know where they are, but where are they located? What is being done with them? He has closed down a nursing home for just cause and that is under review.

What happens back in our community? We need people to stay in their own communities to be serviced, to be looked after and to be comfortable. He has moved out one nursing home. He has no plans to come back into Richmond Hill. I would like to know specifically what he is going to do about those people in Richmond Hill who are looking for nursing home care. Will he bring back the 100 or so places from Country Place Nursing Home or does he have any plans at all?

Hon. Mr. Elston: To repeat what I said before, we have not yet come up with a final resolution of exactly how we are going to proceed in the Richmond Hill area but we recognize there is a need for beds.

I have some other information for the gentleman, and that is that he was part of the administration that provided us with long lists of seniors in this province who had no options whatsoever. What we are doing as a government is not merely building more beds, putting more beds out so that people can be institutionalized, we are also providing other options for those people, such as taking advantage of home care programs and of integrated homemaking programs that would allow people some choice other than to look for a bed in a nursing home or an extended care facility.

We think they should have the opportunity of staying in their own homes, of being independent and of being part of the communities in which they grew up.

I think the gentleman, although he was unable to congratulate us on the move to protect the seniors in his area, would like at some future point to congratulate us on providing the seniors of this province with great opportunities to stay as independent and active members of their community, not only in Richmond Hill but also right around the province.

NIAGARA REGIONAL GOVERNMENT

Mr. Swart: In the absence of the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Grandmaître), I would like to put a question to the Premier. He probably knows that the chairperson, Mrs. Clark, and 40 members of the Niagara Citizens' Committee are in the gallery today and he probably knows that they are calling on the government to revise substantially, provide an alternative or abolish the Niagara regional government.

Given that the Liberal members from that area expressed similar views while they were in opposition and given that the Niagara regional council requested this external review, will the Premier now give a commitment that such a comprehensive review of Niagara regional government will be undertaken by his government?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am not sure I heard the question. Did the member say Mrs. Clark's committee was there to abolish regional government in the Niagara region or to abolish the member from Welland? I am not sure, but let me respond to the question.

Mr. Swart: I know that is a task you are taking on.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am honoured that the honourable member asked me a question and I am delighted it was not on insurance. Do the members opposite have insurance by the way? I recommend it to them.

I welcome the constructive ideas of Mrs. Clark and her committee. As the member knows, we are looking at regional government across the province. I can assure him that the serious recommendations put forward by the concerned committee will be taken into account by the minister. He has demonstrated an open mind to reviewing these situations in a sense, going on one by one. By virtue of the fact that the group is here today with its constructive ideas, I will share that with the minister. I am sure he will be prepared to look at this with an open mind.

Mr. Swart: I am not sure I heard any flat commitment in that. I would like to ask, by way of supplementary, whether the Premier will give a commitment that any study will be comprehensive and will cover such things as the structure of the police force, for instance, where there has been a lot of problems, what services could be delivered better at the local level and whether it is not more democratic to elect the single most important person in regional government, the regional chairman, rather than have him appointed. Will the Premier give a commitment that those things at least will be investigated by any study that is done?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I think this government has demonstrated its leadership in looking at the question of regional government as it applies to various regions across the province. As the member knows, we have moved in some regards in that area. I will say to the member, and through him to his friends in the gallery, that I would like to look very seriously at the petition. I gather they have developed the ideas they have put forward. I will discuss them with the minister.

I can say in general terms that this government and the ministry have a very open mind on reassessing these institutions. If they are not working well and effectively, we are looking for creative, new ideas to make them work well. Obviously, there are a number of people involved in these determinations, but I take the member's suggestion, and through him those of Mrs. Clark and her committee, as being very constructive in reviewing that institution of government. I can assure them it will get the attention of the minister.

CONTROL OF SMOKING

Mr. Sterling: I would like to ask a question of the Attorney General. Earlier this year, I congratulated him on his move to ban smoking from the courthouses of our province. Evidently, however, even though no-smoking signs have been put up in many of the courthouses, including our beautiful new courthouse in Ottawa that cost some $50 million to the taxpayers of this province, no one seems to be paying any attention to the no-smoking signs. When asked in the courthouse, his sheriff indicated that there is no enforcement mechanism in place.

Is the Attorney General serious or is his government serious about attacking this health hazard, as we have seen exhibited by the federal government, or is he just doing a number of things in terms of announcements, tokens or whatever? I want to see some real action on this and I want to see his commitment, which I believe he wants to do.

Hon. Mr. Scott: As the honourable member knows, the enforcement of these matters is a matter in every case for the local police who investigate if a complaint is made and lay a charge. We are anxious that should be done in the appropriate instances.

I have recently come to adopt the views of my honourable friend on the smoking issue. He will be interested to hear that in the office of the Attorney General a vote was held just the other day about whether smoking should be permitted. Smoking was rejected for the work force 32 to 3. If he wants to see a commitment, there it is.

PETITIONS

NIAGARA REGIONAL GOVERNMENT

Mr. Swart: I have here not only one of the largest petitions I have ever presented in this House and one of the most worthy petitions, but also one of the best-bound petitions. It reads:

"To the Lieutenant Governor in Council and the members of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, submit that the Niagara regional government is excessively costly and needlessly overlaps local municipal government and is lacking in accountability to the public. We therefore beseech the government of Ontario to authorize the Minister of Municipal Affairs to make substantial reforms, provide an alternative or abolish it altogether."

This is signed by 8,868 residents of the regional municipality of Niagara and is submitted under the Regional Municipality of Niagara Act,

chapter 438, subsection 166(2), Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1980.

Mr. Speaker: Did the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) count that to make sure?

Mr. Swart: Yes, I did.

NATUROPATHY

Mr. Andrewes: I have a petition that reads as follows:

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

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

"Whereas it is my constitutional right to have available and to choose the health care system of my preference;

"And

whereas naturopathy has had self-governing status in Ontario for more than 42 years;

"We petition the Ontario Legislature to call on the government to introduce legislation that would guarantee naturopaths the right to practise their art and science to the fullest without prejudice or harassment."

There are some 80 names on this petition.

DIALYSIS UNIT

Mr. Warner: In the continuing saga, I have a petition:

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

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

"That the government of Ontario provide the funds needed to build a 10-bed renal dialysis unit at Scarborough General Hospital to serve patients in the Scarborough area."

There are 112 signatures, bringing the total so far to 1,070. I ask the members to stay tuned for more.

NATUROPATHY

Mr. Cureatz: I have a petition from constituents in Durham East to introduce legislation that would guarantee naturopaths the right to practise their art and science to the fullest without prejudice or harassment.

That petition bears 250 names.

Mr. Hayes: I have a petition signed by 20 people in my riding:

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

"Whereas it is my constitutional right to have available and to choose the health care system of my preference;

"And

whereas naturopathy has had self-governing status in Ontario for more than 42 years;

"We petition the Ontario Legislature to call on the government to introduce legislation that would guarantee naturopaths the right to practise their art and science to the fullest without prejudice or harassment."

ABORTION SERVICES

Mr. Villeneuve: I have a petition that was circulated throughout my riding and is signed by 1,132 very concerned residents. It reads as follows:

"To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislature of the province of Ontario: "We, the undersigned, do hereby petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to reject the recommendations of the Powell study. We understand that this study recommends the opening of government-run abortion clinics. We believe that there are already too many abortions in Ontario, which totalled 27,000 in 1986, and would like to see access restricted and not made easier."

Mr. Pierce: I have a petition that reads as follows:

"To the honourable Legislature of Ontario in parliament assembled:

"The petition of the undersigned residents of Ontario, who now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right thus to present a grievance common to your petitioners in the certain assurance that your honourable Legislature will therefore provide a remedy;

"Humbly sheweth: The operation of the Morgentaler and Scott abortuaries violate the intent of federal legislation and are in direct violation of the Criminal Code of Canada;

"Wherefore, we, the undersigned, ask the Legislature to enforce the law and to seek bail conditions for the abortionists involved in the illegal abortuaries."

It is signed by 24 petitioners.

Mr. Pierce: I have two other petitions: "Mr. Speaker, members of the Legislature: "We are writing to express our objections to the implementation of the recommendations contained in the Powell study on access to abortion in the province of Ontario.

"We do not support the establishment of hospital-affiliated abortion clinics, nor will we support any candidate for office in the next provincial election who agrees with this proposal."

I have one other petition, which reads as follows:

"To the honourable Legislature of Ontario in parliament assembled:

"The petition of the undersigned residents of Ontario, who now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right thus to present a grievance common to your petitioners in the certain assurance that your honourable Legislature will therefore provide a remedy;

"Humbly sheweth: The Marion Powell report on abortions is biased, unbalanced and not in the best interests of the people;

"Wherefore, we, the undersigned, ask the Legislature to reject the Powell report and its recommendations in total."

It is signed by 21 members of the community.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

MEMBERS' CONFLICT OF INTEREST ACT / LOI DE 1987 SUR LES CONFLITS D'INTÉRÊTS DES MEMBRES DE L'ASSEMBLÉE

Hon. Mr. Scott moved first reading of Bill 23,

An Act to provide for Greater Certainty in the Reconciliation of the Personal Interests of Members of the Assembly and the Executive Council with their Duties of Office.

L'hon. M. Scott propose la première lecture du projet de loi 23, Loi assurant une plus grande certitude quant au rapprochement des intérêts personelles des membres de l'Assemblée et du Conseil des ministres avec les devoirs de leurs fonctions.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptée.

Hon. Mr. Scott: I paused in the introduction of that bill because I did not recognize it by its

long title. Its

short title, for those who remember it from the last session when it was differently entitled, then was the Members' Standard of Office Act.

It is precisely the same as the act that was introduced in the last session, with one exception. The Billy Joe MacLean case in Nova Scotia has brought to our attention the fact that in certain circumstances, disqualification on future membership in the assembly is probably an unsustainable limit on an individual's rights under

section 3 of the Charter of Rights. Accordingly, the provision for disqualification from future membership has been deleted.

The enactment of this legislation continues to be a priority of the government and we look forward to the support of all members for it.

JUSTICES OF THE PEACE ACT / LOI DE 1987 SUR LES JUGES DE PAIX

Hon. Mr. Scott moved first reading of Bill 24,

An Act to revise the Justices of the Peace Act.

L'hon. M. Scott propose la première lecture du projet de loi 24, Loi révisant la

Loi sur les juges de paix.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptée.

Hon. Mr. Scott: I made an opening statement this afternoon.

INSTITUTE OF MUNICIPAL ASSESSORS ACT

Mr. Cousens moved first reading of Bill Pr63,

An Act respecting the Institute of Municipal Assessors of Ontario.

Motion agreed to.

CITY OF LONDON ACT

Ms. E. J. Smith moved first reading of Bill Pr51,

An Act respecting the City of London.

Motion agreed to.

QUETICO FOUNDATION ACT

Mr. Bernier moved, seconded by Mr. Pierce, first reading of Bill Pr11,

An Act to revive the Quetico Foundation.

Motion agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE (CONTINUED)

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for an address in reply to the speech of the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor at the opening of the session.

Mr. Rae: It is with a considerable degree of pleasure that I rise in my place to put forward the initial response of the New Democratic Party to the speech from the throne that was read by His Honour last week.

I must say that when listening to the last two speeches from the throne and when listening to the comments that were made by the Premier (Mr. Peterson) in the very first week of the formation of the government in 1985, I could not resist noting that the government was pretending as if it were somehow the product of some sort of immaculate conception, that it simply fell from the sky.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Wait a minute. I am sorry; that is a mixed metaphor.

Mr. Rae: The Treasurer is looking uncomfortable because he was very much involved in the process that led up to the formation of the government.

I must also say that while I look with interest, read with interest and listen with interest to speeches from the throne, in the last two that have been delivered, the one last year and the one this year -- I am going to have something to say about both of them -- I think the government is simply kidding itself and is trying to kid the people of Ontario.

We all know it is a matter of historical fact, although never acknowledged publicly by the Premier and never acknowledged in this place by the Treasurer -- perhaps for him because of his involvement in the negotiations that led up to the formation of the government -- that there was a very elaborate process after the last election that established an agenda for reform and that established an agreement for a reform minority parliament, which agreement was signed on May 28, 1985, by the member for London Centre (Mr.

Peterson), leader of the Ontario Liberal Party, and by myself, the leader of the Ontario New Democratic Party. It is right here. Perhaps the camera can take a little time to focus on it. The Premier's signature is right here at the bottom of the page: "David Peterson, leader, Ontario Liberal Party, dated at Toronto, May 28, 1985."

I have verified this signature with others signed by the Premier. I have a letter I will be reading into the record later, addressed to the president of the Ontario Federation of Labour, in which the Premier explains why he has not been able to make up his mind on the question of free trade. It is a very interesting letter. But I just want to say that from my correspondence with the Premier, which is not particularly extensive over the years, I have become familiar with his particular script and his signature. I have never seen it at the bottom of a cheque but I have seen it at the bottom of a letter.

I am satisfied on the basis of other signatures I have seen that this is indeed the signature of the member for London Centre, the leader of the Ontario Liberal Party.

It is worth while at this time when there is so much speculation as to what might or might not happen this spring, and when we are presented with a --

Hon. Mr. Nixon: All of it from your House leader, who is round the bend on this matter.

Mr. Rae: The Treasurer's uneasiness and his uncharacteristic grumpy aggressiveness, which he has demonstrated over the last few days, as I think most people who are observers of human behaviour will agree, is the product of an extreme defensiveness. What is the cause of this defensiveness? On the basis of my analysis and observation, I would say it is stress because he was involved in this document and actually believes in the process that led up to it and because frankly, even though the definition of a Liberal is someone who does not know how to be embarrassed, the Treasurer does feel a little embarrassed by what has taken place.

Let me read into the record what this document that was signed by the Premier says. I think it is worth recalling what it says, because what it says is very clear. What it says, it seems to me, should put an end to any question about what is the origin of the basic reform agenda. Also, it establishes very clearly just how much there still is to be done and how this document itself contemplates that period to complete the agenda which we negotiated at that time.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: You not only sound like Neville Chamberlain; you look like him.

Mr. Rae: If I am Neville Chamberlain, who are you? You drew the comparison, Treasurer; I did not. I wish you would do that again. Will you please stay for the whole afternoon?

"On May 2, 1985, the people of Ontario created an opportunity for change after 42 years of Conservative government."

I am reading this because I think it is important that we recall just what happened and what our origins are as a parliament with respect to the agenda we are discussing.

"We are determined to accept responsibility for bringing about that change." "We" refers to David Peterson and Bob Rae. "During the election campaign, both the Liberal and New Democratic parties advanced significant public policy and legislative reform proposals. These proposals contained many elements in common, which are outlined in the attached documents.

"In the interests of making minority government work, we are committed to a program of public policy reforms which will improve the quality of life for everyone in this province. We are also committed to legislative reforms designed to improve public access to and information about the legislative process in Ontario.

"It will take time to achieve these objectives. We have agreed on the need for a period of stability during which this program can proceed.

"Should the Lieutenant Governor invite the leader of the Liberal Party to form a government" -- I want to repeat this -- "Should the Lieutenant Governor invite the leader of the Liberal Party to form a government, this agreement will be for two years from the day that the leader of the Liberal Party assumes the office of Premier."

There is no ambiguity. June 26, 1985, was the date upon which the Premier assumed office, and two years from then is June 26, 1987.

"It is understood that the traditions, practices and precedents of the Ontario Legislature are that individual bills are not considered matters of confidence unless so designated by the government.

"We undertake the following," with signatures specifically signed:

"1. The leader of the Liberal Party will not request a dissolution of the Legislature during the term of this agreement, except following defeat on a specifically-framed motion of nonconfidence."

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Or delay in the business of the House.

Mr. Rae: I see the Treasurer is adding new terms. He is shouting out some new concepts which are flowing to his mind, but it is here in our own writing. It is signed; it has been done. It has been signed, sealed and delivered. That is the nature of the agreement that has been made.

You do not see the Premier saying, when he comes away from Meech Lake, "Oh, that is not what I meant." You do not see him suddenly emerging from the accord which was signed at Meech Lake, to which I presume he affixed a signature, or perhaps he just initialled it, and saying: "It is not a legally binding document; it is just an agreement among politicians. We just gave our word. It does not mean anything."

I want to say to the Treasurer and to the Minister of Education (Mr. Conway), who is here, and to other members of the cabinet, let the Premier break his word. Let him not simply break his word in terms of the length of this agreement; let him break his word in terms of the things that remain to be done that he said would be done. Then let him go to the people and explain why the Liberal Party, of which he is the leader, should ever be trusted by the people of Ontario again to do anything. Let him do that and let that be the message.

To conclude: "While individual bills, including budget bills, will not be treated or designated as matters of confidence, the overall budgetary policy of the government, including the votes on supply, will be treated as a matter of confidence."

I want to state categorically that I do not intend in any way, shape or form to play any games.

I notice with interest that the leader of the Conservative Party did not move a motion of no confidence yesterday, which is unusual. I think it is fair to say that in the normal course of events, in a throne speech response there is a motion of no confidence that, in turn, in a majority parliament is usually amended in various ways and there are votes and it proceeds. He did not do so. Let me make it very clear. I do not intend to move a motion of no confidence, and we intend to continue to maintain the integrity of this accord, the integrity of this document, because I happen to think integrity in political life means something.

We have been told by various observers at different times that perhaps there would be ways of changing the agreement; perhaps it is something that might not have been the wisest course to follow.

I do not accept that, but let me say this: Having taken our party and caucus through that process of negotiation, having negotiated the very specific areas of reform I am now going to outline, and having not simply done that but having said to the people of Ontario, "We are prepared to change from 42 years of Tory rule, but we are prepared to do so only under certain agreements between political parties with respect to stability in a minority parliament," I want to state categorically that my word -- Bob Rae's word -- and the word of the New Democratic Party mean something.

Let us wait and see whether the word of the Premier and the Liberal Party of Ontario mean something. Only time will tell.

Let us also look at what this legislative reform is, because the package of reform that is the accord is in fact the basis, not of a wish list but of what this Legislative Assembly has been doing for the past two years. There are some exceptions, such as the motion that was moved by my colleague the member for Ottawa Centre (Ms. Gigantes) with respect to human rights and sexual orientation. It is fair to say that took up a fair amount of time for a period and focused the attention of the House. I am proud of the role my colleague played in that regard.

It is also true to say that we spent a considerable amount of time in question period dealing with the question of car insurance, and the government has now told us it is going to be responding to that part of the agenda and is going to be doing something about that.

I do not mind saying that, apart from a few deviations, which I think on the whole can be shown to be pretty minor in terms of the direction of this government -- and it is not something the Liberal Party likes; it is not something I expect it ever to say; it is not something I await on the edge of my chair saying, "I wonder when the Premier or any of the members of the cabinet are going to recognize that when they talk about moving child care to becoming a public service and not a form of welfare, they are borrowing directly from the wording of the accord itself."

I do not expect them to admit it, but let us just state as a matter of fact, because I think it is important for us to have some respect for facts, that the fact of the matter is that the reform agenda that has been the agenda of this Legislative Assembly has been the agenda of the accord -- not lived up to all the time, not in a perfect way, not in the way we would have liked in all circumstances.

I will be going into some areas we think are inadequate, but the direction, the agenda, however poorly or inadequately it may have been addressed by the Liberal Party, has been the agenda of the accord, not these 50-page or 60-page pieces of general wafflegab and bafflegab, not the one last year, whose only new takeoff point -- and I was having difficulty remembering until a member of the gallery reminded me -- was the high-tech fund in the Premier's Council, which has been such a tremendous source of bamboozlement and glee for those of us watching the way in which governments can sometimes misspend and badly spend public dollars. No, this is not the agenda of this session.

When people ask me what I think of the speech from the throne, and I will be coming to it in a moment, I must say it really is of no importance in comparison to what we are all about as a Legislature. What we have been about, as a matter of fact, as a Legislature, is the agenda established in the accord. As a matter of historical fact, it is important for us to recall that for a moment and not to pretend it is anything else.

Look at the bills that are matters of priority which were put through and dealt with by the assembly as recently as this last break.

Nursing home reform: a cause that has been espoused by my party for the past 20 years and with which all of us have been involved -- I look around at my colleagues and know that all of us have been involved -- in some way, shape or form in shaping and directing. How proud we are that our colleague the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. D. S. Cooke) was finally able to convince the government to accept in the legislation amendments with respect to a bill of rights for nursing home residents. We do not expect the government to admit that is where the piece of advice came from; we do not expect it to say that, but again let us establish it as a matter of historical fact.

Pension reform, which my colleague the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan) has been championing so effectively: again, an issue which we as New Democrats championed through the whole array of special committees it went through. Again, that is on the agenda because of the work that has been done by the New Democratic Party and because it has been specifically laid out here as being an area that will be addressed in that two-year period. We have yet to complete that work.

Equal pay: here because we have a commitment from the two parties that there would be an introduction of legislation for equal pay for work of equal value in both the public and the private sectors. It has been a long haul. We are not there yet. The legislation can still use a great deal of improvement before it becomes law, in my view and in our view, but let us be under no illusion; it is there because it was put there in the accord.

That accord was signed by two people who had a sense at that time that it was a golden opportunity in terms of a movement for reform, for us to move, to make things happen in this province in ways they had not happened before. As I say, I do not expect the government to admit it, but I think it is important that as a matter of historical record we get some of those things on the record and clearly establish without any illusion where these ideas came from. They did not fall from the sky. They are not the product of something that emerged whole from the head of anyone in the Premier's office. Speeches from the throne did; the Premier's office can have this one.

This four-page, simple document has laid out the pattern of reform that we have injected into this legislative session and that we intend to keep pushing and pressing for because we think it is what the people of this province want. It is worth recalling that it has proved to be a very popular agenda. It is a populist agenda. It is a people's agenda that has made a difference. Whenever the government has deviated from the people's agenda, it has given people an indication as to what kind of party it really is on its own. I think that is something that is becoming clearer and clearer for us.

I do not normally want to do this, but because I have the opportunity and a bit of time, I want to go over the groundwork again and remind people precisely what that document called for, how much progress we have made and where we have not made progress. It may take a little bit of time, but I know, Mr. Speaker, you will bear with me as we go through it.

Legislation on freedom of information and the protection of privacy has been in committee. Coming out, we are still facing a battle as to what extent the government is going to accept amendments that are coming forward from the New Democratic Party and the other party.

Reform of the House: We have come some way in that regard, not as far as we would like. Changes to broadening the powers of the public accounts committee and the Provincial Auditor: We have made some progress in that regard.

Select committees are meeting right now -- that is why my colleagues are not here -- on the commercialization of health and social services, and to study and report on bilateral environmental issues affecting Ontario.

We did not establish a standing committee on energy to oversee Ontario Hydro, but we did have the continuing work of the special committee.

We had the establishment of a committee on procedures for appointments in the public sector but the government has not accepted the recommendations of the committee, so we are still stuck in the old days of patronage. The government has said it is going to endeavour to make them as representative as possible, but I still think most of us are very suspicious as to why the government would not have accepted the very wise recommendations that were made by the standing committee of which my friend the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) is the very able, indeed brilliant and wise, chairman.

Election financing reform: We have done it. We have set limits. For years we tried to get the Tories to accept the principle that one should not be able to buy one's way into public life in this province. We finally have legislation that I think compares to most other legislation in the western world with respect to financing reform. Redefinition and broadening of the rights of public service workers to participation in political activity: We have not yet achieved that. We have had a report from Mr. Breithaupt. We have had no indication of legislation from the Attorney General (Mr. Scott).

Electronic Hansard: We have it and I think it is a good thing we do, too. It allows the public to see what is going on and allows a relative equality and democracy in terms of the way in which the participation of all members is perceived.

Then we turn the page to some areas not simply of electoral reform and what we called at that t