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

June 1, 1987

33rd Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L019 - Mon 1 Jun 1987 / Lun 1er jun 1987

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

CANADIAN ENVIRONMENT WEEK

INJURED WORKERS DAY

CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL OF SOUTHWESTERN ONTARIO

CONVERSION OF RENTAL ACCOMMODATION

RIDING OF LAKE NIPIGON

INJURED WORKERS DAY

MINING ACCIDENTS

VISITOR

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

PROTECTION OF CAROLINIAN ZONE

CANADIAN ENVIRONMENT WEEK

MINING ACCIDENT

CROP INSURANCE

LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD OF ONTARIO

RESPONSES

MINING ACCIDENT

CANADIAN ENVIRONMENT WEEK

LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD OF ONTARIO

MINING ACCIDENT

CANADIAN ENVIRONMENT WEEK

ORAL QUESTIONS

CONSTITUTIONAL DISCUSSIONS

MINING ACCIDENT

FUND-RAISING

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

FUND-RAISING

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

RETAIL STORE HOURS

WASTE MANAGEMENT

INFRASTRUCTURE RENEWAL

REHABILITATION CENTRE

SPECIAL EDUCATION

FOOD CONTAINERS

EDUCATION FUNDING

TABLING OF INFORMATION

PETITION

THERAPEUTIC ABORTIONS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

MENTAL HEALTH AMENDMENT ACT

HAMILTON JEWISH COMMUNAL PROJECTS ACT

DRIVING SCHOOL ASSOCIATION OF ONTARIO ACT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

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

E) The House met at 1:30 p.m.

Prayers.

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

The Deputy Speaker: I would like to ask all members to join me in welcoming the second spring group of legislative pages to serve in the third session of the 33rd Parliament, 1987:

Jody Applebaum, Wilson Heights; Charmaine Appleton, Mississauga North; Shelley Ayres, Brantford; Olu Clarke, Yorkview; Lorna Coulter, Durham-York; Joanne Davison, Oshawa; Michael Drouillard, Windsor-Sandwich; Natasha Dubrovin, Lake Nipigon; Christopher Harte, Kitchener; Jennifer Hughes, Grey-Bruce; Christopher Johnston, Kenora; Evangelos Karagounis, Scarborough-Ellesmere; Tricia Knebel, Brock; Rebecca Melville, Port Arthur; Ahmad Muinuddin, York Mills; Vuthary Phy, Burlington South; Andrew Resmer, Hastings-Peterborough; Jennifer Roberts, Grey; Rebecca Schinkel, Wentworth North; Donald Shackell, Dufferin-Simcoe; Greg Smith, Middlesex; Bryan Timm, Renfrew South; Bryan Tokarsky, Wellington-Dufferin-Peel; and Jeffrey Wallace, Sudbury East.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

CANADIAN ENVIRONMENT WEEK

Mr. Gillies: I rise on the occasion of the beginning of Canadian Environment Week.

More than ever before, Canadians and Ontarians are aware of the dangers pollution brings to our air, our waters and our lands. A Gallup poll published just today showed that in two short years the number of Canadians considering the dangers of pollution as very serious has increased by 30 per cent. Fully two thirds of our country's population now feels pollution is a significant threat to the quality of our environment and virtually all Canadians, 96 per cent, have heard or read about the dangers of pollution.

Despite this increased awareness, we still have a lot to do by way of cleaning up and protecting the environment for the future. Here in Ontario, we know a safe environment is a high priority. Acid rain, toxic chemicals and leaking landfills have taken their toll.

This Canadian Environment Week gives us an opportunity to focus our attention on environmental issues and to heighten the awareness of the public and industry that a clean environment is also good economics.

This year, I hope the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) will take this week seriously enough to participate in some of the activities. Last year, the minister's excuse for nonparticipation was that he felt every week was Environment Week in Ontario. That is a lame excuse for not taking every opportunity possible to get the message out to keep Ontario clean.

INJURED WORKERS DAY

Mr. McClellan: Today, I am doing something a little different with members' statements. Today is June 1, which in Ontario is traditionally the day we set aside to remember workers who have been killed or injured on the job. I would like to ask my colleagues in the Legislature to join with me in a moment of silence in memory of those who were killed on the job in Ontario during the past 12 months.

The House observed one minute's silence.

CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL OF SOUTHWESTERN ONTARIO

Mr. Reycraft: I want to report to the assembly this afternoon on an enormously successful telethon conducted at the Children's Hospital of Southwestern Ontario last weekend.

This is the second year in which the London hospital has participated in this international telethon. Last year, a total of $391,488 was pledged in the telethon. When this year's telethon concluded at 6 p.m. yesterday afternoon, the tote board showed a grand total of $545,000. This money will all be used to fund additional research, equipment and special programs at the London children's hospital so that the hospital may expand the excellent health care services the staff there already provides.

I want to applaud the people of southwestern Ontario who responded so generously on Saturday and Sunday. I also want to congratulate the hospital's development officer, Dawn Snow, and the over 1,200 volunteers, some of whom worked through the full 24 hours of the telethon.

Together, they have made a very significant contribution to the quality of life in southwestern Ontario.

I want to draw particular attention to the efforts of television broadcasters Jim Swan of CFPL-TV in London and Brian Elmslie of CKNX-TV in Wingham. Not only did they donate their professional talents for the duration of the telethon, but as well they surrendered Brian's beard and Jim's moustache as part of a challenge that was met by their viewers.

CONVERSION OF RENTAL ACCOMMODATION

Mr. McFadden: I would like to raise a serious matter concerning the loss of a significant number of affordable rental apartment units in Metro Toronto as a result of the growing number of conversions to what appear to be apartment-hotel units.

Hundreds of rental units in Metro Toronto now are being taken off the rental housing market to be used for short-term residences for out-of-town visitors in apparent contravention of both provincial and municipal law. My office has received numerous complaints from tenants that this type of illegal apartment-hotel accommodation exists in at least three north Toronto apartment buildings.

It would appear that there is an orchestrated effort on the part of the building owner to obtain vacant possession of as many rental units as possible by refusing tenants the right to sublet their units. My office has spoken with officials of the Ministry of Housing concerning this problem and has provided them with specific information regarding the location of alleged illegal apartment-hotel units.

To the best of my knowledge, there is yet to be any action taken by the ministry with regard to these illegal apartment-hotel units. Given the serious nature of this problem, I call on the Ministry of Housing to get on with the job and investigate thoroughly these allegations of illegal apartment-hotel units in Metropolitan Toronto so that this problem can be dealt with and eradicated.

RIDING OF LAKE NIPIGON

Mr. Pouliot: I would like to draw the attention of the House to where there is nothing short of a tragedy in the largest riding in our province, my own riding of Lake Nipigon. Statistics will attest -- and they were given to the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) -- that as we near the year 2000, not eight, not nine, but a full 11 per cent of the people in the riding of Lake Nipigon do not have washroom facilities.

The average family income in our riding is $27,000, compared to $48,000 for Markham, where 80 per cent of the people have more than one washroom. In Lake Nipigon, 11 per cent of the people do not have any. We are spending $30 million of taxpayers' money in this province to make sure the Gucci crowd, the more fortunate people, do not get rained on when they go to see the Blue Jays.

I am asking the House, where are the priorities as we near the year 2000 that the essential facilities for our first Canadians are omitted? Every time I have asked this House, through the Treasurer or the Premier (Mr. Peterson), we are told to go and see the feds. What needs to be done is for the government to put some money aside in terms of an essential service. After all, we have just looked at $30 billion in terms of overall expenditure.

INJURED WORKERS DAY

Mr. Gordon: Today we honour the injured workers of this province. We recognize their pain and suffering as human beings. We recognize their contribution and that of their families; and we also must reflect upon the fact that it is the families that often suffer along with the worker, because when the worker receives an injury that takes away his livelihood it also takes away much of the peace and quiet that we find in normal family life.

At the prevention end, the occupational health and safety laws have failed this worker. After the injury, the Workers' Compensation Board more often than not fails this worker. Rather than facilitate rehabilitation and compensation, the WCB often frustrates it.

The workers' compensation system in this province as it stands now does not serve the interests of the workers, rather it too often serves to demoralize the workers, to deprive the workers of what is fair. What symbolizes this more than any other aspect of that dehumanized sprawling bureaucracy is the meat chart. This chart coldly determines the compensation based on the part of the body which is injured. This chart arbitrarily sets the worth of the loss of a limb, faculty or ability without concern for how this loss affects present or future earning ability.

I call on this House to recognize the injured workers and to move expeditiously to try to do everything possible legislatively to help them.

MINING ACCIDENTS

Mr. Martel: We have just suffered two more fatalities in the mining industry, bringing the figure to 10 this year. There is something drastically wrong. We are ending unemployment in the north with people being killed. There is something drastically wrong. If this were policemen being killed, this province would be torn apart with unrest, but dumb miners seem to be the scapegoats. No one really gets uptight when they get killed and I, for one, am tired of counting the bodies.

In the minister's statement last week, he did not talk about scaling. He did not talk about a number of other types of fatalities which occurred. In drilling, there is no protection; lighting is inadequate; and we get this kind of weak, Caspar Milquetoast approach. The workers did not want that. That is all industry was prepared to give and that is all the minister was prepared to allow workers to have. When are we going to say to the industry, "You are going to clean up and we are going to put those provisions in place which make it safe." If it costs a few bucks, so what? This year, 10 miners. The price is too high for the present system.

I say to the Premier (Mr. Peterson), since his Minister of Labour (Mr. Wrye) will not do something, will he?

VISITOR

The Deputy Speaker: I would ask all members of the Legislative Assembly to join with me in recognizing and welcoming in the Speaker's gallery the Clerk of Parliament for Grenada, Curt Strachan.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

PROTECTION OF CAROLINIAN ZONE

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: My colleague the Minister of Citizenship and Culture (Ms. Munro) and I would like to inform the members of a memorandum of understanding that will be signed between our respective ministries today. It will deal with the protection of native plants, animals and natural habitats of an area in southern Ontario known as Carolinian Canada.

The memorandum commits a total of $1.8 million in government funding over three years to the protection of this valuable and distinctive natural heritage. This funding will match commitments made by the private sector. It will be administered by the Ontario Heritage Foundation, an agency of the Ministry of Citizenship and Culture, in a special Carolinian fund.

I want to commend the three nongovernment agencies that are contributing financially to this program. Those agencies are Wildlife Habitat Canada, the Nature Conservancy to Canada and the World Wildlife Fund, Canada. Key members from those three agencies will be witness to the signing of the memorandum of understanding, which will be undertaken today. In particular, the World Wildlife Fund is to be commended for its lead role in stimulating this very important co-operative initiative.

As members may know, the Carolinian zone in southern Ontario boasts vegetation and wildlife that is not found anywhere else in the province -- or in Canada, in some cases. This includes sassafras, tulip and red mulberry trees, opossum, blue racers and the Carolina wren, to mention just a very few.

In the case of Carolinian Canada, we have assisted in developing an overall conservation strategy for the region and are working to protect 36 critical natural areas. These areas include southern deciduous forests, wetlands, prairies and savannahs. Among them are 26 areas of natural and scientific interest designated by my ministry and eight of Ontario's most significant wetlands.

The land protection program set out in this memorandum of understanding involves both private stewardship and land acquisition.

Under the private stewardship component, we are encouraging land owners in Carolinian areas to leave undeveloped tracts to preserve Carolinian lifeforms. Co-operating land owners are eligible to receive recognition through the Ontario Heritage Foundation stewardship awards program. They can also get management advice and apply for stewardship assistance from member agencies of the Natural Heritage League.

Actual land acquisition from willing land owners is reserved only for the most significant properties when no other options for protection are available.

Under this program, the province is working with public interest groups and the private sector to ensure that the natural diversity offered to us in Carolinian Canada remains with us for generations to come.

My colleague the Minister of Citizenship and Culture and I believe this is a very significant and positive program and we are pleased to be participating in it.

CANADIAN ENVIRONMENT WEEK

Hon. Mr. Bradley: This is the beginning of Canadian Environment Week. It is an appropriate time to reiterate to this House and to the people of Ontario the Peterson government's commitment to our environment.

We on this side understand that we must protect our renewable resources, our drinking water supplies, indeed the entire fragile ecosystem which supports the web of life, if we are to endow our children with a full and prosperous future.

It is a huge job, following decades of abuse and neglect, to restore the wholesomeness of what nature gave us. In our two years as stewards of the environment, we have worked hard to turn the province from the careless course it was following. Within days of taking office, our government removed the spills bill from the legislative freezer and proclaimed it into law.

Mr. Gillies: The farmers love it.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies) was supposed to applaud there.

The result has been that potential spillers are taking greater care and prompt cleanup has become the rule.

We have instituted Countdown Acid Rain, the most progressive acid rain abatement program in North America or Europe. It requires the four big acid rain polluters to cut their emissions by two thirds by 1994. We have also aggressively pressed our American neighbours to take the kind of similar action that is needed to protect waterways, wildlife, forests, historical buildings and human health in Ontario and throughout eastern North America.

The Peterson government's municipal-industrial strategy for abatement program is the most effective tool in Ontario history for cleaning up the province's waterways. The old system was full of holes. It was based on the foolish assumption that dilution was the solution to pollution and it was buttressed, if that is the word, by a lattice of unenforceable guidelines.

MISA will cap the chemical loadings of every major discharger into our waterways at levels that can be attained by the best available technology economically achievable. Furthermore, these levels will be periodically reviewed and where technological improvements permit they will be lowered. The ultimate goal of the MISA program is the virtual elimination of persistent toxic substances from discharges into our waterways.

On one of our most seriously polluted waterways, the Niagara River, our government held out for a meaningful cleanup agreement between the four governments involved. Due to our intransigent advocacy of the environment, a substantial first step in the cleanup of that long-abused river was agreed to. The plan now has a percentage pollution reduction, a timetable and a meaningful reference to excavation of the toxic chemical dumps that line the United States shore.

Our government is also dedicated to making recycling work. In the past, the commitment to recycling in Ontario was halfhearted and underfunded. Our government is determined to boost recycling from a novelty that pops up here and there for a few years to a permanent province-wide activity that touches the day-to-day lives of most of our citizens.

The Peterson government quintupled municipal curbside recycling grants last year. We will have even more money than that available this year for recycling.

The first step in making recycling an important environmental initiative was the pop can regulation we passed within three months of taking office. That action ended years of puerile dawdling. The regulation required the soft drink industry to take responsibility for the fate of its containers. After studying its obligations, the industry announced a $20-million program to aid municipalities with the capital costs of establishing multimaterial curbside recycling programs.

That sum from private industry is on top of our financial commitment. Right now, province-wide recycling programs divert about two per cent of municipal garbage destined for landfill sites. What a lost opportunity that statistic represents. My aim is to expand recycling so that at least 15 per cent of Ontario's household garbage is diverted from landfills.

To back our tough approach to environmental protection, we have increased fines for pollution 10-fold, added provision for jail sentences and made corporate executives and directors legally responsible by giving them a duty to take care.

Furthermore, we are enforcing our environmental laws with vigour. In the fiscal year ended March 31, prosecutions more than tripled from two years previous, while convictions doubled over the same period. Those who previously felt themselves immune from environmental legislation have found that they are not above the law.

All this is not to say we have solved all of the problems, far from it. We still have several important initiatives to introduce. Tough, efficient follow-through as well as continued vigilance is necessary.

Among our future initiatives will be an infrastructure renewal program, aid to municipalities for sewer and waterworks and a comprehensive waste management plan. In addition, we hope to introduce a much-improved air pollution abatement program. We are pressing for a national superfund to clean up old problem spots as they are discovered.

In conclusion, I would like to give our pledge that environmental restoration and protection will continue to be a top priority for the Peterson government in years to come.

MINING ACCIDENT

Hon. Mr. Scott: On April 14, four miners died at the Levack mine when several tons of ore fell down a shaft in which they were working. On May 6, the Sudbury Regional Police, in an information sworn before a justice of the peace, charged a fellow miner with four counts of criminal negligence causing death.

The leader of the third party, the member for York South (Mr. Rae), asked me if I would review this matter and consider exercising my power as Attorney General to stay the criminal proceedings so that an inquest could be held and all of the circumstances surrounding the deaths be made public. The member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren) asked me to consider withdrawing the criminal information.

My staff and I have conducted a full review of the circumstances of the case during the past two weeks, and so I am now in a position to respond.

Under the criminal justice system, the police are responsible for investigating events such as the deaths of these miners and for determining whether charges under the Criminal Code of Canada should be laid. That is the procedure that was followed in this case. The Sudbury Regional Police, following an investigation into the matter, concluded there were reasonable and probable grounds to believe that a criminal offence had been committed. They swore to that belief before a justice of the peace, who concluded that the test of reasonable and probable grounds had been met.

As Attorney General, my responsibility under the Criminal Code is to determine whether it is appropriate to continue criminal proceedings that have been commenced by this process. Normally, where charges have been properly laid, the matter should proceed and be determined by a judge sitting in court. The legal authorities emphasize that the Attorney General should exercise his discretion to stay or withdraw charges only when there is some clear and convincing legal reason or some compelling circumstances relating to the charges to support the decision to withdraw or stay. This is implicit in the very idea of the rule of law.

We will want to remember that criminal responsibility is a matter to be finally determined by the courts, not by the police or by the crown. A charge has been properly laid; the accused under our system is presumed innocent. Thus, both the accused and the public have an interest in seeing that the matter comes before a court of law, where the issue can be dealt with in a public judicial forum with finality and free of partisan or extraneous considerations.

After giving the most anxious and deliberate consideration to this matter, and keeping in mind the important interest in the administration of justice which I have outlined, I have concluded that I should not intervene to stay or withdraw these charges. These charges were laid in the sworn belief of a police officer, supported by the legal advice of the crown attorney of the district of Sudbury, that there were reasonable and probable grounds to believe that an offence had been committed.

This sworn information was laid before a justice of the peace, who concluded that the legal test for issuing process had been met. After a careful review, I do not believe I can conclude that the legal test for the laying of an information was not met, nor are there any clear or compelling circumstances respecting the charges themselves which would support a decision to stay or withdraw them.

That would normally be the end of the matter, but a second question is raised. It is said that the laying of these criminal charges has the effect of delaying a coroner's inquest into the event or that the coroner's inquest should be allowed to proceed now, as the criminal charges proceed.

It has long been the practice in this province that where criminal charges have been laid in connection with a death, no inquest is held until those criminal charges have been disposed of.

As both the McRuer Royal Commission Inquiry into Civil Rights and the Ontario Law Reform Commission have observed, there are important reasons of principle supporting this practice. These reasons relate to the different purposes served by a criminal trial on the one hand and an inquest on the other. The proper forum for determining criminal responsibility is a court of law; there alone are found important safeguards for the accused, especially his right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

The purpose of an inquest is quite different. The focus of the inquest is to provide the public with information on how, when, where and by what means a deceased individual met his or her death. But the inquest is not designed to serve as a substitute for a criminal trial. Indeed, the Coroners Act specifically provides that an inquest jury shall not make any finding of legal responsibility with respect to a death. Such determinations are the sole responsibility of our criminal and civil courts of law.

If an inquest were allowed to proceed before criminal charges were disposed of, there would be a very real risk of prejudice to the accused. Although the inquest is not designed to determine criminal responsibility, it would inevitably produce considerable debate and speculation on precisely this issue. Given the public interest in the matter, it would be impossible to maintain the dividing line between matters appropriate to an inquest and those appropriate to a criminal trial.

It is for this reason that the long-standing practice has been to dispose of any criminal charges prior to holding an inquest into a death in those rare cases where it is appropriate to invoke both procedures. This practice was confirmed recently in Ottawa, in the case of the death of a young woman who was working in a John Howard Society house when she was killed there by an inmate. The inmate was charged with first-degree murder in connection with the death. It was only after the conclusion of the criminal trial that an inquest was held into the young woman's death.

There is obviously an important public interest in obtaining a complete understanding of the tragic events which led to the deaths of these four miners, but in the circumstances this general public right must yield to the specific interest and right of the individual accused facing a criminal charge.

As well, to intervene in this case, when the police investigative process has taken place and judicial process has been issued by the justice of the peace, would undermine the public's interest in a fair and impartial system for the administration of justice. Citizens can have confidence in the justice system only when it is clear that the system is administered free of partisan or extraneous considerations, no matter how well motivated.

When criminal charges have been laid, it is fundamental that such allegations be determined as quickly as possible in a criminal trial where safeguards exist to protect the accused. I have instructed my officials to take every possible step to ensure that the criminal charges are dealt with expeditiously or as the accused may require.

Once the charges have been disposed of, there will be no impediment to an inquest being held. In due course, all the outstanding questions should and will be answered and we will not have interfered with -- indeed, I hope we will have protected and advanced -- the individual rights of the accused.

CROP INSURANCE

Hon. Mr. Riddell: The entrepreneurial spirit of the Ontario farmer is the foundation of this province's food production system.

In any sort of business venture there are risks, but as the honourable members are well aware, food production combines all the risks and uncertainties of any business with some that are unique to farming. The industry remains at the mercy of the weather, as we saw with the record-setting heavy rains of last fall.

As a way of minimizing these weather risks, Ontario helps make crop insurance available, in partnership with the federal government and the producers themselves.

Earlier this year, I established a committee to review the Canada-Ontario crop insurance program to determine whether changes or improvements were necessary or desirable to ensure maximum benefits to the largest number of farmers.

The committee examined federal and provincial legislation, looked at programs in other jurisdictions and held 15 public hearings across the province, receiving 275 submissions from farm groups and individuals.

I would like to express my ministry's gratitude to those commodity groups, farm organizations and individuals who put forward their views and recommendations in this review process.

I would also like to thank the chairman, Harry Pelissero, and the committee members for their hard work on behalf of Ontario's farm community.

The report of the Crop Insurance Review Committee made a number of recommendations. These included increasing overall coverage levels and the amount of financial support the province contributes, as well as adding new features such as spot loss coverage.

Today I am releasing copies of the report for public comment. These will also be sent to farm organizations and those who made submissions to the committee. The deadline for public comment will be July 31, 1987.

In days to come, we will be discussing these comments, and the committee's recommendations, with the federal Department of Agriculture, the Ontario Crop Insurance Commission and specific farm commodity groups.

Some of the committee's recommendations must be considered in relation to federal legislation; others are within the mandate of the Ontario Crop Insurance Commission.

We want to ensure that any changes made in the Canada-Ontario crop insurance program are for the better and for the benefit of all the farmers in this province who depend on this valuable program; we want to have as many of these as possible in place for the 1988 planting season.

LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD OF ONTARIO

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I would like to invite the members of the Legislature to join me in celebrating the 60th anniversary of the Liquor Control Board of Ontario.

On June 1, 1927, 16 stores were opened by the newly created LCBO. The first bottle was purchased at the outlet at the corner of Church and Lombard here in Toronto. Today, the people of Ontario are served by 615 stores which offer more than 3,300 products and generate more than $1 billion worth of sales.

In another setting I would propose a toast, but here I will simply say, "Happy anniversary to the LCBO" and "Cheers."

RESPONSES

MINING ACCIDENT

Mr. Gordon: I would like to address my remarks to the Attorney General (Mr. Scott).

For five hours, water from a crusher runs into a holding bin at Levack mine -- for five hours. The brattice is missing in the shaft. It has been reported in the past by skip tenders, people who take care of the skips in the mines. A relief valve is known to have been working improperly, and many other factors as well.

After the accident, the company goes in and finds 14 infractions of the law and fixes them before the Ministry of Labour inspectors go in. Then the Minister of Labour (Mr. Wrye) issues four orders of his own. Then we find, of course, that Joseph Kuhle has been charged with criminal negligence.

I would not for one minute suggest that our police department in Sudbury is not an excellent police department that does its job and holds up its end of what it must do. At the same time, we have to ask, where is the company in all this? Where are workers in Ontario going to be in the future when they go in and sign a form that says they have inspected a piece of machinery, and a couple of hours later or a day later there is a bad accident or someone is killed, due to no fault of that worker who checked that equipment? Where are workers in Ontario going to be in the future?

That is why so many workers in this province and in the Sudbury region are very upset and were ready to put down their tools the very day they heard Joseph Kuhle was charged with criminal negligence.

In the mining industry we have inquests. What do the widows do now? Where is their representation? They have to wait and not know how and why these things passed.

We in the Sudbury region believe there is more here than meets the eye, and we expected there would have been a different answer to the request that was made some weeks ago.

CANADIAN ENVIRONMENT WEEK

Mr. Gillies: As I said earlier during members' statements, we certainly want to join with the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) in recognizing Canadian Environment Week, but some of the rather self-congratulatory language of the minister's statement, I think, bears some consideration by the House.

The municipal-industrial strategy for abatement program brought in by this government regulates the chemical effluent of some 300 industries that discharge directly into our province's waters. What the minister has yet to come to grips with is the question of the 13,000-plus industries in our province that discharge into the municipal sewer system.

The minister will know that an initiative is being taken by Pollution Probe to extend the MISA program to the consideration of these industries, which we believe pose just as great a threat to the cleanliness of our water supply as do those industries which are already covered by MISA. I would urge the minister to take that into consideration. Indeed, I will be proposing a resolution to the House to consider this, and I know the minister will want to urge his colleagues to support such a resolution.

Other reference is made in the minister's statement to the progress being made in the fight against acid rain. Now that he has bowed to the pressure and has plugged the loophole in his Countdown Acid Rain program regarding Ontario Hydro's discharges, we ask the minister again to bring the details before this House as to what steps Hydro is going to take to reduce its emissions.

We want to know. When are we going to see this government meet its commitment on scrubbers for the coal-fired generating stations? When are we going to see the commitment on the increased use of low-sulphur coal? When are we going to see some of the practical measures that are needed in order to meet the acid rain target?

LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD OF ONTARIO

Mr. Gillies: I also have a few seconds to respond to the minister's statement regarding the anniversary of the Liquor Control Board of Ontario. I am sure all members of this House want to join with the minister in congratulating the LCBO on its very fine work. The minister neglected to tell the House that it is not only the 60th anniversary of the LCBO; give or take a day, it is also the first anniversary of the inaugural floating cocktail party thrown by the Liberal government in this province. We would want to mark that anniversary too. Cheers.

I might caution the minister that until we do something about the MISA program, if we are going to toast the LCBO today he might not want to do it in water.

MINING ACCIDENT

Mr. Rae: I can only call this a very black day for justice in Ontario, as will be seen when all the facts are out and when the public is as aware as the people who have been involved are aware of the injustice of what has happened to Joe Kuhle; and if I may say so, the very disappointing decision of the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) in which I think he has avoided taking some decisions which admittedly would have taken a degree of forthrightness on his part.

His refusal to do that and his decision instead to take what I regard as the much softer course of simply hiding behind the technicalities of the procedures -- and I use that phrase decidedly -- rather than looking at all the circumstances of this case is, frankly, a tragedy for justice in this province.

We now face a situation where the workers in this province are basically being told by the Liberal government of this province that they will simply have to refuse to do things they are being asked to do by their foremen or by their employers, not simply because they regard it as unsafe but for the simple reason that when push comes to shove the police are going to come in and the workers are going to be the ones who are going to be hung out to dry -- not the management, not those taking decisions and assigning workers where they are supposed to be, not those who have the responsibility for assigning work.

The responsibility, according to the government today, is clearly that of the individual worker with respect to every single step that worker takes with respect to consequences, however unforeseen they may be, of circumstances beyond his or her control.

I can only say that this is not only a tragedy for Joe Kuhle and his family in terms of the extraordinary challenge he has to go through but also, I believe, an incredible injustice that is being inflicted on our entire industrial system. If I may say so, what l found particularly insulting, and what I think the workers in this province will find insulting, is that the example the Attorney General chose to give as to what the normal process would be with respect to a criminal trial and an inquest was the murder, by an inmate who was released on parole, of a worker who was working in those circumstances.

To put an industrial accident on par with that simply shows how far out of touch this government has become with what goes on in the lives of working people, in the decisions they have to make and in their circumstances. To me, this is just nonsense.

I cannot understand how the Attorney General could arrive at this decision other than the fact that it was obviously the softer course. To have taken another decision would naturally have caused some concern because it would have been a decision taken at his discretion. It seems to me that the Attorney General has a responsibility to say not simply what the police believe to be the case in the circumstances -- because, as the Attorney General well knows, their own investigation was only partial -- but whether he believes in the circumstances there are reasonable and probable grounds.

Not once in the statement did he say that the Attorney General of this province believes there are reasonable and probable grounds; and yet that is what is taking place, a trial is taking place, and when the Attorney General had an opportunity to review it, he chose not to do it. I think that is deplorable.

CANADIAN ENVIRONMENT WEEK

Mrs. Grier: I too am glad to join in celebrating Canadian Environment Week by looking at some of the achievements of this government and at some of its nonachievements. I would agree with the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) that he has done better than his predecessors: he could hardly have done worse.

Like the member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies), I point out that the spills bill he boasts about was in the accord; Countdown Acid Rain had a loophole which this House forced him to close; the municipal-industrial strategy for abatement program has 11,000 loopholes, the pop can regulation is not working; and the improved fines were amendments that I made.

Where is action to put the private sector under the Environmental Assessment Act? Where is a drinking water strategy? Where is a policy on intervener funding? Why is he talking about a national superfund? It is this province that has sites that need to be cleaned up. Why have we not seen from the government an environmental bill of rights, such as this House has supported on second reading, put into place and truly celebrate Environment Week for Ontario?

ORAL QUESTIONS

CONSTITUTIONAL DISCUSSIONS

Mr. Grossman: I have a question for the Premier. He has given us assurances on several occasions in this House that the Meech Lake accord does not in essence change immigration practices in this country. Could he give us a reassurance today that he will not sign the Meech Lake accord if it does indeed alter immigration practices in this country?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: To address that specific question, as I understand it, it allows agreements reached between the federal and provincial governments to be constitutionalized, as is the practice now under the Cullen-Couture agreement that has been working in Quebec. That option would be open to other provinces as well, should they come to an agreement, and it could be constitutionalized. As I understand it, it is a regularization of a procedure that is going on right now in Quebec, and there seems to be a reasonably high comfort level with that.

Mr. Grossman: Let me understand, because this is such an important point: the Premier's understanding and his assurance to us is that in essence the Meech Lake accord simply constitutionalizes the current status quo as outlined in Quebec in the Cullen-Couture agreement. Have I understood that correctly?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: It allows the constitutionalization of that agreement and/or other agreements that are worked out between the federal government and the provinces.

Mr. Grossman: The Premier is confirming today, as he outlined earlier in response to my questions, that his understanding is that immigration procedures with regard to Quebec have not changed; that he is only codifying the status quo.

I wish to tell the Premier today that in point of fact the Cullen-Couture agreement says nothing about the number of immigrants who will go to Quebec. The Cullen-Couture agreement says nothing about the selection of refugees abroad. In fact, the Cullen-Couture agreement deals for the first time with quotas, contrary to the information the Premier gave to this House, which I am sure he gave in good faith with regard to his understanding.

How can the Premier justify signing the accord tomorrow when the fact is that if the Meech Lake accord provisions with regard to immigration had been in place last year, the other provinces would have had 8,000 fewer immigrants and Quebec would have been obliged, under the Meech Lake agreement, to have living in Quebec today 8,000 immigrants who are now living in other parts of the country? How would he sign such an accord?

I say to my honourable friend that I do not see it as revolutionary, as he may. It regularizes a practice that is in place now, but leaves the central authority with respect to numbers in the hands of the federal government.

May I say one other thing, because there is some concern about it? It in no way restricts mobility rights of immigrants inside this country; therefore, I think when my honourable friend understands the entire context, hopefully he will not have the same concerns.

Mr. Grossman: My second question is to the Premier again.

I do have precisely that concern, because in point of fact, while of course the federal government determines the number of people coming into this country -- contrary to the advice the Premier gave this House -- the province of Quebec, under this accord, would have been entitled to ensure that the selection of immigrants abroad resulted in 8,000 immigrants going to Quebec instead of other parts of the country, and obviously that is partly as a result of the selection criteria which will be developed.

In view of that, does the Premier think Ontario's interests are well served when the Cullen-Couture agreement is not only enshrined, but expanded significantly to give Quebec the power to get 8,000 additional immigrants at the expense of the rest of the country?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The first thing the member intended, I guess, to imply in his question is that Quebec is going to get 8,000 immigrants at the expense of Ontario, and then he broadened that to 8,000 immigrants at the expense of the rest of the country. In a sense, the five per cent extra is a plus or minus figure. It is obviously one of these things that is not going to be worked out with absolute precision. If my honourable friend is concerned that Quebec is going to profit to the extent of 8,000 immigrants at the expense of the rest of the country, I really think he is getting concerned about a not very significant point.

Mr. Grossman: Let us be clear. On May 5 when I asked about this in the House, the Premier took the position that the constitutional accord did nothing but enshrine the Cullen-Couture agreement. Four days after he signed the Meech Lake accord, the Premier was still under the impression that what he himself signed did nothing but enshrine the status quo.

The day he signed it, he thought something different from what the fact is. Now, today, the Premier is admitting that a change has been made in the accord which would allow Quebec an extra five per cent of the immigration in Canada.

My question to the Premier is this. The premise upon which he tried to get out of answering this question a moment ago was that the 8,000 figure represented my calculation of five per cent. In point of fact, the 8,000 figure represents what Quebec would have needed without the five per cent to get the Meech Lake accord undertaking that it would get its proportion of the population.

Without the five per cent, a simple mathematical calculation should have told the Premier, before he signed the Meech Lake accord, he was agreeing that 8,000 immigrants minimum should be steered to Quebec at the expense -- yes, not only of Ontario but of the rest of the country. Was the Premier aware of that when he signed the initial agreement; and can he give the assurance to the House that if that is our understanding he will not sign the agreement until that is straightened out?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Let me just tell my honourable friend what is involved, lest he get too concerned about the situation. What it does is incorporate the principles of the Cullen-Couture agreement on the selection abroad and in Canada of independent immigrants, workers for medical treatment, students and temporary workers; and on the selection of refugees abroad and economic criteria for family reunification and assisted relatives.

I say to my honourable friend --

Mr. Grossman: Keep reading.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: It guarantees that Quebec will receive a number of immigrants, including refugees, within the annual total established by the federal government for all of Canada proportionate to its share of the population of Canada, with the right to exceed that figure by five per cent for demographic reasons. It is the right to exceed, not an automatic right to exceed and I am sure it will be worked out from time to time.

I think my honourable friend is suggesting that Quebec is going to profit somehow here at the expense of the rest of the country. I think his concerns are misplaced.

Mr. Grossman: The Premier has had several weeks to clarify what he believes he has signed. It took him until today to admit that it does more than the Cullen-Couture agreement. He has had several weeks to address the concerns I am raising, and he is just standing in the House again and shrugging his shoulders saying not to worry.

My final supplementary to the Premier is; would he not agree that, leaving aside the five per cent, had the Meech Lake accord been in effect last year, the guarantee of Quebec's proportion of the population out of our immigration flow would have meant that it would get 8,000 immigrants to Quebec at the expense of the rest of the country or instead of the rest of the country?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I tell my honourable friend that it is his friend who shrugs his shoulders, not me.

Let me address the specific question. The answer to the member's question is no in that regard. It is an upside figure. There is no automatic right to it and I think one has to look at it in that context. I think my honourable friend is exercised about nothing.

Mr. Rae: I also have some questions of the Premier. Since the Premier has not yet answered many of the questions I asked him in my speech on Tuesday, perhaps he can take this opportunity to tell me what the relationship is between the clauses that deal with Quebec's distinct society and the charter, in particular what the relationship is to questions of aboriginal rights and the future of aboriginal rights and how he sees these clauses relating to the question of multiculturalism which, as the Premier will know, is also guaranteed in the charter.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Let me answer in some detail with respect to the three questions asked by my honourable friend.

First, with respect to the charter, as the member knows, the clause with respect to the distinctiveness of Quebec will become

section 2 in the British North America Act. It will apply to the

interpretation of the entire Constitution; indeed, of the Charter of Rights as well.

Second, the member asked me a question with respect to native rights. In my opinion, these are not affected in any way. In other words, the old system applies.

Section 42 does not apply to the question of native rights. I would say to my honourable friend and to others who have raised the same concern that this will actually assist the aboriginal peoples to move towards self-government.

As my honourable friend will know, we had a discussion about this issue not too many months ago. Unfortunately, we were not able to pull the matter together. What we were looking for were seven provinces out of nine, because Quebec was not part of it. If Quebec is part of the Constitution, we will have a much better chance, in my view, of moving towards aboriginal self-government or native people's self-government in this country. In other words, we are working with a bigger number of provinces. Quebec has demonstrated a sensitivity in this area that some of the other provinces have not.

Also, let me say to my honourable friend that it does not need unanimity in order to bring aboriginal self-government.

Third, let me say that because we have entrenched a process for constitutional change and amendment over a period of time, I feel very confident that this issue will come back on to our agenda in the not-too-distant future. I cannot give my honourable friend a specific date, but I think it entrenches a desire to deal with the Constitution and this issue will come up again, as I said in the not-too-distant future, because I plan to raise it, I think it is important.

Unfortunately, two or three months ago we did not have the political will from the other provinces to solve that problem but I think that as things change, we can develop a consensus and deal with that issue. I regard it as most unfortunate we did not solve it last time.

Mr. Rae: From that question, the unfinished business from the last round of constitutional reform was the question of the relationship between, if I can call them this, the European cultures of Canada and its first citizens. That was the one process that was left in the Constitution. It was entrenched in 1981-82 and it was left in with some further rounds of discussions that just finished unsuccessfully in this past year.

Why has the Premier apparently acceded to dropping that failed challenge? It was failed by the Premiers themselves. They failed to meet the challenge. Why has he simply acceded to dropping that and to replacing it with Senate reform, which is on the top of the agenda of some other Premiers but not I would have thought of the Premier of Ontario? Is the Premier not admitting that by doing this he is in fact saying that the rights of our native people are less important than Senate reform?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I tell my honourable friend that he should hesitate to draw those kinds of conclusions. I think that is an unfair characterization of what transpired. Obviously, in a federal state such as we have there are lots of concerns, be they fish management, the entrenchment of property rights or Senate reform. As the member knows, there are a variety of items at the top of various people's agendas across this country.

I say to my honourable friend, I believe very strongly that we have not in any way impeded our ability to deal with the question of aboriginal self-government. Indeed, we are in a much better position to move on it in the next two or three years than we were in the past. I say at the same time, there is no sense calling the same conference tomorrow because the results would be the same on aboriginal self-government. It takes political will and it takes leadership. We know and he knows the realities. Five provinces were on side out of the nine. There were four that were offside, but things do change.

I can tell my honourable friend that I am one of those who is prepared, assuming I am in a position to do so, to bring that issue back on to the national agenda. Since we have constitutionalized further constitutional reform, I say it will be much easier. Without this amendment it would be much more difficult, because there would be no further agreement to have meetings with respect to the Constitution.

Mr. Rae: With great respect to the Premier, he is never going to have more leverage than he has tomorrow. He is never going to be in that good a position. In terms of saying to those who are around as we go into this renegotiation of the non-negotiated agreement, whose different wordings are still passing around, he is never going to be in a stronger position.

I want him to know that as far as our party is concerned, he should be there pressing to see that the question of aboriginal native peoples' rights is at the top of the agenda for this country because it is unfinished business that we deserve to finish in this century and if we do not get it on the agenda now we are not going to finish it.

It is my understanding on the basis of a series of press reports that there are in fact different wordings for two sections, the

section on spending power and the

section on Quebec as a distinct society. I wonder if the Premier can tell us his understanding with respect to how many alternative wordings there are and which wording in particular he supports with respect to the spending power.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I appreciate the point my honourable friend is raising with respect to native self-government, but I reject his point of view that it has been dismissed. I am also not comfortable with his characterization of it being less important than something else in the country.

Mr. Rae: Well, it is.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I can tell him it is important to get Quebec into the Constitution as far as I am concerned. There are many things that are important and I do not know whether one is more important or less important than another one. I believe it is important, and I believe we will be in such a position in Ontario; and I can say my friend the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) has played a leadership role in this matter right across this country, to make progress on that issue in the not-too-distant future.

With respect to his second question -- or at least his question, not his

preamble -- he asked me about the question of the spending power. I have been asked my

interpretation of that question. Very clearly I have the view -- l have stated it in this House and I will state it again -- that any time there is an opting out under the spending power, any money that is transferred to a province has to go back into, as it says in the Meech Lake accord, similar objectives and similar programs. It is not as if one can take child care money and use it for wilderness parks or for roads. That understanding is very clear, at least in my mind and I suspect in the other people's minds as well.

There are a variety of ways that one could put that into words in any accord. We can discuss the alternatives. I have heard a number of them; Premier Pawley has some, others have had some; putting in "at the discretion of the federal government." Others say that gives the power and takes the power at the same time and it ends up not accomplishing anything. There are other ways of discussing it in terms of shared-cost program objectives. There are a lot of ways to do it, and we will be discussing it tomorrow.

Mr. Rae: All I can say is I hope that the Premier has lots of help tomorrow.

MINING ACCIDENT

Mr. Rae: I would like to ask a question of the Attorney General about the statement he made today. I wonder if the Attorney General can tell us precisely who the police interviewed or what other interviews took place after questions were raised in this House with respect to the laying of charges against Mr. Kuhle.

Hon. Mr. Scott: My understanding is that following the matter raised by the leader of the third party in the House, the police spoke to and interviewed representatives of the Ministry of Labour, who were in the course of conducting an investigation or who had knowledge of raining matters.

Mr. Rae: Is the Attorney General admitting that when they laid the charge and when they went before the justice of the peace saying they believed there were reasonable and probable grounds, they had not interviewed several relevant witnesses from the Ministry of Labour?

Hon. Mr. Scott: No, I am not saying that. My understanding is that prior to laying the charge, the police had interviewed a number of representatives of the Ministry of Labour, particularly representatives in the north. Following the honourable member's request for a review of the matter, interviews of others in Toronto were conducted.

Mr. Rae: This is really what the whole thing turns on, the question of the Attorney General's discretion in terms of his obligations within the system.

The Attorney General has said on a number of other occasions that if he does not think there are reasonable and probable grounds, he does not think a trial should proceed and in fact charges should be withdrawn. Can the Attorney General tell us, is that not his view? Is it not his view that he has to be satisfied? Does he think there are reasonable and probable grounds to convict Mr. Kuhle?

Hon. Mr. Scott: The various texts on parliamentary discussions of the role of the Attorney General make it perfectly clear that it is not his right to assess whether there are reasonable and probable grounds. That is a matter for the informant and the justice of the peace.

First, the Attorney General has the right to intervene to stay a prosecution under the Criminal Code if it can be illustrated that there is something in the nature of the charges that requires a postponement or, second, he can intervene to withdraw the charges if he is satisfied there is no credible evidence upon which the charges are based.

As I said in my statement, after the most anxious and deliberate consideration -- these matters are very difficult; I would have been happier to have come to another decision -- l concluded I could not draw that judgement.

FUND-RAISING

Mr. Gillies: I have a question of the Premier. He doubtless saw this column in this morning's Toronto Star entitled "Another Questionable Liberal Fund-Raiser." We would like to ask the Premier about some of the facts of this particular matter.

According to the article, the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston) is having a fund-raising reception at the University Women's Club on June 15. People are being invited to pay $200 for the privilege of sipping cocktails with the minister. The invitations went from the ministry office, the office of the parliamentary assistant, to people directly involved in the health care field and funded by the ministry -- doctors, hospital administrators, drug manufacturers, ambulance operators, officials of medical colleges and professional medical associations.

We want to know whether the Premier's understanding of the facts, as outlined in this column, accord with the facts in the column and whether he condones this very questionable type of fund-raising by one of his ministers.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I saw the article. The member can ask the honourable minister, when he comes, who was on his list. I have no idea. A wide number of invitations were sent out to a lot of people. The member is welcome to come as well, if he likes.

Mr. Gillies: I am sure the Premier would not want to associate himself, even inadvertently, with Liberal Party fund-raising going on out of a government office, and neither would I expect that the Premier would want to associate himself within invitations being sent to people contained on ministry lists.

We have already had the infamous Liberal Economic Advisory Forum invitation. We have had people in the advertising business being invited to spend $250 to have breakfast with the former Chairman of Management Board. We have had business people paying $200 to have cocktails with the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. O'Neil).

Has the Premier not had enough of this sort of thing? Is it appropriate that this borderline influence-peddling goes on within his government? As leader of the government, would he not want to cut this off immediately?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I say to my honourable friend that yes, there is fund-raising activity in the party -- actually, over a long period of time, as my honourable friend will be aware -- just as there is fund-raising activity in his party and in the New Democratic Party as well. But there is no one who can purchase influence in this party for any amount of money. That would not be tolerable. The ministers are not receptive to that. We are not running this party like the Conservatives run or ran their party. Everybody knows he is treated with an even hand by this party.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

Mr. McClellan: I have a question of the Minister of Labour about decision 72 of the Workers' Compensation Appeal Tribunal which, the minister will recall, broadened the definition of "personal injury by accident" to give a broader definition to the concept of "accident" than used to be given by the Workers' Compensation Board.

Given that this week the Workers' Compensation Board, after a six-month campaign to try to reverse, subvert, torpedo and delay the implementation of decision 72, is holding what can only be described as a kangaroo court to retry the case -- it has appointed our friend John Laskin as its counsel, it has appointed itself as a party to the dispute even though it is also the judge sitting in judgement on its own policy decisions --

The Deputy Speaker: Question.

Mr. McClellan: My question to the minister is simply this: is it the minister's understanding of

section 86n of the act that the Workers' Compensation Board has the power to overturn the decision of the tribunal, or is the decision of the tribunal final and binding on the Workers' Compensation Board?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: That may end up being, as the honourable gentleman will know, the $64 question; that is clearly a question on which there is some divided opinion. I believe the reconsideration of decision 72 under

section 86n is slated to begin on Thursday of this week and will continue on Friday. There will be a number of employer representatives and a number of worker representatives appearing before the board.

This follows, of course, a decision by the board to have a reconsideration of decision 72. I realize there must be some finality to it ultimately, but I think the honourable member perhaps would agree that it would be useful to allow this appeal under

section 86n to go forward.

Mr. McClellan: It is simply unbelievable that the Minister of Labour has stood in his place and indicated it is even conceivably theoretically possible for the Workers' Compensation Board to overturn a decision of our independent appeal tribunal, which the previous parliament set up. If that happens, the integrity and the independence of the tribunal will be completely destroyed.

I want to ask the minister, as he is the only person I have heard outside of the Workers' Compensation Board take the ridiculous position that the board somehow has the power to sit in judgement and overturn decisions of the independent tribunal -- nobody outside of the Workers' Compensation Board has ever said that until the minister said it in here --

The Deputy Speaker: Question.

Mr. McClellan: Will the minister give us an assurance that he will support my amendment, set out in my private member's bill, or bring in his own legislation if that is necessary, in order to make it clear that the Workers' Compensation Board, by setting up these kangaroo courts, does not have the power to overturn independent decisions of the Workers' Compensation Appeal Tribunal?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: It is obvious the honourable gentleman wants to have it both ways. In one breath, in the first instance, he says it is obviously and abundantly clear what the Legislature did in 1984 in passing legislation with

section 86n; then, in the next breath, he turns around and says, "Just in case it isn't clear, I've got an amendment to fix up any outstanding problems there may be."

Mr. McClellan: What are you going to do? Hide under your desk as usual? Is there any limit to your uselessness?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: We are reviewing a number of aspects of the act right now. I am aware, even if the honourable gentleman is not, that there is a divided body of opinion as to what is ultimately meant out of

section 86n.

Mr. Rae: What do you mean? It's your law. What do you mean by it?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: There is divided legal opinion --

Mr. Rae: You're in charge. You're the government. You're supposed to be in charge. Tell us what it means.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: It is too bad the member for York South (Mr. Rae) and the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan), who are always the experts on 20-20 hindsight, did not offer these opinions when the debate went on in 1984.

This matter is under review by the board. The board will be meeting this Thursday and Friday, as it is properly allowed to do under

section 86n of the act. We will monitor the deliberations of the board very carefully.

FUND-RAISING

Mr. Gillies: I want to ask the Premier again -- because we are not at all satisfied with the nonanswer he has given to these very serious questions -- about allegations in the largest-circulation newspaper in this province that his Minister of Health (Mr. Elston) has used ministry lists and ministry resources to solicit funds for his fund-raising campaign.

Will the Premier not tell this House whether he has investigated these charges, whether he agrees they are very serious and inappropriate and what steps he will take to ensure that the Minister of Health and all his other ministers refrain from going after funding from the very people who depend on their ministries for support? Will the Premier not agree that this is totally inappropriate?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I respect the

article from the newspaper with the largest circulation in the province. That does not mean I always agree with them, as I am sure my honourable friend will agree. As far as I know, there was wide distribution sent out. The so-called problems he talked about were dealt with, and I do not know of any suggestion of untoward influence.

Mr. Harris: Once again, we have seen the Premier's standards. I am astounded that he has not, by 2:45 p.m. today, investigated this matter, having been given the notice he was given.

We have seen the standards where it is okay for a minister's spouse to be arranging grants. It is okay for the member for Cochrane North (Mr. Fontaine) to be dealing with his own ministry as well as others. It is okay for Ivan Fleischmann to have $30,000 lunches with the Premier's people. I am astounded that he has not looked into this matter.

Will the Premier undertake to have a full report to this House tomorrow, in his absence, about what list was used, how that list was obtained, who obtained that list and whether it violated any laws or the Manual of Administration?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I will not be here tomorrow, I will be in Ottawa, but if the honourable member has any questions he can ask the minister.

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Scarborough Centre (Mr. Davis) will please withdraw that comment.

Mr. Davis: I will find another word.

The Deputy Speaker: Fine; thank you.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

M. Pouliot: J'avais une question pour le Ministre du Travail.

Last August, six workers who were employed by the Ministry of Transportation and Communications were doing some sandblasting around Bala. While they were doing their work, they complained that the air they were breathing through the compressor was making them sick. That was in August 1986. While tests were being conducted on the compressor, they were allowed to use the same machine until October 2, 1986, which is in contravention of many standards:

section 14, subsection 14(2) and

section 16.

Bob DeMatteo asked for an investigation on October 29 and the correspondence between the union -- it was represented there with six workers -- and this ministry went on for about six months, seven months, eight months. Can the minister tell me why Mr. DeMatteo has not received any answers regarding the investigation, now that we are about 10 months into this atrocity, this kind of exercise?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I am only vaguely aware of the specifics. I do remember the incident and the allegations of an untoward delay. I do not remember the exact specifics of the Bala incident, but I have asked the director of the construction health and safety branch, Mr. Melinyshyn, for a report. I expect to get that report -- I am leaving shortly -- on my return to Toronto tomorrow morning.

Mr. Pouliot: The point is well taken. However, the ministry was made aware of this situation some 10 months ago and failed to respond, and the minister has had ample time. What is aggravating is that, with respect, we feel there is a coverup between this ministry and the Ministry of Transportation and Communications. The workers were threatened that if they did not play ball with the employer, with MTC, their work was to be given to private contractors.

Will the minister endeavour to conduct an investigation to make sure that indeed there is no coverup and that the effectiveness of his inspector is in keeping with the standards?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I believe it was last week I was reading Mr. DeMatteo's letter and I must say the allegations he makes are very serious and they aroused very real concern. I made a note immediately to ask my staff for a full briefing on it.

As I said to the honourable gentleman, my staff were not in a position to do the briefing this morning; and I am not sure exactly why, I am not sure whether Mr. Melinyshyn was not present. I have been assured that I will have answers tomorrow. If there is anything further, perhaps I can get back to the honourable gentleman through a statement, letter or answer to a question previously asked.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Ashe: My question is to the omnipotent Attorney General. Can the Attorney General tell this House why he and his sidekick over there, the Solicitor General (Mr. Keyes), have flouted the will of the Premier (Mr. Peterson), the cabinet, the government House leader and, in fact, generally the people of Ontario and blocked third reading of Bill 188, which would permit legitimate -- and I repeat, legitimate -- bookstores to remain open on Sunday without the fear of police harassment?

Hon. Mr. Scott: As the honourable member knows, the bill is within the responsibility of the Solicitor General; it is not mine.

Mr. Ashe: Is that to suggest that any supplementary would be to the Solicitor General?

The Deputy Speaker: No, that was an answer. Your supplementary would be to the Attorney General.

Mr. Ashe: That is a question in itself, not an answer. We know who is in charge over there. I notice the Premier blushing with that fact. We know the Attorney General is the one who is blocking third reading of that bill. Why he would slough it off to the Solicitor General I do not know.

By way of supplementary, perhaps the Attorney General can explain how he allows the perverted community to shop at sleazy bookstores in many situations on Yonge Street and will not allow the average citizen to shop for a good book in a legitimate bookstore, and how and why on May 21, the day after he succeeded in having Bill 188 pulled off Orders and Notices, Justice of the Peace Joan Clute processed seven summonses dating as far back as March 29, which were served that morning by a Metro police officer on Edwards Books and Art store on Queen Street in Toronto.

When is the Attorney General going to get down to business, let the legitimate bookstores operate and stop this police harassment?

Hon. Mr. Scott: My feelings are not hurt when the honourable member calls me omnipotent, but he is going to have some trouble persuading my colleagues that is the case. They do not take the same view at all.

The fact is that the question is, in my respectful view, misdirected. The House appointed the member for Oakville (Mr. O'Connor), who is a colleague of the honourable member who is asking the question and a very experienced, courageous and able figure, to chair a committee that was going to look into the entire question.

Of course he has brought forward a report just recently. The honourable member did not wait for his colleague's report to act, and I do not suggest he should necessarily have done so, but we now have the report. I think all members of the House would want to defer to the honourable member's report and to give it the kind of consideration that I am sure the member for Oakville expects. We certainly would.

[Later]

Mr. O'Connor: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: With respect to the remarks of the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) in answer to a question a few minutes ago, he made some reference to my position and my report on Sunday shopping being somehow a bar to passage at third reading of Bill 188. For the record, I fully support it.

The Deputy Speaker: How is that a point of privilege?

Mr. O'Connor: The report supports it. I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to ask him to withdraw those remarks, in that they were totally inaccurate.

The Deputy Speaker: That is not an appropriate point of privilege.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. A point of privilege is where the member's rights as a member are abridged.

WASTE MANAGEMENT

Mrs. Grier: I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. We heard today in his statement about the government commitment to recycling and waste management and all sorts of other good things, yet just last week the minister was visited by all 11 of Ontario's regional chairmen who complained that his lack of leadership combined with his complete lack of any policy for municipal waste management plans, to quote the chairman, "meant that vast amounts of money are being expended by regions, area municipalities and citizen groups on consultants and lawyers in an attempt to satisfy a process which does not clearly indicate who ought to do what and how."

Can the minister explain to the House why his ministry is unable to give the municipalities the advice they need and why he has failed to give municipalities a clear policy framework within which they can develop their municipal waste management plans?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I am actually surprised the member asked that particular question because, as I understand it, the member is a very strong advocate of the environmental assessment process. Certainly, she has indicated that in the House in times gone by.

Of course, the major complaint of the leaders of the municipalities who met with me is that they find the environmental assessment process too stringent, too lengthy and too costly. While we want to reform that, and I did give an undertaking that we would look at ways of making it more efficient but still effective, I think the member would probably agree with me that to capitulate to the demands of many municipalities in Ontario in this regard would really bring us some problems that we are trying to avoid with our new greenfield sites, whether they be sites that are associated with a landfill or another manner of dealing with these.

I think our ministry has given that leadership and has provided a lot of that information. I think what they are looking for is a streamlining of the process, and I would certainly want even the member's input on how that process can be streamlined and still be very stringent, to avoid many of the problems I am confronted with today.

Mrs. Grier: I think what the municipalities are looking for are some clear guidelines, some clear directions and some clear criteria within which they can develop their own plans. They are not suggesting there not be an environmental assessment process. They are saying that when they phone the Ministry of the Environment and ask, "What kind of a plan do you want us to submit?" they are finding it very difficult to get any answers.

They also want from this provincial government some assistance to enable them to reduce the amount of garbage they are generating. Just today, the minister said his aim is to expand recycling so that 15 per cent of our household garbage is diverted from landfills.

The Deputy Speaker: Question.

Mrs. Grier: It is a worthy aim, but Portland, Oregon, for example, is currently recycling 22 per cent and wants 52 per cent.

Why has the minister not proposed that every municipality have a recycling program? Why is the minister going to spend only $4 million this year, which would not begin to cover the cost if every municipality got into a recycling program? What is the minister going to do to make sure that every municipality begins to recycle and that his 15 per cent objective, modest though it is, at least begins to be realized?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The member will recall I said at least 15 per cent. I put that as the bottom possible, so she knows I am aiming much higher than that. The honourable member has to take into account that, as a result of the regulation which the government brought into effect regarding the pop containers in this province, Ontario Multi-Material Recycling Inc. in fact invested $20 million in recycling programs in Ontario, in addition to the very generous and much-increased amount the Ministry of the Environment has put forward.

Mr. Harris: Why did you cancel the program in East York?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I have indicated that if there are more applications forthcoming, as we did last year in-year we can indicate there will be even more money, so that even the member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris) will be happy at the end of it.

I think what the member is saying is that she is really complimenting the Ministry of the Environment on the initiatives it has taken in this field. We will continue to please the member for Lakeshore (Mrs. Grier), the member for Nipissing and others in this House with the expanded programs we have in terms of the funds we are allocating to them and the technical assistance we are providing.

INFRASTRUCTURE RENEWAL

Mr. Ward: I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. As the minister is aware, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities has once again called upon the federal government to provide funding for infrastructure projects. It is well known that the federal minister does not share the same concern and commitment as this minister, but could he indicate to us what steps he is taking to encourage the federal government to participate in major capital projects in large cities throughout this country and this province?

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I will try to respond to this question. The Federation of Canadian Municipalities, which represents most of the municipalities in Ontario, is meeting in Ottawa at the present time. It once again has called upon the federal government to join with municipal and provincial governments across the country in dealing with the problem of infrastructure renewal, not only in the field of water and sewers but also in other areas.

I indicated at the last meeting of the Canadian Council of Resource and Environment Ministers in Alberta that, in fact, I am very supportive of this. l have asked the federal government to become involved in it and I have received the support of other provincial environment ministers across the country.

It is my view that this is a team approach. If we had, as we had in years gone by, the three levels of government involved in this project, we could do two things. First, we could handle it in a more extensive fashion; and second, we could accelerate the pace at which we would be able to renew, those pipes primarily, and other equipment. As the Federation of Canadian Municipalities points out, by investing in it today, in rehabilitation rather than replacement, we can save a considerable amount of money and at the same time create a lot of jobs in this province and across the country.

Mr. Ward: Could the minister outline what new steps he will be undertaking to assist municipalities in improving the infrastructure?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: In both the speech from the throne and the budget there was mention made of infrastructure renewal, and I have given a commitment to our participation in that on a number of occasions.

One of the first things that always has to be done is the specific identification of the particular problems that are encountered by municipalities. In this regard, we have provided a 50 per cent grant to any and all municipalities which have asked for that grant in order that they can undertake detailed assessments of their problems. Then, of course, we have given a commitment that we will provide considerable funds, in fact a new program which will provide additional funding.

For instance, when people say increased water charges are one option, I guess that can be seen as one option. What that does not take into account is the fact that municipalities in Ontario spend a lot of money raised from the property tax base for putting in infrastructure as it relates to the provision of water and sewage services, so it is inaccurate to say we have the lowest cost of those services. In terms of actual water charges, that may be the case --

Mr. Harris: Explain why Bernie went to Ottawa.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: As the member for Nipissing would understand -- and he is agreeing with me; no doubt he will be speaking to Moe Mantha about this -- we will say, of course, that we are prepared to participate, but we do not think water charges are the solution at this time; they may be a component in the future.

REHABILITATION CENTRE

Mr. Gordon: My question is to the Premier, in view of the fact that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Wrye) has departed; and this is a question, of course, that the Minister of Northern Development and Mines would be able to answer.

As the Premier is probably well aware, we have the highest number of injured workers in Ontario coming from northeastern Ontario. Every year, 1,200 go to Downsview, 400 from the Sudbury region alone. Can the Premier tell us when a workers' compensation rehabilitation centre will be established in the Sudbury region?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: In response to the member, the answer is no, I cannot, but I am very mindful of the needs and the numbers. The member is also very mindful of the fact that we have undertaken a massive decentralization thrust from this government. We have moved a number of Workers' Compensation Board offices to various parts of the province.

As the member knows, we have done a number of things in Sudbury that were not there under the previous administration with respect to education and health care. It is certainly our intention, to the extent that we can and as quickly as we can, to bring the services of this province as close to the people as we possibly can.

Mr. Gordon: I was very pleased to hear the Premier is planning to bring the services of this province to Sudbury as quickly as possible. I might remind him that the 1,200 workers who are going to Downsview each year are suffering the kinds of injuries that injured workers do have. It is not a very happy circumstance for their families. It is a financial drain, as well, and an emotional drain to have to spend time in Toronto.

At the present time, the regional officials have been working along with the Ministry of Labour and no doubt the Premier's ministry too, the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines. I guess what we want to know is this: is the Premier prepared to have the kind of input into a workers' compensation rehab centre in the Sudbury region that would give it a unique aspect? In other words, one that would really fit the injuries that miners have and that forestry workers have, rather than just having a Downsview model, which most people are very dissatisfied with.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: We try to deal with each situation creatively, responding to real needs, not just to perceived or bureaucratic needs, and that has been the thrust of this government. The member will be aware of the economic activity we have moved into northern Ontario; Sudbury is one area in particular. The member will be aware of our very firm commitment to try to equalize opportunity, both economic and social, as well as in terms of social services.

I appreciate the honourable member's suggestion. There are many others we are looking at, at the present time. I can tell the member the philosophy of this government is to continue that. I think the members will see in the years to come considerably more strides than have been made in the past. I think that, by anyone's standards, more strides have been made in that direction in the last two years than in any other 40-year period in history.

SPECIAL EDUCATION

Mr. Allen: I have a question of the Minister of Education. His ministry has been forcing parents of certain hard-to-serve children to play dead-end parts in his legislative branch's fiction that there are indeed no hard-to-serve students in Ontario. I want to ask him about the case of Robbie Thompson, a boy who is 15 years of age and has the unusual combination of being very gifted on the one hand, but suffering very severe and multiple learning disabilities on the other.

After years of going through the hoops at the East York Board of Education, that board finally decided recently that indeed Robbie was hard-to-serve and found a placement for him. But the member's ministry, in a highly technical reading of a portion of the act, decided it would overturn that decision which was really properly, according to the act, a matter for the board itself.

Will he not, as minister, get out from behind those technicalities and tell us today that he affirms the right of the board to make that decision and let children like Robbie get on with an appropriate education, such as is their just due?

Hon. Mr. Conway: I can tell the member I have the Thompson case before me; I am reviewing it in its entirety. I am sorry I cannot give him a definite answer today. Since the matter was brought to my attention officially by the East York Board of Education, I want him to know that when I reach a decision I will be communicating with the board in question. After that, obviously I will be happy to share the information with my colleagues in the House.

Mr. Allen: I certainly appreciate that a decision may be forthcoming and I hope it will be a positive one. It is difficult to understand the hesitation of the ministry and the minister on this matter. It cannot be the cost of placement because certain of the options the ministry itself has recommended in cases such as this are often more expensive in Ontario than they are out of it, even when they are inappropriate.

Can I draw the minister's attention to the fact that the surrounding clauses around the specific hard-to-serve

section speak repeatedly of "the board shall consider the recommendation and determine" and "where the board determines." Again it says "where the board determines"; it repeats that language. It is clearly the intent that the board shall be the determining agent. Will the minister encourage the ministry to bring him a decision that is favourable in this case; and if it will not, will he use his own discretion and read the act to see what its overall intent is and bring forward a decision in the near future that will get these parents and children off this legalistic treadmill?

Hon. Mr. Conway: The short answer is yes, the honourable member can bring these matters to my attention as he has just very effectively done. I can tell the honourable member that this case is before me. I hope to have a decision very shortly. I also remind the honourable member that it is a case that has been reviewed by, among others, the external review committee under the chairmanship of Dr. Madeline Hardy, who some time ago reviewed the case and made recommendations to me that were then subsequently passed along to the family in question.

FOOD CONTAINERS

Mr. McGuigan: I have a free trade question for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. Is the minister aware that the federal government has a program that has been in place for many years governing the importation of fruits and vegetables in nonstandard containers, in other words bringing them in in bulk boxes for repacking on this side? The practice has been that they give permits to bring in these nonstandard containers only when the product is not available in Canada. As a sop to the Americans, the federal government now has withdrawn this program so that our fruit and vegetable trade is subject to all the bulk containers the Americans want to ship to us.

At the same time, in western Canada, the Canadian wheat growers have a grade of wheat that they could send to the United States to advantage. As another sop to the Americans, the government has prevented the Canadian Wheat Board from allowing them permits. We have the picture of them encouraging imports and discouraging exports. I wonder whether the minister can tell us of discussions he has had with the federal people on any of these matters?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: As a matter of fact, this point was raised when we had a meeting with all the marketing boards here just a week ago. One of their concerns was the container standards that had been set in the past. They are certainly putting a lot of pressure on the federal government to make sure these standards are either retained or reinstated. The horticultural groups are very concerned about any change in container sizes. They are more concerned about bulk containers than about small container sizes in baskets or whatever in which the product is shipped to this country. They have certainly let their views be known to our federal counterparts in Ottawa.

Mr. Latimer has been in contact with Mr. Reisman about the concerns of the horticultural industry. I have reinforced that by sending many letters to Mr. Wise, the federal minister. I have sent copies of letters that Mr. Latimer has sent to Mr. Reisman to my counterpart in Ottawa to make sure he is well aware of the concerns we in this province have regarding any free trade agreement that may jeopardize certain sectors of our agricultural industry.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr. Sterling: I have a question of the Minister of Education. On April 29, the minister recognized Durham, York, Carleton and Dufferin-Peel as the fastest growing areas in Ontario as far as students go. The next day he gave out capital funding for 1988-89. In Dufferin-Peel, he gave the Roman Catholic board 48 per cent of what it requested and the public board 65 per cent of what it requested. In Durham, he gave the public board 65 per cent of what it requested and the Catholic board 98 per cent of what it requested. In York, he gave the Catholic board 77 per cent of what it requested.

In Carleton, he gave the public board 13 per cent of what it requested and he gave the separate board 14 per cent of what it requested. What is the matter with eastern Ontario? Does he not represent that area?

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Will you please permit the minister to answer the final question.

Hon. Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for trying to restore some order to this otherwise civilized place. I want to say to the member for Carleton-Grenville (Mr. Sterling) that this government has done rather well in terms of the capital spending it has provided, the capital moneys it has provided to the school community. I recognize that we have not solved all the problems; that is certainly the case.

I can assure my friend from Manotick that I have not yet had to engage in the kind of, shall I call them Barrhaven callisthenics that I remember the member for Carlton-Grenville having to perform three years ago to extract what was a very-late-in-the-day commitment to one of the Carleton school boards.

We have tripled the capital allocation to the school community this year over two and a half years ago, and we will continue to meet the needs of all communities in Ontario.

TABLING OF INFORMATION

Mr Warner: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The point of order relates to

section 29(

a) of the standing orders. I wonder whether you would consider it an abuse of the rules when a minister chooses to respond by saying, "I take the question as notice and will reply later," and then fails to do so; that in fact he is hiding behind the rules and is not using the rules for the purpose for which they are stated?

Very specifically, I raised a question with the Minister of Colleges and Universities (Mr. Sorbara) more than two weeks ago. He said he would take it as notice and reply later and he has failed to do so. I suggest it is an abuse of the rules and I ask that you consider that, Mr. Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker: I have to ask, were there any time limits to the answer given?

Mr. Warner: The minister said he would take it as notice and respond in a few days. If he fails to respond in a few days, then surely he is abusing the rules.

The Deputy Speaker: Since the minister is in the chamber, although perhaps not paying total attention, and since it is within a matter of a few days, perhaps he will reply to that question within a very few more days.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: In responding to the point of order raised by my friend the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere (Mr. Warner), perhaps I might just note that I take his point of order as notice and will respond not only to it but to the question he raises within the week. I will be that specific, Mr. Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you.

PETITION

THERAPEUTIC ABORTIONS

Mr. Partington: I enter a petition on behalf of 7,000 residents of Niagara region.

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

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

"Whereas over 30,000 unborn babies were aborted in Ontario last year, the government of Ontario should reverse its announced intention to implement recommendations of the Powell report that would make access to abortion in Ontario even easier than at present."

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

MENTAL HEALTH AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Sweeney moved, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Elston, first reading of Bill 78, amend the Mental Health Act.

Motion agreed to.

HAMILTON JEWISH COMMUNAL PROJECTS ACT

Mr. Ward moved first reading of Bill Pr9,

An Act respecting Hamilton Jewish Communal Projects.

Motion agreed to.

DRIVING SCHOOL ASSOCIATION OF ONTARIO ACT

Mr. Ferraro moved first reading of Bill Pr7,

An Act respecting the Driving School Association of Ontario.

Motion agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

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

E) Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second 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.

Suite du débat ajourné sur la motion de deuxième lecture du projet de loi 23, Loi assurant une plus grande certitude quant au rapprochement des intérêts personnels des membres de l'Assemblée et du Conseil des ministres avec les devoirs de leurs fonctions.

The Deputy Speaker: I believe that when the debate was adjourned the member for St. George (Ms. Fish) had the floor. Because she is not here, the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere has the floor.

Mr. Warner: I appreciate the opportunity to participate in the debate on this bill. When my good friend and colleague the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) spoke last week on this bill, I think he covered all the major points. I am certainly not going to take the time of the House to go back over that ground. There are two major areas that I would like to dwell on for a few minutes.

One is more of a personal reaction to last summer's events. I had the dubious distinction of serving on the committee that was commonly known as the Fontaine inquiry. It was undoubtedly a very unpleasant experience as far as I was concerned. I do not think most members -- at least I certainly hope they do not -- relish the prospect of sitting in judgement on their peers. This for me was decidedly an unhappy event. Unfortunately, to date, it is really the only effective way we have as an assembly of dealing with problems that our colleagues find themselves with from time to time.

The outcome of the Fontaine inquiry was, let us say, not unanimous. There were some very legitimate concerns raised about the process. It certainly would appear that the member for Cochrane North (Mr. Fontaine) very unwittingly found himself in the middle of a mess. The mess probably could have been avoided if he had had some good advice and if he had had someone following up. If there had been someone whose job it was to make sure that everything was in place and who followed through, that would have been of great assistance to the member.

There is no question that he did not set out to do something he was not supposed to do. However, it had been clearly identified what he was supposed to do, and unfortunately, he chose not to follow the instructions, but neither was there anyone in place to assist.

I think we have to compare this situation with the situation in Quebec where there is a person whose job it is to make sure everyone has filed all the necessary documents and who outlines carefully to people where they are in conflict or where they could be perceived to be in a conflict of interest and to follow it through. For the individual member, regardless of whether he is an ordinary member or a member of cabinet, if questions are raised in the assembly about propriety he can simply respond, if he has already done so, by saying that the person in charge has filed a report.

It seems to me this is a very sensible way to do things. Apparently, the experience in Quebec has been an extremely positive one.

I am troubled to learn, and I could be absolutely wrong about this but members know how rumours fly around this building -- they are kind of a daily, no, kind of an hourly existence around this place. Rumours are always rampant. The latest little batch of rumours is that the Conservatives wish to find some way to scuttle this legislation, and if unsuccessful at this, to filibuster on it or delay it unnecessarily. Apparently, their motivation for this type of obstruction is that they do not wish to have the rules of the game apply to them.

I really find it passing strange for them to suggest that the rules that help to monitor the conduct of members of the assembly should apply only to the cabinet and should not apply to anybody else. I suppose it is quite all right then, by the Conservative way of thinking, that members of the opposition should have the opportunity to find themselves in a conflict-of-interest situation and hope they never get caught, but the rules should not apply to them. l am totally dumfounded how any reasonable person could accept that.

I think one would have to be pretty naïve or insensitive not to realize that the esteem in which politicians are held by the general public today is at a fairly low ebb. That is our fault. If the public feels it does not have a great deal of faith in its elected people, it is because the elected people have let them down. It is so easy to point a finger and say that someone is wrong. I guess all of us think of the shenanigans that have been going on in Ottawa ever since the Mulroney crew took over. There is no question that their antics up there are very embarrassing.

But the embarrassment spreads beyond the Conservative Party. It spreads to politicians of all levels and right across the country.

When the public loses faith because of the activities or antics of particular members, soon that becomes generalized and soon they are upset with everyone: "You politicians are all the same. You're all a bunch of crooks. You're in it for yourselves." I do not think they meant the Minister of Education (Mr. Conway) personally. But the public generalizes that the politicians are greedy, self-serving, in it as opportunists, and it seems to me that what we need to do is put our own house in order.

One way to do that is to establish a set of rules with respect to conflict of interest. I do not understand why members would be nervous about this. If one has nothing to hide, then what is the problem in indicating what one's assets are and what business interests one has? That, of course, as we understand through the Quebec model, can be done in confidence.

Only where there is a conflict or the perception of a conflict, is it brought to the member's attention that he or she may wish to divest or he or she must divest, depending on the situation, or that a blind trust is established: some form of saying to the public that the politicians are going to be above suspicion and that they are being forthright and that they can be trusted.

I want to go back, just for a few minutes, to the Fontaine matter, because it is so handy and because of our experience. Members will recall that part of the problem were the shares that Mr. Fontaine held in a mining company while he was Minister of Northern Development and Mines. We know it did not result in a conflict of interest, but there certainly was the appearance, just on the surface. I am sure that any ordinary citizen would take a look and say, "Why should the minister of mines have old mining stock? That doesn't look right."

We have an obligation, then, to make sure those appearances do not occur. We have to make sure that all of us are not engaged in anything which could be construed to be a conflict of interest. It seems to me that, at the same time, there are certain tradeoffs. I think there are two major sections which we have to take a look at in the legislation.

One -- and it may be tough for some members to grapple with this -- is that this is no longer some kind of part-time avocation. The days are gone when the members would assemble for a few weeks and then disappear for the rest of the year. In fact, in terms of the activities of this assembly, except for Christmas and March break, either the House is sitting or the committees are sitting. If I am not mistaken, in the last break when the House was not sitting, there was a total of 12 committees sitting during that break.

Members are expected to attend to not only their legislative duties here and in committee but also to their ridings, obviously, and I would hope, to their critic portfolios or to their ministerial jobs.

So there is a variety of responsibilities. For the life of me, I do not know -- I will qualify this by saying that my experience, of course, is from an urban area, a riding of approximately 75,000 people, which is about the average in Ontario, but it is an urban area. My experience has been that, on average, I am spending close to 70 hours a week at my job. Other members, I am sure, spend more time, some maybe spend less. Cabinet ministers spend more time than that; I know that. For the life of me, I cannot understand how someone else would hold down a second job. Someone is missing out. Somebody is losing.

I guess the normal example used is the lawyers. They are able to trip off to court. I do not know how a member can run a law practice and put in 70 hours here. If he cannot do that and is not putting in 70 hours, then he is shortchanging his constituents or he is not holding up his caucus responsibility or he is not fulfilling his critic's role. Something is suffering.

We have gone through an evolution in terms of this assembly. If we go back to the turn of century and look carefully at how this place has evolved from then until now, we will certainly discover that the role of the member has changed dramatically. This is not a part-time job. The demands that are placed on the job are certainly appropriate. I think the demands placed by the public necessitate that the politician be accessible and be able to respond. I would be really embarrassed if a constituent called my office to talk to me and someone said, "I am sorry; he is in court -- not for something he did," which they might automatically assume --

Mr. Ashe: I am sure you have been there regularly.

Mr. Warner: Every week. Only when they catch me.

Mr. Philip: That does not mean he is out dining with the Queen.

Mr. Warner: No. "He is in court defending a client." I would take that as a very embarrassing thing to have to say to someone. The option, of course, is to lie to the constituent and say, "He is not available." This notion of being a part-time member has to go. For some members of the assembly it is going to be a tough thing to bite the bullet and say: "It is a full-time job. The demands are such that in order to serve 75,000 people," or in the case of the member for Scarborough North (Mr. Curling) more than twice that number, 150,000 or 160,000 people, "I have to work 60, 65 or 70 hours a week.

I have to be available by telephone so that when constituents have problems or questions, they can reach me."

If we are going to do that, then at the same time there has to be, and there should be expected to be, a reasonable level of financial compensation. But we should not be setting our own salaries. I do not think that is appropriate and I do not think the public appreciates it. It needs to be done by an independent source, by people who are not beholden to this Legislature and who can be independent.

We have the Commission on Election Finances, which I think all members would agree has operated in a very trustworthy and forthright manner. Perhaps it is folks such as them who should be trusted with the job of determining our wages, so that we are not setting our own salaries and so that the level of compensation is commensurate with the responsibilities and the time spent here. It is a tradeoff. A tradeoff means members have one job and one job only. If they do not like that, I suppose they do not have to run for public office, do they?

It is not an easy one, but the other side of it is that the penalties are quite severe if we do not take this next step forward in the evolution of our parliamentary system and our legislative role in the province.

I suggest the downside is that unless members are willing to accept the philosophy that conflict-of-interest guidelines should apply to all members, and that members are going to be full-time and are going to be paid appropriately but are not going to have outside employment, unless they are prepared to accept those kinds of terms, I think ultimately we will see a further deterioration in the public's attitude towards politicians, that the public will become -- cynical is not the right word -- discouraged by what it sees.

As the member for Oshawa pointed out, there are quite a few flaws and some really bad flaws in the legislation, and they need to be addressed. That can be done in committee. I think, collectively among the three parties, we can come up with the kind of legislation that will do us all proud, and it should be a three-party contribution, because ultimately this legislation is for the assembly and so it should be developed with as much consensus as possible.

I do not agree with at least the first draft I saw, which says I should be listing my furniture and all my household effects. I think it is a touch on the silly side, but the public should know -- if I have investments, then there has to be a mechanism so that if those investments do in fact bring me into conflict or a perception of a conflict, that is drawn to my attention and something is done about it.

Obviously, as we know from the Quebec model, that can be done in confidence. It is not a matter of having to publish all my holdings lengthily, as the member for Quinte (Mr. O'Neil) knows, in The Toronto Star. That is not what we are talking about. We are talking about an officer of the House who receives all the information and gives us advice on what should or needs to be done.

As I said, I am very disappointed if the rumours are correct, and I suspect they are, that the Conservatives are not in favour of this legislation and do not wish to have it applied to them and are prepared to obstruct the bill. Maybe they will have some sober second thoughts as to how we can collectively end up with the best possible legislation.

In closing, I think it is absolutely essential in terms of the public trust that we develop a set of guidelines which cover all of us here and whoever follows, so that we can try to rebuild the public trust in its elected people.

This is a form of government which we happen to think is the best form in the world. It is not without its flaws, but it is the best form -- at least I happen to think it is -- and if we want this form of government, a parliamentary form, to survive and to even do better, then we have to build public trust. One way to do that is by ensuring, for the public's sake, that politicians will not have a conflict of interest and will not have the perception of a conflict of interest.

It is our job to do that, and I invite the Conservatives to join rather than to fight this process.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Morin): Questions and comments?

Interjection.

Mr. Warner: He wants me to repeat what I said.

The Acting Speaker: No, it is not necessary.

Mr. Ashe: I intend to speak relatively briefly on 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. In actual fact, the title of Bill 23 should be "An Act for the Premier to cop out of Conflict-of-Interest Enforcement on Members of his Cabinet." Really, that is what Bill 23 is all about.

It is unfortunate that we end up with a piece of legislation that comes to us because of several negative happenings. I will not go into the details of all those. Of course, they were gone into in a very excellent manner and were once again put on the record last week by my colleague the member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope).

I am sure that before the day is out we will have other opportunities to put some of the facts back on the record, but it really is too bad that when this government took office -- I will not say "won and came to office" but "took office" some two years ago; thanks, of course, to the support, and I think probably now with some regret, of the party on the left -- we found out that the Premier (Mr. Peterson) really was not too concerned about the issue of conflict of interest among his members of cabinet, his members of executive council.

What did he do? He took the previous guidelines that were established by the prior administration, looked at them and said: "Well, now, we have some guidelines here. Let us kind of cut them in half. We will water them down and they should be good enough because we are all a bunch of good guys and we would never do anything wrong in any event." It sounds like the Mr. Clean commercial except that we all know what Mr. Clean is for. It is to clean out some of the dirt.

We found, lo and behold, that it was not too long before some of the dirt started to come to the surface. In fact, after the dirt came to the surface on a couple of occasions, the Premier asked the former Lieutenant Governor, John Black Aird, to look into the matter, to consult with others and with members of his executive council and to make a report.

He found out that a significant percentage of the executive council was in some form of conflict, albeit it is -- and I acknowledge this and put it on the record -- the majority of those conflicts were not significant. There were a few, as we well know, that were significant. In fact, a couple of those members are no longer part of the executive council. I look at this act and that is exactly what this is all about. In that sense I find it very distasteful.

If the issue had come about because of a very positive reasoning -- to make sure people in government always kept on the straight and narrow -- that would have been fine, but I would suggest it is becoming more and more difficult in this day and age to attract and to make it attractive to competent people -- competent business people, competent professional people and, yes, even competent union leaders -- to think of a career serving their fellow man.

In fact, what we are doing in my view with what is included in Bill 23 -- that is to say, suggesting that all members be brought under the purview of this act -- is just making it that much less attractive to attract successful people from out there who want to get into this so-called rat race. I think, frankly, it is probably better named in that regard than it ever was before.

I think many people, whether they are successful in business, successful in the professions or successful in whatever endeavours they have undertaken, feel they can quite legitimately have a little bit of privacy in their personal and private lives and that their immediate families can have a little privacy in their immediate lives.

When you take on the onerous responsibility of a cabinet position -- and, frankly, to a great degree as we had it under the previous administration when the parliamentary assistant agrees to take on the extra responsibilities and duties thereto and is assisting a minister -- then you know what you are getting into. You know you are giving up some of those rights and some of that privacy and saying, "Okay, I am prepared to put it all out there."

Now it would appear that before, many of the members opposite did not do that. They really did not know what the rules were all about. The Premier thought it was just a kind of game anyway, so he did not bother to check to see who was actually complying with the guidelines as they then were, even though they were watered down. I do not think the same kind of onus should be on the private member.

Again, I feel very strongly that in anything -- anything at all -- we do to discourage people in whatever walk of life to run for public of rice, we are doing a disservice to the future administrations of this province of ours. It has been more and more difficult to get good candidates, and I would suggest that the passage of Bill 23 in its present form would make that more difficult again.

I have no problems at all in setting down in legislation what the guidelines and requirements are for a member of the executive council. I have no problem with that at all. Somebody could say before, "Well, they were only guidelines."

I can tell the members that under the former administration, yes, they were guidelines, but I can assure the members also they were strictly overseen and strictly enforced, something this Premier chose not to do. Of course, he will have to answer to that and in fact he has had the opportunity on a few occasions to not answer why he did not think of that being a more serious part of his responsibilities.

In this particular piece of legislation, the setting out of the requirements for members of cabinet, I really do think is appropriate and I have no difficulties with that at all. I have no great difficulty even with the general process that is suggested, albeit it looks like another political appointment in the offing for the office of a commissioner who is an officer of the assembly.

I can see who appoints that, of course. "The commissioner shall be paid such remuneration and allowances as are fixed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council" and, of course, his cabinet. He is appointed by cabinet and removed by cabinet. So that is one more little bit of patronage that can go to the people sitting around the cabinet table.

It would be very interesting to note -- and I appreciate this bill, in any form, is not law as yet --

section 6 on page 4.

(1) "The executive council, a member of the executive council or an employee of a ministry (other than an employee of an agency, board or commission) shall not knowingly,...

"(

b) award or approve a contract with, or grant a benefit to, a former member of the executive council who has, during the 12 months after the date when he or she ceased to hold office, made representations in respect of the contract or benefit."

I would suggest to the members that immediately they have a former member of the executive council -- an immediate past member, the member from Cochrane North -- who would already not be fulfilling not only the spirit, but also the word of that particular clause 6(1)(b), when in fact just recently a company that he undoubtedly -- and the record shows -- made representations on behalf of -- which are the exact words out of here -- got a lumber-cutting contract.

In fact, it was not that long after he left the round table -- I guess oblong, but I am not sure what shape it is now -- in the council chamber, that in fact he was awarded a substantial contract. That would be, in itself, in conflict with

section 6 of this bill.

It would be interesting, if that

section goes into effect, whether the spirit of that will be retroactive on that particular member. There may be others, but of course we are all aware of that particular situation.

I think I have made it clear that I think it will be very negative indeed to have practically the same responsibilities imposed upon general members of the Legislature as are imposed on members of the executive council. Again, I want to emphasize, that in my view it is not appropriate to have to put everything on the record to suggest one cannot do this and one cannot do that.

One thing I do agree with are the comments made previously by the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere (Mr. Warner) that there is no doubt at all that if any member is fulfilling all of the challenges of his duties -- whether it be as a private member, whether it be as a parliamentary assistant, whether it be a committee chairman, or whether it be as a member of the executive council -- this is more than a full-time job.

I can honestly suggest that when I was a member of the executive council a light week was 80 hours and the more common week was 90 hours to 100 hours. Although the situation today is not quite as onerous as that, I agree with the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere that 70-hour and 80-hour weeks on a regular basis are not uncommon, and those are spread over seven days a week.

Where most people think of the four-and-a-half-day week or five-day week we have to -- I think as a member in most cases, tying in our constituency obligations -- think of a six-and-a-half-day week and a seven-day week, hopefully taking time out to go to church in whatever faith one happens to belong.

If, lo and behold, this piece of legislation, in more or less its present form, becomes law -- and, frankly, I hope it will not -- again the spirit of it is fine and it should go forth in some manner, but I would suggest not this one -- I find one particular

section to be like starting a game and three-quarters of the way through the game one says: "Halt, w