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

May 28, 1991

35th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

WASTE MANAGEMENT

Mr Beer: I rise today with a message for the Minister of the Environment. Earlier today, I and colleagues from the Liberal caucus met with representatives from the north from the municipalities of Kirkland Lake, Englehart and Larder Lake, as well as representatives from citizens' groups who are anxious to see the government reopen and look at the whole question of the integrated waste disposal system being proposed for Kirkland Lake by which refuse from Metropolitan Toronto would be taken north and developed there as an economic asset to the north.

What these groups have been saying to us is that at no time will the minister listen to them. She has refused to speak to them, to meet with their representatives to discuss this proposal. Yet right now the hearings are beginning to look into the various sites in the regions around Metropolitan Toronto and the greater Toronto area to see where future disposal sites will be.

It seems clear that one of the things the minister should do is to direct that the Kirkland Lake proposal be part of that review. We are asking that the minister get away from her ideological response to this issue and simply ask what these people have asked, that it be submitted to a proper environmental review on the same basis as any other. In that way we will know whether in fact the Kirkland Lake proposal will be safe for the residents of that area, and everyone will be served. But the minister has to take the first step and direct that this project now be part of the review that will be carried out to find alternative sites for the greater Toronto area.

BUDGET

Mr Carr: In the wake of the first NDP budget, our province is now saddled with a $9.7 billion deficit, the biggest in our history. In addition to tripling the provincial deficit, the Premier and the Treasurer have added $1 billion in new taxation measures and promised further increases in government spending. The only way to end this recession and save jobs in Ontario is to cut taxes and reduce government spending. This budget is 180 degrees in the wrong direction.

People ranging from children to business leaders are worried. Ken Harrigan, the president of Ford Motor Co in my riding, has stated that the Premier promised business and industry that economic recovery would take priority over social reform, and that if this budget is an example of economic recovery, the Premier is going in the wrong direction. The auto industry is the fuel of economic recovery in this province, and it does not make sense to tax new cars as gas guzzlers when what the government should be doing is getting old cars off the road.

My own three children agree with young Sarah Fudge of North Bay, who has written: "The NDP say that they want the best environment for their children to grow up in and pass on to their children. Does this include the economic environment? Yes, we have to help those in need, no one can argue with that. There are better ways than this. Please try to get them to listen. It's our future that hangs in the balance."

JOB CREATION

Mr Dadamo: I would like to counteract what the member for Oakville South has talked about this afternoon. As the member of the Legislature representing the riding of Windsor-Sandwich, I would like to take this opportunity to inform the members of this House that a third shift is being added at the Chrysler plants in Bramalea and Windsor. As a result of this move, 5,000 new direct jobs in the auto industry and indirect support service jobs are being created in our economy when jobs are badly needed. It will also mean the production of as many as 90,000 more mini-vans a year in the area. It is the biggest single increase in employment in Windsor since the mid-1960s.

In addition, the CAW has negotiated a significant reduction in working hours. The Canadian Auto Workers union has negotiated a seven-hour day at these two facilities when the three shifts become operational. Workers will receive eight hours' pay for the seven hours worked in the plant, and any hours worked beyond seven hours will be paid at time and a half.

As well, this agreement, to be ratified in the month of June, represents an historic breakthrough for both auto workers and all industrial workers at home and internationally. It is an excellent example of a company increasing its commitment to Ontario, proving that it is worth while to invest in the province of Ontario. It also recognizes that having motivated high-wage workers with the latest equipment is the best road to economic recovery and success in the 1990s.

WASTE MANAGEMENT

Mrs Caplan: I would like to share with members of the House a motion that was carried at a recent board of directors meeting on 24 and 25 May in Delhi, Ontario, at the Association of Municipalities of Ontario. It was moved by Howard Moscoe and seconded by Bob Foulds. It said:

"AMO opposes the rigidity of the Minister of the Environment's order that municipalities are prohibited from exporting waste beyond municipal boundaries. AMO believes that in those situations where there are no safe and viable alternatives and there is a willing host municipality, the export of waste should be permitted and that the government should modify its position accordingly."

This motion was carried by the Association of Municipalities of Ontario.

The delegation that I met with this morning, along with members of our caucus, were very dismayed because this NDP government and this Minister of the Environment have denied them a hearing, have refused to meet with them. The Minister of Municipal Affairs has not even been able to arrange a meeting between the Minister of the Environment and these northern municipalities.

What they are asking for is reasonable and fair. They are asking for an environmental assessment evaluation of a comprehensive waste management alternative which may prove better for the environment than anything we have seen to date in Ontario. Their demands are reasonable, and AMO says as well that this government should reconsider its position.

PUBLIC SAFETY

Mrs Witmer: Last Tuesday night, 21 May, I joined more than 200 women from my community in conducting a safety audit of the streets, alleys and parks of Kitchener-Waterloo to determine just how safe or unsafe our twin cities are for women.

I would like to congratulate the Kitchener-Waterloo Sexual Assault Support Centre, as well as all of the women who participated, for organizing this important and very successful exercise. The large turnout is a clear indication that women are extremely concerned about the increasing number of sexual assaults and that they are prepared to take action to make sure the environment in which women walk is made safer.

In visiting various areas in the twin cities, the participants suggested ways in which the risk of sexual assault could be reduced. These included such measures as the installation of additional lighting, sidewalks or cutting back bushes and trees. The mayors of both cities have pledged to take action on the recommendations which will result from this safety audit.

While the safety audit will not immediately eliminate violence against women, it is an important first step in raising public and municipal government awareness about the dangers faced by women at night, and it will contribute to making our community a safer place in which to live.

PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE

Mr Drainville: The leader of the third party spoke two weeks ago of a letter that cost approximately $60 to send by courier. I would like to share a comment by Lord Samuel, a British statesman, who said, and I think these words could be addressed to the third party, "Do not choose to be wrong for the sake of being different."

I use this particular statement because as the leader of the third party virulently attacks the spending of $60 on one hand, he is wasting $290,000 every single day that he prevents this House from debating the budget; $290,000 is what it costs to run the Legislative Assembly every day. The leader of the Progressive Conservative Party has now delayed this House to the tune of $3 million. If it continues to the end of this session, it will be significantly more than that.

The leader of the third party claims to be a tax fighter; in fact, he is a tax waster. He is abusing not only the system which allows free expression of such a small minority view, but even worse he is disdainful of the will of the people and should allow this government to proceed with its business at no further tax waste. We say that the government needs to get on with the business so the people of Ontario can receive the support they so richly deserve by legislators in this House.

PENSION REFORM

Mr Chiarelli: On the important issue of pension reform, the NDP agenda for power is clear. It promises that pension benefits should be indexed, pension surpluses belong to employees, and employers should not be allowed to take contribution holidays.

Earlier this year, the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled that contribution holidays were legal. In response to this decision, the then minister, the member for Welland-Thorold, promised legislation this year. Just two weeks ago, the current minister indicated in this House that he has done nothing to stop DRG Inc of Toronto in its plans to withdraw pension surpluses, a proposal which clearly violates the spirit of the moratorium on pension surplus withdrawals and the Premier's own stated policy that pension surpluses belong to plan members.

The people of Ontario see the government doing nothing on pensions. Will the Premier at least tell us how and when his open government will consult with the public on this very important issue, and when he will answer a William Mercer Ltd report of 5 March that strongly recommends that the NDP's pension proposals not be implemented? The people of Ontario want to know: What is the Premier really up to on pensions?

SEXUAL ABUSE OF PATIENTS

Mr Eves: When doctors take on responsibilities of life and death, they also take a Hippocratic oath which enshrines them with absolute trust. The oath reads in part as follows: "In every house where I come I will enter only for the good of my patients, keeping myself far from all intentional ill-doing and all seduction, and especially free from the pleasure of love with women or with men."

Today I would like to commend the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario for unanimously endorsing the recommendations of the task force, which proclaimed an absolute intolerance of sexual abuse of patients by doctors. The task force, which travelled throughout the province, was given a mandate to recommend improvements in the manner in which the college deals with complaints of physical and sexual abuse of patients, develop guidelines for doctor-patient relationships, recommend education training for both doctors and patients, and make recommendations to change laws and legal procedures brought before the college about sexual abuse by doctors.

Most important was the recommendation that stated the college adopt a philosophy of zero tolerance of sexual abuse of patients by doctors, and then changing many college procedures and policies to be more effective and sensitive to such abuse.

We as legislators can join with respect to the last recommendation: changes in the legal and legislative systems to correct the bias against sexual abuse victims. If we all do our jobs, I am sure we will make the lives of patients that much more tolerable in the province of Ontario.

EAST YORK STUDENTS' ACHIEVEMENTS

Mr Malkowski: It is with much pride that I rise today to inform the House of the achievements of four outstanding students from the East York public school system.

Scott Davies from Marc Garneau Collegiate Institute and Wai-Yin Shum of Cosburn Middle School represented Metropolitan Toronto at the Canada-Wide Science Fair, which was recently held in Vancouver, British Columbia. Both of these students devoted many hours of research and preparation for their projects.

The town of Morotomi, Japan, extended an invitation to young people around the world to draw scenes that reflect the places where they live. The judges selected the designs of Pattie Pantev of East York Collegiate Institute and John Koutras of Westwood Junior High School. Pattie and John's artwork will be made into colourful, traditional Japanese ceramics, and then displayed in Morotomi's gallery, alongside the work of children from around the world.

The achievement of these students makes East York schools and the Ontario education system shine in the global community.

VISITOR

The Speaker: I invite all members to welcome to our gallery this afternoon Her Excellency Mary Madzandza Kanya, the high commissioner for the Kingdom of Swaziland. Welcome.

CAROLYN THOMSON

Hon Mrs Coppen: It is with sadness that I mention today the death last week of Carolyn S. Thomson. This remarkable young woman died at the age of 30 after a courageous battle with cancer.

Carolyn fought this battle with the same fierce determination and sense of humour that she had lived her life with. Many will remember Carolyn as a legislative intern in 1986-87. She was the intern who always asked the first question and the most pointed question when the interns met with the cabinet ministers and other political leaders.

One of the goals of the internship program is to explore the ideals of all political parties. Carolyn shared this goal as an intern, as she chose to broaden her horizons by working with Susan Fish and with Joan Smith when she was chief government whip. During this time she developed friendships and gained respect in all three parties.

Carolyn believed in the legislative process, and in particular had a strong commitment to seeing more women participating in political life. She had planned to run for political office one day.

Carolyn worked hard in organizing and developing an alumni organization of interns. She volunteered for the publication Canadian Legislatures, and wrote a well-received

article on conflict-of-interest legislation. Carolyn received a degree in Canadian studies from Trent University and had a strong belief in the value of Canadian cultural institutions. At the University of Ottawa she wrote her master's thesis on the CBC.

As part of her work as a consultant at Coopers and Lybrand she wrote the project that resulted in Cinémathèque Ontario. Cinémathèque, which expanded the Ontario Film Institute, is a film library and screening venue offering films, seminars and lectures.

On behalf of myself and my other colleagues I would like to send our deepest sympathy to Carolyn's family and friends and to her husband, Doug Hamilton. Carolyn's commitment to excellence in herself and others will not be forgotten.

I would like to close by paraphrasing a 19th-century historian: She does not die who bequeaths some influence to the land she knows.

Mrs Cunningham: It is with sadness and regret that I stand on behalf of my caucus this afternoon to express our deepest sympathy and condolences to the family of Carolyn Thomson. Carolyn, as has already been suggested and reported, was a former legislative intern in 1986-87, and she died last week after a valiant struggle with cancer. She was a special intern who approached her job with joy and enthusiasm and she will be remembered for a very long time as a person who gave 100% of everything she did.

Colleagues who worked with her remember her as someone who had a great joy for life and a genuine interest in others. When she began her successful career with Coopers and Lybrand, she at that time discovered that she was very ill, but like everything else in her life she approached her illness with a positive attitude.

She had an immense capacity to understand and like people and an inner strength to carry on even when faced with the obstacles of her illness. She had a future with great potential and had a sense of the goals she wanted to achieve. Our loss is that Carolyn will not have the opportunity to attain these goals, and although she was with the Progressive Conservative caucus for a very short period of time, she left with us her professional and, more important, her personal mark.

For those of us who knew her she will not be forgotten, and to her husband, Doug Hamilton, her family and friends, we would like to extend to them our deepest sympathy and our condolences for their great personal loss.

Mr Nixon: Carolyn Thomson chose during her internship here in 1986-87 to work with the government House leader's office. I was the government House leader at that time, and from all of our remembrances and reports she was an excellent worker and totally interested in and committed to the democratic system. She was full of life and good humour and was a leading exponent of the usefulness of the internship and the involvement of people, particularly young people, in learning about the system and contributing to it.

When you think of her life, short as it was, she made a tremendous contribution both here and throughout the community, and it always leads to the question about this particular illness and its terrible ramifications. Those matters really cannot stand too much thought as we think of the people who are committing their lives to helping those people stricken with the illness and helping them through it, and so often the fact that the results are tragic, as in this case.

Her life certainly was a good one. I have already said that her example to the people she worked with was outstanding. The thoughts of what her family and her husband are bearing now give us all great pause, and I join with the other members who have spoken in extending our condolences. Our thoughts are certainly with them.

The Speaker: The kind and thoughtful remarks by the members who have spoken this afternoon will be forwarded to Carolyn's family and her husband and with your best wishes to the interns with whom she worked. They, as you must know, were very close to her and they feel this loss quite deeply as well.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

NATIVE HUNTING AND FISHING

Hon Mr Wildman: I would like to announce that the interim enforcement policy we have been developing regarding aboriginal rights to hunt and fish is now in effect.

As I previously told the Legislature, the intent in developing the new interim enforcement policy is to clarify current government practice regarding aboriginal rights to hunt and fish for food for personal and community use.

The interim policy applies to status Indian people who are fishing or hunting for food in an area that is covered by their treaty. In addition, the policy applies to status Indians who are hunting and fishing in an area where they have traditionally harvested. Where such areas are different from existing treaty areas or are not set out in treaties, the boundaries of such traditional areas will be clarified through negotiation.

We needed to develop an interim enforcement policy in order to reflect the guarantee of aboriginal rights in

section 35 of the Constitution and to respond to recent decisions by the Supreme Court of Canada that help to define those rights.

One of the most significant Supreme Court rulings, the Sparrow decision of May 1990, says that aboriginal rights to fish for food for personal and community use take first priority after conservation and resource management concerns have been satisfied. Through the interim policy, the logic of the Sparrow decision is being applied to hunting wildlife for personal and community use, as well as to fishing for such use.

The Sparrow decision also says that the relationship between governments and aboriginal people should not be adversarial. To promote this non-adversarial climate the government of Ontario is prepared to negotiate agreements with aboriginal people regarding their aboriginal rights to hunt and fish for food.

The interim enforcement policy sets out the ground rules for negotiating arrangements with aboriginal people.

The new policy is consistent with the government's commitment to negotiate self-government arrangements with aboriginal people and its commitment to develop co-management agreements on natural resources.

The new policy is interim because it is meant to be in place until it is replaced by negotiated agreements with aboriginal people, after consultation with first nations and interested third parties. The interim policy will minimize the number of instances where native people might be charged under acts such as the Game and Fish Act, the Fisheries Act and the Migratory Birds Convention Act.

Under the interim enforcement policy, status Indian people harvesting wildlife and fish for personal consumption or for social and ceremonial purposes will not be subject to enforcement procedures except under certain circumstances. These circumstances include: hunting in an unsafe manner; where wildlife and fish are taken for commercial purposes, except where specific recognized rights exist; where wildlife and fish are taken in a manner which puts conservation objectives at risk; and where hunting and fishing occur on privately owned or occupied land, unless there is permission from the land owner.

The following activities may be considered as examples of activities that could put conservation objectives at risk: destruction or harmful alteration of fish and wildlife habitat; in certain circumstances, fishing in sanctuaries or waters that are closed at all times of the year, or hunting in waterfowl sanctuaries; taking of rare, threatened or endangered species; or taking of wildlife while they are nursing their young.

Again, I want to emphasize that these are examples of what may be considered exceptions to the general rule that allows aboriginal people to hunt and fish for food.

The interim policy also provides for status Indian people to barter game and fish in exchange for other game and fish within or among their communities. The interim policy also provides a framework for working with Metis and non-status Indian communities where harvesting wildlife and fish is integral to the lifestyle of that community. The provisions of the Game and Fish Act, the Fisheries Act and the Migratory Birds Convention Act will continue to apply to Metis and non-status Indian communities until agreements have been entered into with these communities.

In addition, agreements will have to be in place before aboriginal people may hunt or fish in provincial parks, unless they already have such rights.

This policy will apply to the unique circumstances which exist with respect to the harvest of game and fish by the Algonquins of Golden Lake in Algonquin Provincial Park. The Algonquins of Golden Lake have filed a substantial claim to a large part of the Ottawa Valley, including Algonquin Park. They have never been compensated for extinguishing their rights in the area they claim. Those unique circumstances must be recognized, and they have been, through our commitment to negotiate the land claim beginning 15 June.

This commitment includes an agreement to negotiate an interim arrangement with the Algonquins of Golden Lake regarding the aboriginal right to hunt and fish for food in the area they claim. The interim agreement will include sub agreements on deer and moose hunting and fishing that will specify seasons and areas for hunting and fishing, levels of harvest and measures to protect park values, ensure enforcement and conservation and protect public safety.

We are currently negotiating with the Algonquins and consulting with other interested groups on proposals for the interim agreement. Through these negotiations and discussions, we will ensure that we have arrangements that conserve resources and protect public safety.

The interim enforcement policy indicates that in order for aboriginal people to hunt and fish in a provincial park, there must be a governing agreement. We have agreement with the Algonquins of Golden Lake on principles for hunting deer and moose within the context of this policy. We are working with the Algonquins of Golden Lake to finalize a fishing agreement and have been making some progress. Although there remain some outstanding issues in relation to fishing negotiations, we believe that we will enter into an agreement soon. Until there is agreement on principles in relation to fishing, fishing activities by the Algonquins of Golden Lake will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.

Across the province, where there are allegations that a native person has violated the principles of conservation or public safety, those allegations will continue to be reviewed through the normal screening process in the Ministry of Natural Resources. Under this process, the Deputy Minister of Natural Resources, in consultation with senior officials, reviews recommendations on charges against native persons and decides whether or not charges should be laid.

Before a decision is made to proceed with charges, the Ministry of Natural Resources will consult the chief or designate of the affected first nation to discuss concerns about harvesting of fish and wildlife. The appropriate aboriginal treaty and political organization will also be notified. The Attorney General may intervene in the screening process.

Where there are allegations that status Indian people are improperly fishing or hunting for commercial purposes, the Deputy Minister of Natural Resources must give his written approval before planned enforcement procedures are undertaken, such as inspecting commercial establishments, search warrants and special investigations. When reviewing recommendations to lay charges regarding commercial fishing, the deputy minister will also take into consideration whether or not there exists a right to harvest wildlife and fish for commercial purposes.

In developing the interim policy, we have consulted with aboriginal people and other interested groups in the province. While the native leadership and other groups do not necessarily accept the principles underlying the new policy, there has been constructive dialogue and a shared recognition that new rules are necessary. Many of the revisions suggested during the consultation are now part of the interim policy. We are open to further suggestions on revisions in the future.

I would like to recognize the assistance of the Indian Commission of Ontario and the commissioner, Harry Laforme, in developing the interim policy.

I am also announcing today that new consultation committees on these matters are being set up immediately. One will be a conservation committee with representatives from the province, including the Deputy Minister of Natural Resources, and from aboriginal and treaty organizations. They will meet quarterly to discuss decisions by the Ministry of Natural Resources deputy to proceed with charges against native persons.

Regional conservation committees in the Ministry of Natural Resources administrative regions will also be set up. Representatives will be drawn from MNR and from area aboriginal treaty and political organizations. These committees will discuss activities that might put conservation objectives at risk; the necessity of existing and future fish sanctuaries; the rare, threatened and endangered species of the region, and the areas in the region that require special protection.

I want to emphasize again that a new approach is needed to deal with the issues surrounding enforcement and the aboriginal right to hunt and fish for food for personal and community use. This new interim enforcement policy provides a mechanism that will help us meet our commitment to find ways to allow native people to exercise their aboriginal rights. Meegwetch.

SPECIAL EDUCATION

Hon Mrs Boyd: During National Access Awareness Week, I wish to inform members of an important new direction in the education of pupils with special needs.

National Access Awareness Week highlights the importance of removing barriers from the paths of people who have disabilities. Not all these barriers are physical. They are none the less real and they represent real obstacles to full participation in society.

My ministry will therefore begin a widespread consultation on the best way to further the integration of exceptional pupils into local community classrooms and schools. I will also, in the near future, be introducing legislation to amend various special education provisions of the Education Act and related statutes.

This government strongly believes that exceptional pupils who could benefit from integration into local community classrooms and schools should have that opportunity. More exceptional pupils should be able to participate fully in the life of their local, community school. Our goal can be clearly defined: Wherever possible -- where it meets the pupil's needs and where it is the parents' choice -- integration should be the preferred option.

The special education amendments will also focus on the issue of access. They will address several inequities that currently exist in the availability of special education programs and services.

With respect to integration, I recognize that we cannot move in this new direction without building consensus. In this consultation, it will be important for my ministry to hear from the education community and from organizations and individuals representing people with disabilities, their families and their community.

My ministry will also be making particular efforts to reach out to communities whose voices may not have been heard in the past. These include aboriginal peoples, visible minorities and francophones. How far and how fast we should proceed is one issue that this consultation will address. However, I expect the first measures to ensure that the integration option is available throughout Ontario will be in place for the beginning of the school year in September 1992.

There are two other issues of particular importance to be addressed through this consultation. First, the role of parents in reaching decisions about special education for their children needs to be strengthened. We need to look at ways to ensure that parents are fully informed of all possible choices and are involved in special education decisions as full partners. Second, we must discuss the costs of integration, what will be required in the way of human and financial resources and how these resources should be provided.

I want to reassure parents that we remain committed to encouraging boards to provide a full range of special education placements. We recognize that an integrated setting will not be appropriate for every child. The needs of all pupils will be met and placements that have the mutual support of parents and educators will be respected. In this regard, the government believes that there should be more consistency in the options available from one school board to another. I also want to affirm that the provincial schools will continue to be an option for special education.

Details about the consultation process will soon be made available to all interested groups and individuals.

During National Access Awareness Week we can surely say that there is no more important right of access than the right of access to learning. A greater commitment to the integration of our exceptional pupils is, in the end, a greater commitment to an open and more integrated society.

Hon Miss Martel: Mr Speaker, we are awaiting a report that is supposed to be attached to the statement made by the Attorney General. I am just wondering if we can revert to that later on in the proceedings so that both opposition parties will have a chance to see the report as well.

The Speaker: This requires unanimous consent.

Agreed to.

The Speaker: Are there other ministerial statements? We can begin the responses and then we will revert to the Attorney General's statement and provide sufficient time for the responses to that particular statement. So responses to the first two: Is there a response?

RESPONSES

SPECIAL EDUCATION

Mr Beer: I rise in response to the Minister of Education's statement with regard to the integration of exceptional pupils into regular classrooms. At first reading, there is much in here that we can support. Indeed we share with the government the view that those with special needs should be integrated within our local and community schools.

But I do feel the minister has missed an opportunity to state somewhat more forcefully and clearly that which was expressed in the multi-year plan this government had put forward with respect to those children with special needs, regarding their ultimate full integration into the community. It seems to me that if there was one thing in particular the former government was able to focus on, it was this question of the integration of those with special needs into our community.

Of course, that takes consultation, discussion and the building of consensus, but I believe, as the minister knows, there has already been, with respect to the area of education, a great deal of discussion through her own Advisory Council on Special Education. Indeed many of the groups and organizations active in this field that have been consulting with the minister and with those of us in the opposition have been expressing their concern that this issue is not moving forward as quickly as it might.

While we recognize, as has been said, that there are many needs and interests that have to be met, clearly when we sort that aside, the focus is on the children. Almost without exception, I think the various studies and reports we have seen on various programs that take place in other countries and other provinces demonstrate that the greater the integration of the child, with whatever kind of special needs, into the regular classroom, this leads to the best education and the best future for that child and likewise has a tremendous impact on that child's fellow classmates.

What we want to be particularly clear and forceful about is that the objective and the goal be that at the end of the day we will build a consensus that in fact will see that this kind of arrangement results.

We know that with all these kinds of programs there will be difficulty about finances. There will be difficulty at times about perhaps parents or others in the educational establishment who feel that, no, what is best is somehow to isolate these children and keep them away from their peers. But I believe that here we have a leadership role in government in working with the various groups and with the various interests to say that we must keep clearly in mind that where we are going is to that full integration.

I welcome this statement in terms of its general direction. I believe it could have been stronger in terms of that ultimate goal. I look forward to discussing with the minister the proposals she will be bringing before this House in the near future, and I am looking forward as well to working with the various groups to ensure that here in Ontario we do end up with an integrated system.

NATIVE HUNTING AND FISHING

Mr Scott: It would be difficult, if not impossible, to object to a statement from the Minister of Natural Resources which builds on the policy of the previous government and which is expressed in terms of such great generality as this one. A couple of points, however, should be noticed.

The policy of interim agreements and the conservation preservation model that underlies it goes well beyond the decision in the Sparrow case. The minister will not be able in the future, when he is out on the hustings, to say that the devil made him do it. He has to explain, and I know he will want to explain clearly, that the policy he has enunciated has now very little to do with the Sparrow case, but is essentially the policy of this government. That is point one. I am sure his legal officers, some of whom are in the gallery, will confirm that for him.

The second thing he will want to be very careful about is to recognize that the conservation standards are extremely narrow. For example, a moose is not an endangered species and would not be protected under the conservation standards that are set out in this statement, even if its population is at risk.

The third thing the minister will want to be careful of is that there are a lot of user groups out there who are very concerned, and have legitimate concerns, about the policy of the government. Some method, no doubt in connection with the fishing negotiations, will have to be devised to accommodate them and, frankly, merely hiring the writer for the anglers' magazine is not going to do the trick in 1991.

SPECIAL EDUCATION

Mrs Cunningham: I rise to respond to the statement by the Minister of Education with regard to the integration of exceptional pupils into regular classrooms. Of course, we have all been most interested in having an opportunity to review the legislation that was passed in 1980 and fully implemented by 1985, the old, as we refer to it, Bill 82. We know there are times right now when we can take a look at how it has been, in fact, successfully or not successfully implemented.

I would say to the minister today that a precedent was set by her government on 9 April 1991, where we think that she in fact put forth a policy change or a change in direction with regard to the responsibility of parents. In the past, the individual placement review committees, of course, did have the participation of parents there, and parents with the opportunity with their local boards did not always get what they thought was right for their young people. I would say that one of the reasons would be the funding, and the minister knows that.

I would add, then, that we certainly do know enough, in speaking to local boards and with parent groups, about where their difficulties have been. I would urge the minister very quickly, in fact, to put forth the legislation or the amendments to the legislation that we have right now so we can take a look at what exactly she wants to do and then be much more beneficial in our criticism and in our suggestions for improvement to that legislation.

I commend her for wanting to consult, but I would guess that the communities that work with our disabled youngsters already have good ideas as to what they want. I would suggest that the government has good ideas as to what it would fund and how it could fund it, and I will remind the government of its promise during the last campaign where it said it would indeed provide 100% provincial funding for appropriate specialist staff. The government may change its mind on this, but I think we are ready for the legislation, I think we are ready for amendments, and we are ready to respond with a very direct response.

Mr Wildman: You mean you want to pass legislation in this legislature?

Mrs Cunningham: I speak actually very positively because I think the minister knows what she wants in spite of what the Minister of Natural Resources suggests, and she will come forth with legislation that we can live with because she has that kind of experience, as do we in this party.

NATIVE HUNTING AND FISHING

Mr Harnick: The Sparrow decision has been interpreted by this government to mean that aboriginal rights to fish for food for personal and community use take first priority after, and I stress the word after, conservation and resource management concerns have been satisfied.

It is my position, and I hope the minister's, that he understands that those final agreements have to be agreements that involve conservationists, that involve resource management people, that involve tourist operators and tourists. There is nothing in this statement to dispel the negative perception that tourist operators have and that tourists, in fact, have of the way these interim negotiations have been handled by the minister to date.

Certainly his policy statements constantly refer to the Sparrow decision. It is incumbent upon him, now that we know how he interprets this, to pursue that course and pursue the course making agreements with all of the parties, not making agreements just with aboriginal people and then trying to convince other affected parties what the policy should be. Certainly if all the cards are on the table before final agreements are made, everybody can live much more happily.

Mr J. Wilson: I would like to make a short comment in response to the statement today by the Minister of Natural Resources. Just to reiterate the words of my colleague the member for Willowdale, he did not take the occasion today to dispel the concerns of recreationists and tourist outfitters in the Algonquin Park area. I am getting calls into my office where people are asking whether they should take their families to Algonquin Park this summer. He should have taken the initiative today to dispel those fears.

I am extremely disappointed in this vague announcement in which he did nothing. I hope he is consulting with his colleague the Minister of Tourism and Recreation, but there is no evidence. He does not even mention the word in this statement today. We are extremely disappointed. I will be meeting very shortly with outfitters in the area and I do not think there is anything in here that will make them feel better about the agreements he is reaching behind closed doors.

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY

Hon Mr Hampton: On 22 April 1991 the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in Toronto was asked to investigate the allegedly wrongful contact with the judiciary by or on behalf of the Solicitor General for Ontario. The investigation has now been completed. It is my intention at this time to provide the members of the Legislature with an accounting of the findings of the independent investigation.

The RCMP has concluded that there is no evidence to support criminal prosecution. Senior legal officers in the Ministry of the Attorney General have reviewed the investigation report delivered by the RCMP and have concurred with this conclusion. With the benefit of the investigation and the advice offered by senior ministry officials, it is my opinion that there is no evidence of criminal wrongdoing by anyone working for or connected to the Solicitor General or by the Solicitor General himself or anyone else involved in the circumstances of the case.

The investigation undertaken by the RCMP was both thorough and comprehensive. It embraced all factual aspects of the allegations of criminal misconduct. The objective of the investigation was to determine whether any evidence existed to support criminal charges against any member of the constituency staff of the Solicitor General or the Solicitor General himself. The investigation included an interview with the Solicitor General himself, who also consented in writing to unfettered access to all files in his office.

The files were reviewed and three instances of constituents seeking help where they had improperly been found guilty of a parking violation came to the attention of the investigators.

The subsequent investigation included interviewing each of the three citizens, each of the three constituency office staff who helped them, the members of the court staff who were approached by the constituency staff for direction as to how the constituency staff should assist the constituents, and the justices of the peace who ultimately received the correspondence. No evidence of criminal intention on the part of any individual was found in the investigation.

The RCMP has advised the Ministry of the Attorney General that the report is the property of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. A letter from the acting officer in charge of criminal operations to the acting assistant deputy Attorney General, criminal law --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Response time will be later.

Hon Mr Hampton: -- states that the report was provided to the ministry for the purpose of legal review and analysis only and is not to be made known to any other agency or person.

However, given the nature of the investigation, I understand that there are a number of legitimate questions which the members of the Legislature may have regarding the type and extent of the investigation. In the interests of maintaining the public's faith in the administration of justice, I am releasing to this Legislature a report prepared by the director of criminal prosecutions in the Ministry of the Attorney General. This report outlines the initial processing of the information by the Ministry of the Attorney General and the request made to the RCMP, the purpose of the RCMP investigation and the steps taken to obtain information, a

summary of evidence obtained by the RCMP and the legal opinion and conclusions of the director of criminal prosecutions provided to both the RCMP and myself.

This concludes my report to the Legislature on the investigation.

Interjections.

The Speaker: The member for St George-St David may be utilizing some of his response time.

Members will recall that we had earlier had responses, and although we had utilized the apportioned five minutes I would be pleased to allow a two-minute response time to each of the two caucuses, hence the Leader of the Opposition.

RESPONSES

MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY

Mr Nixon: I have to say that the Attorney General's defence of this situation is the weakest I have heard in the House in my experience. There has never been from our side or from the community, there has never been from the editorialists who have called for the resignation of the Solicitor General, an indication of criminal wrongdoing, but simply the breaking of the guidelines set down by the Premier himself. Surely this is the item that must focus our attention. The head of the government has taken unto himself to establish guidelines for the conduct of his ministers and those guidelines were clearly broken.

Mr Speaker, you will clearly recall that the matter became a matter of urgent importance in the Legislature. The Attorney General himself said that in order to escape being pilloried in the House he put the matter in the hands of the RCMP.

Interjection.

The Speaker: The member for St George-St David, I think would want to consider his normally measured tones in response.

Mr Scott: I did not call anybody a liar, Mr Speaker. I said that language should not be used.

The Speaker: The language which was used was not the language which is normally used in this House.

Mr Scott: I withdraw the word.

The Speaker: Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition would continue.

Mr Nixon: Mr Speaker, the response time is totally inadequate but there will be other opportunities, no doubt, to deal with the matter. I am certainly not going to worry about whether the Attorney General said that he called in the RCMP to escape being pilloried in the House. As a matter of fact, he said "pillared in the House," and everybody noticed that particular statement. That is clearly what was said.

The point is this: To say that the report is not the property of this government is absurd and is unacceptable in this House. Because the time to respond is totally inadequate, we will pursue it in the next order of business.

Mr Harnick: It is quite clear that what the government has done is it has taken this incident and pretended it was a criminal matter. It has hidden behind a criminal investigation to avoid admitting ministerial responsibility.

What responsibility does the minister have for staff? That is not answered in any of these investigations.

What instructions did the minister give his staff regarding conflict of interest, regarding instructions about dealing with the judiciary?

Page 8 clearly says -- I am talking about the addendum -- "He had informally spoken to some of his staff to inform them that they ought not to contact any police agency or the judiciary." Well, that is not what he said here. He said: "Clearly, we have to have an arm's-length distance." Well, that is not the finding that is in this addendum.

We also know, if we look at paragraph 25, that staff member 2 is a receptionist in the constituency office. She did not have any written guidelines or directions in relation to corresponding with the judiciary. Well, that is not what the minister told this House and he has abrogated ministerial responsibility.

Furthermore, how come the Attorney General was not told about this for 10 days? What about the Deputy Attorney General? Where was she through all of this? Why was she not communicating with the Attorney General? Why was there no investigation by the Attorney General to get the letter? Why did they wait 12 days before anybody did anything? Why was the Premier's office notified before the Attorney General? Furthermore, why did the press have to leak this information so that we would know about it? Why did the government not come clean and why did the government not declare what was going on?

This criminal investigation is a lot of garbage and nothing more. They are hiding behind it. The minister should resign.

ORAL QUESTIONS

MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY

Mr Nixon: I am sure the Attorney General is aware of our total dissatisfaction with his statement. In a superficial perusal of his report on the report, which was late in coming to the Legislature, like his statement, which he held in his hand until a few moments before he stood to read it, we see that the Deputy Attorney General drafted a letter describing to the Attorney General her involvement in the investigation. That letter was reviewed by the acting assistant deputy Attorney General, criminal law, and the director of criminal prosecutions. That letter, of course, is not appended.

There is an indication that three constituents of the Solicitor General were involved. There is an indication that only one justice of the peace was interviewed when two were specifically referred to. How can the Attorney General indicate that he will not table the report so that we can see what those three constituents were saying and what happened to them and what happened to the second justice of the peace who was referred to in these debates?

Can the minister not see that his response is totally unsatisfactory and that this minister cannot, on the basis of that statement, bring this matter to any suitable conclusion?

Hon Mr Hampton: Mr Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition asks many questions in one, so I hope you will allow me the liberty of answering them.

First, I am confident that the RCMP conducted a full and comprehensive investigation, so in the sense that the Leader of the Opposition seems to imply in his question that this may not be the case, I simply reject any implication of that by him.

Second, the Leader of the Opposition indicates that he feels the actual police report itself should be made public. The Leader of the Opposition knows this, because he has been in this House when this has been debated before --

Mr Scott: Ken Keyes's report was made public.

The Speaker: The member for St George-St David, just --

Mr Scott: It was.

The Speaker: No.

Hon Mr Hampton: The fact of the matter is this: Police reports often involve interviews with many people; they involve secondhand information, third hand information; they involve interviews with a great number of people who may not be directly involved with this matter. All of those individuals have privacy interests. That is the first part. It is accepted procedure that ordinarily police reports are not made public and are not released.

The member for St George-St David refers to a report involving the former Solicitor General, Ken Keyes. I want to merely point out to the opposition leader and to the member for St George-St David that the report involved only one person. One person was the subject of the report and that one person agreed the report should be made public. That is the only situation where a report has been made public.

In this case the RCMP said to me very clearly in the letter that this report is the property of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. In the interest of democracy, I have provided a

summary of the investigation and a

summary of the information that was obtained, but it would be improper to release that report here and now, due to the privacy interests.

Mr Nixon: On page 945 of Hansard, for 24 April 1991, the Attorney General said as follows, "If I, as Attorney General, did not order an investigation into that, I am sure if I came into the House I would be pilloried for not having ordered an investigation." Evidently the editors know a little more grammar than the AG.

Is that not an appropriate scenario of what went on here in this Legislature one month ago?

Hon Mr Hampton: To answer the last reference first, no, it is not an accurate representation of what has gone on. I will repeat from the

summary, first of all paragraph 3, that on Friday 12 April, yes, the Deputy Attorney General did receive a telephone call from a judge. The judge was very specific that he had received third hand information that a letter allegedly had gone to a justice of the peace. He could not provide the letter and he did not know the contents of the letter. He was directed to find the letter and to forward it to the Deputy Attorney General.

Mr Scott: -- to get this kind of garbage and the Premier knows it's right to release this. Have this man's resignation.

The Speaker: The member for St George-St David, while this is an important and somewhat contentious issue, I do not know how we can conduct public business with more than one person speaking at a time.

Hon Mr Hampton: That is the first part. I believe the

summary from the director of criminal prosecutions accurately reflects the RCMP report. I believe that the RCMP has the factual context of this whole matter correct in some detail. The Leader of the Opposition can prefer his version of the facts; I accept the RCMP's version of the facts.

Second, I think the Leader of the Opposition knows that the RCMP, having conducted a full and comprehensive examination of this, having interviewed several citizens, having interviewed court officials, having interviewed justices of the peace, understands full well the privacy interest that those individuals may have. They intend to respect those privacy interests. For myself, I have no opposition to the release of the report by the police, but they have made it very specifically known to me that they regard the report as their property. If the member wants to ask them to release it, I invite him to do so.

Mr Nixon: The Attorney General is the chief law officer of the crown in this jurisdiction. Surely he should never have referred the matter to the RCMP if he felt that its jurisdiction was superior to his own. At the time, there was a clear indication from myself and my colleagues that the matter should be reviewed by an independent investigator who would be established under the Public Inquiries Act. We may still have to do that. I would ask the Attorney General specifically, since he cannot handle a question with three parts, will he table the letter from the Deputy Attorney General?

Hon Mr Hampton: I believe the involvement of the Deputy Attorney General in this matter is accurately reflected in the

summary that has been provided.

Mr Nixon: On the same subject, the Attorney General is talking in circles and of course it is difficult for us to follow him around that particular circle. The Deputy Attorney General is the chief professional adviser and the senior law officer of the crown in that respect. She was aware of this matter for 10 days, and while the Attorney General may think it is just my strangely warped mind, there was ample opportunity for his staff to contact the Premier's office, the offending minister and his staff, the judge who was involved in this and to undertake an investigation before it became public.

We notice from the report the Attorney General has given us that the RCMP has not interviewed any of those particular people who would know about that in the Attorney General's office. Then he says that the RCMP report is reviewed by his own law officers, including the very people I have been referring to. Can he not understand why people, even subjective as I happen to be in this particular case, would be dissatisfied with his defence and that we would really require those people to come and give an explanation of themselves, either to a committee of this House or through the Attorney General through the tabling of their information?

Hon Mr Hampton: To correct the Leader of the Opposition again, what the Deputy Attorney General received --

Mr Scott: Just release her letter.

Hon Mr Hampton: -- on 12 April was merely an allegation, an allegation that the judge in question indicated --

Mr Scott: Let her speak for herself. Let's see the letter.

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

Mr Scott: Sorry, Mr Speaker.

Hon Mr Hampton: -- he had no information on, no factual basis for. That is the first correction I want to make.

Second, I want to point out that if the Leader of the Opposition believes, for example, that the assistant deputy minister of the criminal law division and the director of criminal prosecutions do not adequately reflect in this

summary the information provided by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, I cannot do much to help him there. I can only say that those two officials have been public servants --

Mr Scott: Do what the public expects of you.

The Speaker: Would the minister take his seat. It would certainly help to expedite our business if the member for St George-St David could wait for his turn to ask a question. Minister, do you have a few more brief remarks to wrap up your comments?

Hon Mr Hampton: I can say to the Leader of the Opposition that they are public servants who have been engaged in the public service of Ontario for a good number of years. They have proven that they are dedicated public servants. They were dedicated public servants when the Liberals were the government, they were dedicated public servants when the Conservative Party was the government and I can see no basis upon which the member would impeach their integrity.

Mr Nixon: We are interested in the integrity of the Attorney General and, in this instance, the Solicitor General as well. The guidelines are clear. They were broken. There were absolutely no allegations of criminal activity and this particular report deals only with criminal activity.

Interjection.

Mr Nixon: The judge of everyone's conduct, who is interjecting from the Premier's chair in this regard, is simply assisting in the coverup of this extremely important matter. Now the Attorney General has turned my request for tabling the letter from his deputy into some sort of personal attack by me on her. I know nothing about the person other than that she is fully competent. For that reason, I would like to have her letter tabled so that we would know her view of this situation, since she was the first official in government to know of the matter.

Would the Attorney General not agree that this matter, as it pertains to this House, is not a criminal matter, it is a matter that deals specifically with the Solicitor General breaking the clearly stated guidelines established by the head of his own government? Unless the facts associated with that are clearly known, it is impossible for him to continue in his duties and carry them out fairly and equitably. Surely the Attorney General realizes that by retaining this report and refusing to table the additional information that I have asked for, he has simply added to the vulnerability of the Solicitor General.

Hon Mr Hampton: I want to read back to the Leader of the Opposition some remarks of the then Attorney General, the member for St George-St David, when he was asked to release a police report. I would ask the Leader of the Opposition to listen rather carefully, because he said this, "If the Attorney General decided there is insufficient evidence in the report to lay a charge, should this situation be any different?" He says: "In my respectful submission, it should not, because then he would be releasing to the public, unexpurgated, what might be hearsay, inadmissible evidence that would damage the reputations of citizens, perhaps including, in this case, the individual himself."

Mr Scott: When there was going to be a trial, you donkey. Come on, give me a break.

Interjections.

The Speaker: The remark has been withdrawn. Before we continue, however, I realize that this is a contentious issue and that feelings are likely to run high. The member for St George-St David would assist if he would just relax a bit.

Hon Mr Hampton: I will continue. He says: "There is one other reason why in this case the report should not be revealed, and that is, in dealing with the individual, you want to protect civil rights. To release the report in those circumstances might severely prejudice the individual's right to make his case" --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Hampton: -- "in another forum."

Interjection.

The Speaker: Would the member for Oriole come to order.

Interjection.

The Speaker: The member for Oriole, come to order, please.

Interjection.

The Speaker: We are still waiting for the member for Oriole to come to order.

Have you completed your remarks? Can we wrap it up?

Hon Mr Hampton: If I might conclude, on the day that factual material was presented on this incident, an investigation was requested by an independent police force, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. That police force has completed a full and comprehensive investigation. I have now placed before the Legislature a report which accurately reflects in some detail the full course of events. If that is not enough for the opposition, that is far more than they would receive in most other circumstances, in most other forums in the Anglo-Canadian world.

Mr Harris: I would like to return to a subject that was interrupted by the introduction of the budget of the Premier, and that is the matter of the Solicitor General's conduct.

This matter has been investigated for potential criminal charges, I suppose. Nobody has suggested that there was any potential of criminal wrongdoing in this whole matter. However, the concern was whether the minister's actions were appropriate vis-à-vis the integrity of the arm's length of the justice system and vis-à-vis the Premier's own guidelines.

When questioned on this matter on 29 April, the Solicitor General said this:

"As I explained on innumerable occasions last week, both in writing and orally, I have communicated very clearly that there had to be an arm's-length difference between my office and the judiciary. I have re-emphasized that, it has been in writing, it has been oral."

In the report that we have been given today from the Attorney General's office, page 10, number 25, it says:

"Staff member 2" -- this is the experienced one -- "who attempted to assist constituent 2 wrote a letter to a justice of the peace. Staff member 2 is a receptionist in the constituency office. She did not have any written guidelines or directions in relation to corresponding with the judiciary."

In view of the fact that the report, the vetted report that we have been given by the Attorney General, points out very clearly a statement in absolute contradiction and opposite to what the Solicitor General told us in this House, would the Premier not agree that the Solicitor General has violated his guidelines and would he not agree that he has violated the guidelines of telling this House the whole truth?

Hon Mr Rae: The first thing I want to say to the House is that the first I had seen of either of these documents was this afternoon, along with everybody else, so I have had no more or less opportunity to discuss the contents of these documents with anyone, including the Attorney General or the Solicitor General.

I must say I find it bizarre when a member of the opposition says, as the member for Willowdale says today, "This criminal investigation is a lot of garbage."

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member for Willowdale, come to order.

Hon Mr Rae: I find it passing strange that a member of the opposition would say that about an investigation conducted by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. I just find that a very strange comment to make.

The director of criminal prosecutions --

Interjection.

Hon Mr Rae: If the member for London North will allow me just to answer, the director of criminal prosecutions, in the report that, as I say, I have just received this afternoon along with everyone else -- and I am not surprised that it has not been quoted by either opposition leader, but I think it is worth quoting. It is talking about the interview between the Solicitor General and the police.

"The Solicitor General impressed the officers as being a man of high integrity who was making a concerted effort to serve the people of Ontario in his role as the Solicitor General. No evidence of benefit, directly or indirectly, from the writing of these letters was obtained during the course of the investigation. Accordingly, they concluded that as a matter of law reasonable and probable grounds did not exist to support a belief on their part that a crime had been committed by him."

With respect to the guidelines, I would simply say to the members of the House that I have already indicated very clearly that the letters that were sent should not have been sent. I have indicated that very clearly. It has also been made very clear that the Solicitor General neither authorized nor wrote nor had anything to do with the writing or signing of the those letters.

Mr Harris: In response to my question, where I quoted the report that was released today, the Premier said, "I am not surprised none of the opposition parties are quoting this report." I am quoting this report, even though it is vetted, even though it is not the report of the RCMP. This is the vetted report from the Ministry of the Attorney General.

On 25 April, the Solicitor General, in response to questions from myself, said: "There are specific conflict guidelines for constituency offices that were developed at the end of February and that were received in my office on 1 March. They are specific for that particular group. That is why the staff received them so promptly after they were issued."

That is what the Solicitor General told this House, that he was living up to his ministerial responsibility and informing his staff of the arm's-length requirement.

The report that I quoted from in the first question and I quote from right now says on page 8, "He had informally spoken to some of his staff." Then on page 10, in reference to the staff member who wrote the letter, it says: "She did not have any written guidelines or directions in relation to corresponding with the judiciary. Consequently, she contacted the staff of the courthouse in Toronto" and carried on from there and wrote the letter.

The Solicitor General stood in his place repeatedly, after repeated questions from me and others in this House, and said: "I informed my staff. I told them orally. I told them in writing. I told them they were not to contact the judiciary. Yes, yes, yes, I did all those things." Now this report from the Attorney General says none of this took place. Does the Premier not believe this report from his Attorney General, or does he not believe what his Solicitor General told this House? Which one is it?

Hon Mr Rae: I just would say to the leader of the third party that if he has a question with respect to the Solicitor General, directly with respect to what he has said, that is something which can be directed specifically to him.

I will simply say to the leader of the third party that I think it is important for us to recognize that the Solicitor General has stated in this House on many occasions, and this was entirely accepted as an explanation by the officers conducting the investigation, that he had no knowledge.

What is more, with respect to the propriety of what took place, I think if the member is going to be fair with respect to the individual members whom he has quoted, it is extremely important that he read the entire statement with respect to what was said. In this case:

"The assistance included instructions as to how constituent 2 should swear out an affidavit.... Staff member 2 followed the instructions and, consequently, the justice of the peace marked the court documentation as completed. In the circumstances of the case, the officers concluded that reasonable and probable grounds did not exist as a matter of law to support a belief in the commission of any crime by staff member 2."

To be fair to everyone concerned, I think it is important for us to know that it is difficult on the face of what is in front of me here to conclude as quickly or as immediately as the leader of the third party has done that there is some kind of a discrepancy with respect to the evidence.

Mr Harris: Let me say this to the Premier: The only arm's-length approach that we have seen has been an arm's-length approach to accepting ministerial responsibility. Clearly, that is the only arm's length, and that is not acceptable, as the Premier knows, of any minister of the crown, and should not be acceptable to him.

I would ask the Premier this: In light of the fact that we have a statement repeated, repeated, repeated time after time in this House from the Solicitor General that is exactly 180 degrees opposite to the statement given to us on page 10 by the Attorney General today, and in view of the fact that the Attorney General says the RCMP documents cannot be released and made public -- I do not understand why; there is no criminal investigation, but this is what the Attorney General said -- will the Premier agree to send this whole matter to the standing committee on administration of justice, where the RCMP report can be made available -- as were all the Astra/Re-Mor documents, even though there was a criminal investigation under way -- in confidence to all the committee members, the same way he insisted back in 1980, and where we can get to the bottom of whether the Solicitor General instructed his staff orally and in writing, as he told this House he did, or whether the Attorney General and the RCMP have come to the right conclusion that he did not in fact instruct any of his staff about dealing with the judiciary?

Will he agree to send this matter to the justice committee, where we can get to the bottom of this?

Hon Mr Rae: I am really troubled by the allegations that are being made today with respect to the independence of this investigation and with respect to the evidence that is being put forward. I think it is entirely unfair.

As soon as there was any evidence with respect to this matter, it was referred immediately for investigation. We have a statement by the director of criminal prosecutions that it is the belief of the officers that the Solicitor General is a man of high integrity, making a concerted effort to serve the people of Ontario in his role as Solicitor General.

It seems to me that some credence --

The Speaker: Would the Premier take his seat, please.

Mr Harris: The Premier is suggesting now this goes far beyond the initial breach of his guidelines two or three times. This goes as well to what the Solicitor General told this House in complete contradiction to what we now hear from the Attorney General. However, while the Premier is contemplating sending this matter to the justice committee, I have a second question for the Minister of Education.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Harris: We know that it will cost over $14 billion of taxpayers' money to educate our Ontario children this year through to the end of high school. Can the minister tell us how much of this $14 billion will be spent specifically in the classroom educating children and how much will be eaten up by the various levels of bureaucracy, ie, money spent that is not directly being spent educating our children in the classroom? Can the minister tell us that breakdown?

Hon Mrs Boyd: No, I certainly cannot in any detail at this particular point in time. I would say to the member, however, that it is not quite as simple as saying that things are spent in the classroom or not in the classroom and therefore they are not directed at education. It is certainly very necessary, as the member is well aware, that one needs an infrastructure within which to make changes and within which to deliver programs. If the member is interested in having more detailed information, I will certainly undertake to get him that in due course.

Mr Harris: I am very interested. I would have thought the minister would be interested. Fourteen billion dollars is a lot of money. There is a growing sense out in the community that more and more of those dollars are being wasted, frittered away on duplication, on bureaucracy, and less and less are getting to children in the classroom. I am shocked the minister does not know what is happening there and how many dollars there are.

When every other province understands and is prepared to enter into discussions with regard to nationalized testing, can the minister tell me why we here in Ontario are the only province with the only Minister of Education, the only Premier, the only cabinet that is not interested in the slightest bit in participating in finding out how well our students are doing for the $14 billion that we are spending on them?

Hon Mrs Boyd: Just in response to the first part of the member's statement, I would like to remind him that there are very detailed estimates that do outline what our resources are used for in education. When he suggested that I could tell him exactly the proportion that was used in the classroom, he understands exactly why that is not possible in terms of the division of responsibility between school boards and the provincial ministry. In fact we have very extensive auditing processes that are available to the member at any time that indicate how that money has been spent and how the school boards of the province and the ministry itself are accountable.

In the second instance, I think we have talked a great deal in this House about our reason as a government for retaining observer status in terms of the national standards testing. We do not believe that in fact it will give us the information that the member thinks we need and that our government thinks we need. We do think we need to be evaluating how we are doing in our schools with our curriculum, but the national testing that is being proposed will not do that. It will not take account of what our students are supposed to have learned or indeed what kind of student body we have.

It is particularly important for the member to understand that we want the same kind of evaluation that he wants. We just do not believe that is the way to get it. We have not opted out entirely; we are retaining observer status. If the other ministers of education are prepared to look responsibly at the kinds of questions Ontario is asking, we would be prepared to revisit the issue.

Mr Harris: The national testing questions have not even been drafted yet. I do not know why the minister says they do not meet her needs. She says she does not want to participate because of the questions, but the questions have not even been drafted yet. Surely the parents in Ontario are entitled -- as the parents all across the world are, let alone here in Canada -- to know whether their $14-billion expenditure is providing the kind of education that is keeping our students up to national and international standards.

The minister has stated that there are audits available to me. The minister will know that there is no provision for mandatory external audits of our school boards. She has no concrete assurance that our education dollars are being spent efficiently, aside from the standards issue. The 1990 Provincial Auditor's report indicated more efficient management of bus routing in York region alone could save the board $1 million a year. That is one out of 168 school boards for one service, just the transportation.

In order to ensure the accountability of our $14 billion of tax dollars, will the minister introduce mandatory external audits of our school boards this year so we can get an unbiased handle on whether we are getting value for our $14 billion?

Hon Mrs Boyd: The member mentioned the York region audit, and that is exactly what happens. There is a rotating audit process of different boards that is done on a surprise basis and that gives the kinds of interesting statistics to us that he was able to quote. At the present time, to be quite frank, if we were to spend the kind of resources he is suggesting on an external audit of each and every board, the tax dollars in this province would soar to astronomical proportions.

We have am internal audit process. Every single board has an internal audit process that is published to the citizens, and we believe very firmly that there needs to be more control. We have talked in this House about the need to revise our financing of education so that there is more accountability. We are not in any way saying that is not necessary, but we are saying that it is a process that needs to take us into a whole new era of accountability in this province. That is what we have pledged to do and what we intend to do.

LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr Nixon: I have a question for the Solicitor General. The Solicitor General will be aware that his executive assistant has confirmed that there was an exchange of telephone calls with his office, presumably with the minister's executive assistant, from CAW Local 1451 involved in the Budd strike at Kitchener and then a response from his office to the local police.

Can the Solicitor General, who must have looked into this matter by now, report to the House the circumstances as seen from his particular office?

Hon Mr Farnan: There was a communication made by the policing services division of my ministry with the Waterloo Regional Police. Under the current legislation it is the legislative responsibility of my ministry to provide to municipal chiefs of police information and advice respecting the management and operation of police forces, techniques in handling special problems and other information calculated to assist. We did provide information and we did not provide advice.

Mr Nixon: Whatever the perception of the Solicitor General, he would be aware that both the president of the company and the president of the union felt that, following their request to the Solicitor General's office, the police changed their activities and in fact brought about an entirely different outcome.

Is the minister aware that, because of the activities as they were perceived at the local community, violence persisted in the community, that even after his advice, so called, to the police had been undertaken, a car was burned, a rail line was broken and the power was interrupted because of the dislocation of a transformer to a large

section of this city? Would the minister not agree that his advice in this instance had very destructive effects in the community?

Hon Mr Farnan: The chief of police of the Waterloo region has said there was no attempt to influence his police force. Second, good preventive policing demands that we take preventive action to stop, to make sure we do not have violence on the picket line.

Mr Scott: You guys haven't got the nerve.

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

Mr Harnick: You have no credibility to answer this question because what you say tomorrow will be different.

You can't remember from one day to the next what you said.

The Speaker: You appear to have company. The member for Willowdale. Enthusiasm is one thing and making it impossible for people to hear is another.

Could you briefly conclude your remarks.

Hon Mr Farnan: I am very proud of my ministry. I am proud of the role they play. I am very proud of the fact that they encourage preventive action and that they do not want violence on picket lines and that they do indeed encourage local police chiefs to bring together both parties so that we can have peace on picket lines.

MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY

Mr Carr: My question is to the Solicitor General. I hardly know what incident to go after. I just hope we have the RCMP on a retainer with all the incidents in the Solicitor General's office. On 29 April, the Solicitor General said:

"As I explained on innumerable occasions...both in writing and orally, I have communicated very clearly that there had to be an arm's-length difference between my office and the judiciary. I have re-emphasized that, it has been in writing, it has been oral, and I am prepared to accept the investigation that the RCMP conducts."

This RCMP investigation has said contrary to that. My question is very, very clear. Why is there a very definite contradiction between these two statements?

Hon Mr Farnan: For four days in the House we had questions about this issue. I answered those questions. I stand by the answers I gave at that time. I was interviewed by the RCMP. I stand by the answers I gave the RCMP. When is the opposition going to attempt to drag itself out of the gutter and address the bread-and-butter issues of this province?

Mr Carr: It is very clear that this Solicitor General should not be talking about people in the gutter, because he has no credibility whatsoever. I will refer to the throne speech, which talks about integrity. It says:

"Our task is to guard against institutional arrogance and the abuse of power wherever they exist....It is our job to address that cynicism and to overcome it. When my government makes mistakes it will admit them."

Will the Solicitor General admit to this House that he made a mistake and resign and do the honourable thing today?

Hon Mr Farnan: Let me just point out, in terms of cynicism, that we have a substantive agenda in terms of housing, in terms of health, in terms of environment, in terms of education and community and social services. We have a substantive agenda. If there is cynicism, it is among the people of Ontario when they watch the antics of the opposition parties.

NATIVE ISSUES IN TEMAGAMI

Mr B. Ward: I have a question on a different subject. My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources and minister responsible for native affairs. The last time I asked a question I got in trouble because I talked about the Conservatives' waste of taxpayers' money in the House, so I will not talk about that. I will just ask my question.

Last week I heard news stories of an announcement the minister made in Temagami. As I am sure this is a matter --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Member for Mississauga North, stop. Order, please. This is a chamber without air-conditioning and there are occasions when the temperature rises. The member for Brantford with his question.

Mr B. Ward: At least this question is of interest to me and the members on this side of the House.

I would appreciate if the minister would elaborate on the council authority which was established through these announcements, as I said, that were made in Temagami.

Hon Mr Wildman: As the member has indicated, last Thursday I made a couple of important announcements in Temagami. One was the appointment of a new, comprehensive planning council to advise the Ministry of Natural Resources with regard to management decisions on the management of resources throughout the Temagami region.

This comprehensive planning council will strengthen local involvement. It involves representatives of many interests in the area, including labour and mining, which were previously not represented on the Temagami Advisory Council appointed by the previous government.

Along with the Teme-Augama Anishnawbe, we also announced the signing of an addendum to the memorandum of understanding signed by the previous government, setting up the Wendaban Stewardship Authority, with 50% representation from the first nation and from the provincial government. This will have a shared responsibility for the stewardship of the resources --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The Speaker determines the amount of time for questions and responses. While I appreciate the assistance of members, there are particular times when I really do not require that assistance. The member will conclude his remarks.

Hon Mr Wildman: Those of us on this side of the House who are from the north are used to the members on the other side not being interested in northern issues.

I will conclude by saying that the stewardship authority follows through with the commitment made by the previous government for shared management of four townships in the Temagami area.

Mr B. Ward: My supplementary focuses on the comprehensive planning council. If this is replacing the Temagami Advisory Council, what is the news on this announcement?

Hon Mr Wildman: It was significant news in that there were representatives of the logging industry, the tourist industry, labour and the environmentalists. As a matter of fact, there were representatives in that room who had participated in blockades of Red Squirrel Road by the environmentalists and of the cottage road by the loggers. They were all there with a very positive attitude to work together to resolve the issues in Temagami. We are going to do it because we believe the resources of the north are necessary, if they are to be managed properly, to ensure a future for the economy and the environment of northern Ontario.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr Offer: I have a question for the Minister of Labour. On 8 March he appointed a committee of management and labour representatives to examine no less than 30 proposals for major labour law reform. He gave the committee one month, 30 days, for the examination and drafting of a final report. Both sides say this was an extremely short time to chart a future for labour law reform in the province.

My question to the minister is, will he share with this House his plans for future public consultations on these important matters before legislation is drafted and introduced?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: When we have a paper prepared suggesting amendments to the Ontario Labour Relations Act, they will be introduced to members in this House and shared for consultation.

Mr Offer: I do not think that answer is sufficient because that does not meet the needs of management and labour in his own consultation document.

In the report management stated, "It is not possible, with the time frame given to the committee, to make its report to provide the necessary in-depth research and analysis of the implication of the many proposals." They were not able to comment on the crucial issues of sectoral bargaining and successor rights. In fact, many of the issues raised in the report require greater public understanding and need further discussion.

The United Steelworkers' representative, Brian Shell, stated to the Ottawa Citizen, "We are convinced we can only change the old, obsolete ways through discussion." In the interest of co-operation on all sides, will he commit to immediately putting his 30 wide-ranging proposals to the standing committee on resources development or to any legislative committee here, so that further public consultations can be held prior to the introduction of legislation?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: To begin with, I do not know which 30 proposals the member is talking about because we have not as yet made proposals. We had suggestions come back to us from the management and labour sides of the initial group. We are looking at those proposals now and there are a number of suggestions made in the original report --

Interjections.

The Speaker: The member for Mississauga North might like to hear a response to his question.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: There are any number of suggestions in the original documents that were presented to us by both management and labour that will take an additional study. Probably sectoral bargaining is one of them. When we have prepared a set of suggestions for OLRA reform, we will bring them forward in this House.

WAGE PROTECTION

Mrs Witmer: My question is also for the Minister of Labour, and I hope we get some answers.

Bruce McDougall, president of SPRINT, Senior Peoples' Resources in North Toronto, after 30 years with Shell Canada, has lent his financial expertise to this organization for seniors. It has an annual budget of $1.5 million and offers a complete range of senior services including Meals on Wheels, home help, transportation services and senior day programs.

Mr McDougall has already received two calls from board members who are concerned about their personal liability under Bill 70. If SPRINT has to obtain directors' and officers' insurance or, failing that, set up a contingency fund to cover the liability, the money will come out of the operating budget for the Meals on Wheels program. That is food out of the mouths of seniors.

Based on this information and the many, many concerns that are being raised daily about personal liability for officers and directors, will the minister commit himself today to bringing in an amendment to exempt these officers and directors of non-profit organizations from the provisions of Bill 70?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: As I think I indicated to the member in the question she asked yesterday, the issue is one that is not yet resolved. If we can get on with the debate on the bill, we may see what amendments are possible to that legislation. In the meantime, I would hope that the Labour critic for the Tory party is as interested in the tens of thousands of workers who earn money, that is not a handout to them, money they do not collect, and that is exactly what the legislation is there for.

Mrs Witmer: I am very concerned about the thousands of employees in this province who are lacking wages and are looking forward to receiving support. However, I would remind the minister that he has had an opportunity to do something about this legislation.

I would remind him that the discussion paper, Wage Protection Fund, dated December 1990, stated on page 19, "Improved wage recovery from directors and officers may have the following unintended effect." This is what it says and this was known to the minister. "There may be a disincentive to become a director or officer of a corporation. This would be especially severe in the case of non-profit corporations where the directors volunteer their time and energy as a contribution to the community. It may therefore be appropriate to exempt non-profit corporations."

Can the minister tell this House why he did not follow his own ministry's advice on the detrimental effect Bill 70 would have on non-profit corporations?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I think the member will know that is one of the issues I raised in our statement on the legislation in the House that we were prepared to take a look at. I think it is important that we get on with the debate on this particular piece of legislation, and we have not made final decisions on that.

I am sure there would be criticism of us as well in the discussion papers if we did not put in the pros and cons, which we did in almost every

section of the bill, what the strengths were and what the possible downsides were. That was for the purposes of making sure people understood the legislation.

The member should also know that even in non-profit organizations, under the Business Corporations Act there is a liability for wages and vacation pay even now.

BUDGET

Mr Sutherland: My question is to the Treasurer regarding the budget. Last week I had the pleasure of touring my riding and the riding of Perth with the member for Perth. We met with environmentalists and women's groups, and I want to pass on to the Treasurer that those people are very supportive of the budget and what is in there.

My question to the Treasurer has to do with some of the comments the Prime Minister has made on his tour in the Far East. Given the fact that many opposition members in this House have said that this budget will have a negative impact on investment, I wonder if the Treasurer would like to comment on what impact he feels the Prime Minister's comments will have on the province of Ontario.

Hon Mr Laughren: I very much appreciate a question of real substance concerning the budget. I hope this lays to rest once and for all any thought that because they are members of our caucus, they ask us easy questions. That is simply not the case.

I was very surprised to read about and hear the comments of the Prime Minister when he was in Tokyo. I always thought we used the world stage to promote ourselves, not to demean ourselves, so I was shocked and appalled, as some would say. I do think the world community will judge investment in this province, because of its inherent wealth and because of the insistence of this government that we will manage the economy in a prudent way.

I think the reaction of people across Canada has been quite illuminating, in that there seems to be a collective dismay that our Prime Minister would use the public stage to put down the province of Ontario, and if it is not the province, any other part of Canada.

Mr Sutherland: Just before I ask my supplementary to the Treasurer, I want to comment on the fact that I had phone calls from residents who are now not going to be on the tax rolls any more who are very supportive of this budget.

Could the Treasurer tell us what impact this filibuster by the opposition is going to have on our being able to implement the budget and help those people who are really in need in this province?

Hon Mr Laughren: I know time is limited, so I will be brief. I think what is bothering a lot of us about the filibuster by the third party is not just the fact that it costs $1 million a week to run this place and they have drawn it to a halt. That in itself is deplorable. However, I think what is really bothering us is that there is a lot of good legislation that we would like to lay before the House and get on with and have a serious debate.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Will the member for York Mills restrain himself.

Interjections.

The Speaker: The member for York Mills, come to order. Hearing members shouting at each other across the floor of the chamber is not appreciated by the Chair, and I doubt very much that it is appreciated by those folks who watch us every day.

Hon Mr Laughren: I will conclude by simply saying that, as a government, we are very anxious to get on with a debate on the budget. The next speaker in the budget debate is the leader of the third party, the member for Nipissing. We are very anxious to hear what he has to say about the budget, because we are a government that not only cares; we are a government that listens as well.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr Offer: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Earlier on I asked the Minister of Labour a question dealing with 30 proposals for major labour law reform. In his response he seemed not to admit that there were in fact these 30 major labour proposals. I have the terms of reference by his own Ministry of Labour, which contain not one, not two, not three proposals, but indeed 30 proposals for labour law reform. I ask, Mr Speaker, that you take that matter to the minister --

The Speaker: Will the member take his seat, please. The member will know it is not a point of order. It certainly is a point about which he has a great deal of interest, and probably the minister has been listening to his comments.

PETITIONS

TVONTARIO TRANSMITTER

Mr Villeneuve: This is a petition addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislature of the province of Ontario:

"We are pleased that a dual service transmitter providing coverage, a radius of 45 kilometres, has been recommended for Cornwall and area;

"However, we, the undersigned, feel that this project should be undertaken without undue delay, as thousands and thousands of taxpayers in the area cannot benefit from TVO and La Chaîne's excellent programming because they do not have access to TVO via cable."

This is signed by numerous residents of S-D-G and the riding of Cornwall.

WASTE MANAGEMENT

Mrs Caplan: I received this petition today from a delegation from northern Ontario representing the towns of Kirkland Lake, Englehart and Larder Lake. I will read the petition, which is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the Minister of the Environment of Ontario has specifically stated that 'solid waste must be viewed as a resource'; and

"Whereas the Minister of the Environment of Ontario has stated that 'diversion from landfill will be mandatory for all communities in the province of Ontario';

"Whereas the north has shipped its raw resources south since 1902 for secondary manufacturing and the agreement with Metro Toronto will guarantee a recycling operation in the north capable of assisting all communities in the north by 'retaining our resources diverted from landfill by northern communities for processing in the north';

"Whereas the Northeastern Ontario Municipalities Action Group have passed the attached resolution of support of the Adams mine recycling and solid waste facility on 4 March 1991, including conditions that allow further development of the Ontario Northland Railway and access to recycling development for all northern communities;

"Whereas the Minister of the Environment has indicated that she will not entertain examination of the Adams mine option based on her stated 'philosophical party policy,' and she has refused to consult with the elected officials of the communities, the economic development officials or community groups requesting a fair assessment;

"Whereas the northern caucus members of the NDP have similarly failed to discuss or review the overall benefits to the environment, to the economy and the long-term job opportunities that this project can bring to the north;

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

"Be it hereby resolved that the provincial government and the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines support a full environmental assessment under all terms of the act regarding the feasibility of importing solid waste into the north on the conditions that recycling secondary industries and safe environmental conditions are guaranteed and proven as a result of the assessment;

"Furthermore, that the provincial government and the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines examine the economic benefits and stability that may result to the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission as a result of this initiative and that it be an integral part of all planned development and that the provincial government and the Ministry of Northern Development request that the north be considered immediately as a potential option for the GTA's long-term waste management solution, providing all of the above are substantiated as a result of the environmental assessment."

This petition has been signed by the council of the town of Kirkland Lake and further passed at a meeting of the Federation of Northern Ontario Municipalities, which also affix its support to this resolution. I present it to the House.

TAXATION

Mr O'Connor: Today I am presenting two petitions. I have a petition here to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario from the Canadian Auto Workers Local 222 in Oshawa. It has been signed by members concerned about the gas guzzler tax. They would like this tax to be eliminated and I am pleased that the Treasurer has agreed to form a working group with the union, and the manufacturers as well, to study an alternative to the gas guzzler tax such as placing an environmental tax on all cars and giving rebates to those turning in old gas guzzlers. I have signed my name to this petition.

PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE

Mr O'Connor: The second petition is on stalling tactics --

Interjections.

Mrs Caplan: You're not interested in the assessment. You don't want economic development.

The Speaker: Would you stop the clock, please. Two things: First of all, I would appreciate if the member for Oriole could restrain herself a bit so that I could hear the petition. Second, I draw to the members' attention --

Mrs Caplan: I apologize, Mr Speaker, but the Minister of Municipal Affairs did provoke --

The Speaker: Just remain seated. I draw to the attention of all members, and in particular the member for Oriole, rule 35(b): "A member may present a petition in the House during routine proceedings The member may make a brief statement summarizing the contents of the petition and indicating the number of signatures attached thereto." I guess the difficulty and one of the reasons why the standing order is there is that we have a limited amount of time each day for the presentation of petitions and that time has to accommodate all of the members who wish to present petitions.

Mr O'Connor: This is in regard to the filibuster of sorts that we are hearing from across the floor.

"Mike Harris, listen up: Make your point and get on with it. We are tired of your stalling.

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

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

"Whereas the Conservative members of the Legislature have been using various tactics and delay to obstruct the business of this House;

"Whereas the grandstanding of the Conservatives is wasting the Legislature's time and taxpayers' money;

"Whereas the Conservatives are fighting for their political lives at the expense of the working people of Ontario;

"We call on the Legislature to get on with the business of the public, in particular the debate around the employee wage protection fund, Bill 70, to help laid-off workers -- wages, vacation pay, termination and severance owing to them. It is essential.

"This NDP government is committed to protecting the workers during this tough -- "

Mrs Caplan: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Under standing order 35(b), which I believe the Speaker just read very eloquently to the House as instruction to all members, I would point out on this point of order that the member is in fact not paying any attention to the direction of the Speaker and that when that happens it can provoke responses from members of the opposition that might be disruptive.

The Speaker: It would be appreciated, of course, if when petitions are presented all members will be alert to the provisions of the standing orders and present their petitions with only a brief

summary of the petition and the number of signatures attached thereto. Would the member quickly conclude.

Mr O'Connor: "This NDP government is committed to protecting the workers during this tough economic time and the effects of the Tory government's free trade agreement. Other legislation designed to protect tenants and to ensure automatic collection of support payments for women and their children is also being held up because there is grandstanding going on."

This petition has been signed by people from all corners of the province, including people from Hamilton, London, Jackson's Point, Penetanguishene and Sudbury and I have affixed my signature thereto.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr J. Wilson: I am pleased to present a petition to the House today on behalf of the good people of Simcoe West, and it reads:

"Whereas after reading the new welfare proposals that are currently circulating and apparently passing into legislation without debate, we must voice our objection to the easy access, continued dependence and expense to society these changes to the welfare system would entail. We are opposed to these changes and hope that you, as the representative for us in Parliament, will speak out against them and inform the office of Zanana Akande about this objection."

It is signed by 139 very concerned and good people in my riding of Simcoe West, and I am pleased to affix my name to it and present it to the House today.

PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE

Mrs Mathyssen: Like my honourable colleague, I, too, have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, signed by 31 Middlesex constituents, and these constituents are also angry with the Conservative Party for its delaying tactics, its obstructionism and its waste of taxpayers' money, and they beg leave that we get on with the important business of governing the province of Ontario, as the voters of Ontario have mandated.

I have affixed my name to this petition.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CITY OF OTTAWA ACT, 1991

Mr Chiarelli moved first reading of Bill Pr63,

An Act respecting the City of Ottawa.

Motion agreed to.

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY AMENDMENT ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 MODIFLANT LA

LOI SUR L'ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE

Mr Arnott moved first reading of Bill 111,

An Act to amend the Legislative Assembly Act.

M. Arnott propose la première lecture du projet de loi 111, Loi portant modification de la

Loi sur l'Assemblée législative.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptée.

BUILDING CODE ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR LE CODE DU BÂTIMENT

Mr Cooke moved first reading of Bill 112,

An Act to revise the Building Code Act.

M. Cooke propose la première lecture du projet de loi 112, Loi portant révision de la

Loi sur le code du bâtiment.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptée.

Hon Mr Cooke: I will summarize the explanatory notes since they are quite long. This bill proposes a number of amendments to create a comprehensive set of standards for regulating existing buildings. This would be in addition to the Ontario Building Code's current mandate to regulate the construction of new buildings as well as the renovation and demolition of existing buildings.

There are numerous amendments to the Building Code Act being proposed in this bill. Most are part of our ongoing efforts to streamline the building regulatory system while supporting the industry's efforts to introduce more efficient, safe and innovative building techniques.

These measures include allowing municipal officials to issue conditional building permits in special circumstances to speed up construction; permitting the use of innovative building materials and new construction techniques that have the same level of safety and performance as those currently approved by the building code; and finally, consolidating building regulations by incorporating the plumbing code directly into the building code.

To conclude, I am confident that the measures introduced today will support building safety, energy efficiency and water conservation and that they will promote innovation and help make our building industry more competitive.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

OPPOSITION DAY: BUDGETARY POLICY

Mr Bradley moved opposition day motion 3:

That in the opinion of this House, the budgetary policy of the Bob Rae government fulfils the worst fears people have of the inability of the New Democratic Party to restrain and control government spending; results in the highest deficit in the province's history, at least $9.73 billion; increases taxes by at least $1 billion; and condemns the province to a generation of crushing debt and increased taxation.

Therefore, this House calls upon the Premier and the Treasurer to introduce a new budget after appropriate consultation with the people of the province that provides a strategy for debt reduction, manages government spending, reduces the taxation burden for individuals and business, and creates a climate for economic recovery and growth.

An hon member: All in favour will please say "aye."

The Speaker: I think that comes later.

Mr Bradley: It is my pleasure to be able to participate in this debate today, which arises from the recent budget announced by the Treasurer of the province of Ontario in this House.

The first figure that strikes everyone, and rather in a pronounced way, is that of the unprecedented deficit that we are incurring in this province. The NDP deficit of $9.7 billion is the highest deficit in the province's history. This triples the previous record of $3.18 billion in 1982-83. A deficit that is near $10 billion means that $1,000 will be borrowed for every man, woman and child in the province of Ontario. The NDP is nearly doubling the provincial debt. The $10-billion deficit level increases the total provincial debt by 33% in one year to $51.7 billion in 1991.

This translates to more than $5,000 for every man, woman and child in Ontario. Probably it is the child portion which is most significant, because they will be paying for this for many years to come.

The NDP is forecasting high deficits throughout its term of office. By 1994 the NDP expects to decrease the deficit only slightly, to just below $8 billion. These high deficits will nearly double Ontario's debt to $76.3 billion by the year 1994. More money out of every tax dollar will be required to pay down the debt, and this of course is a consequence that must be faced by the children who are in our society today.

Management Board has a specific responsibility, which is to look carefully at each of the proposed expenditures of the government of Ontario to determine whether those expenditures are essential in any given fiscal year. Each of the programs has to be scrutinized to determine whether in 1991 it is relevant to today's needs. We look to see if they are relevant, we look to see if they are necessary, and then we determine whether some programs can be eliminated or scaled down and whether others may proceed.

Now some progress, it is obvious, has not been made in this direction, because some of the programs may well be unnecessary as we move into the 1990s. Other programs which are planned, or projects which are planned, may be able to be phased in at a different rate than was anticipated originally, particularly taking into account the recession. It appears that insufficient time and effort went into this particular exercise. Certainly the new so-called Treasury Board will have a major job to do in looking carefully at those expenditures and determining the best place to spend in order to get us out of the recession and provide the necessities for the people of this province.

We also have new taxes in the midst of the deepest recession that we have had since the 1930s: $1 billion in tax increases in the NDP budget. Ontario taxpayers will pay that as a result of the budget which was brought down by the Treasurer. The NDP raised in that budget 11 different taxes worth $1 billion on a full-year basis, ranging from gasoline to so-called sin taxes to taxes on businesses. The budget contained one tax reduction, for Ontario's people living below the poverty line, in conjunction with a move of the previous government.

Fuel taxes will be increased by 30% in just eight months. Diesel taxes have gone up 1.7 cents a litre with an equal increase on 1 January 1992. There is a tax on so-called fuel-inefficient and luxury vehicles that has been doubled; it now ranges from $200 to $7,000 per vehicle and has been increased in terms of the number of vehicles it would affect. The critical sectors and regions of this province are hurt by the gas tax increase and by the so-called gas guzzler tax increase.

We saw truckers who were protesting in the province of Ontario because they believe they are not competitive. One of the reasons they are uncompetitive is because of the projected increases in the gas taxes in this province and in the diesel taxes in this province. Of course, even our trains that carry goods and people across the province of Ontario will feel that particular consequence.

The volume tax on alcohol has been increased, cigarette and tobacco taxes have been increased, and I think there is a projection that auto insurance rates may rise in the future as a result of the imposition of yet another tax.

The consequences are obvious with regard to certain problems we face. Those of us who represent communities which are relatively near the American border recognize that the loss-leaders in terms of items people will go to get are alcoholic beverages, cigarettes and certainly gasoline, and that people while they are over there making those purchases are also going to look at other products they may purchase and bring back.

We are talking about the routine habits people develop. Just when people seem to be thinking about not crossing the border, they look and see what the federal government has done and now the provincial government has done in terms of discouraging that kind of thought and perhaps shopping in a patriotic manner, because of course this budget has driven those taxes higher and has driven those costs higher.

One I particularly would like to look at, and it is in rather a parochial sense, is the tax on auto workers. That is a tax which affects those of us who represent people in communities like St Catharines and Oshawa and Windsor and Oakville, and so many communities across the province of Ontario where we have motor vehicles produced and assembled or parts for those vehicles assembled.

Most of the people in my neighbourhood, as I have mentioned in this House before, are in fact employees of auto manufacturing plants, whether it is General Motors or Hayes-Dana or TRW or some of the plants that supply those particular industries. They have expressed great concern because they recognize two significant factors with the introduction of this tax.

The first factor is that we are in the deepest recession since the 1930s and it is ill advised to double a tax at that particular time; and they recognize, perhaps in the long term more importantly, that the automotive industry faces unprecedented competition from the United States, which it has dealt with for many years, from Mexico, and from other parts of the world. Many who are affected by this wonder why the government would select this particular tax at this particular time, both in terms of the recession and in terms of the competition, and recognize that there is going to be a detrimental effect.

For those who do not represent those communities which have automotive industries, we recognize the tremendous spinoff effect of the automotive industry for the steel industry, for the plastics industry, and for other parts which go into the making of vehicles and the servicing of those particular plants. We recognize how ill advised it was to introduce and extend this tax at this time.

It is said by the Treasurer that it was done for environmental reasons or energy efficiency reasons. We recognize that there is another way of doing it.

In the midst of a boom economy, Ontarians may have been prepared to accept that, may have been prepared to say, "Well, we don't like taxes, but we are prepared to pay them at this time." However, in these present circumstances, if there were a real and genuine interest in achieving two things -- that is, energy efficiency and better emissions from vehicles -- the better way would be to introduce incentives for our automotive industry in order that people in our province and in other jurisdictions, but particularly in our province, would have the capability of purchasing new vehicles.

If we removed virtually all the old vehicles from the roads of the province of Ontario, the air quality would improve immensely.

We recognize as well, those of us who had cars 15 years ago, that they got about 15 miles to the gallon in some cases and that today we can expect double that in terms of energy efficiency. So it is a bogus argument to advance this as an environmental consideration. In fact it is a tax grab, and I would certainly implore the Treasurer of this province to listen to two groups that have come together. Not often do you have labour and management on the same side on some issues. It happens from time to time.

In this particular case, both representatives of labour -- in my own community it has been the bargaining unit of local 199 of the Canadian Auto Workers, and in other communities it has been the same -- and the representatives of the auto making companies and the auto parts making companies have in fact suggested that we could have an alternative to this. They are not suggesting that the goals of energy efficiency are not enviable. They are not suggesting for one moment that we do not want better emission standards. But we can achieve that by the method I have described.

We have a budget in the province of Ontario that has done two major things. It has first of all increased the deficit and debt of this province to unprecedented levels, which will have tremendous consequences for the children who are growing up in our society today and will make us uncompetitive and undesirable to invest in. Looking at that investment, we are seeing people now making a conscious decision to leave the province of Ontario and go to other jurisdictions which they find more favourable for investment purposes.

Second, and in the long term perhaps of even greater consequence, we have people who say they simply will not invest in the province of Ontario as long as we have this budget in place and they are also looking, with some trepidation, at the rhetoric they are hearing from this government in terms of anti-business measures which they see coming forth.

I wish we lived in a perfect society. I wish we could implement all kinds of legislation which in theory and in principle a lot of us think is good stuff. Unfortunately, we live in a highly competitive world and a society which is not the postwar Canada we had before.

As a result, as this resolution calls for, we need a new look at the budget; good, honest, straightforward consultation with the people of this province, a wide cross-section of them; the development of a new budget and its implementation which even Don Cherry will like, because I noted on one of the hockey broadcasts that Mr Cherry said he was not in favour of this particular budget, that he thought it had some dire consequences. If Don Cherry says that, it surely must be so.

Mr Stockwell: The philosopher Santayana once noted that those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. I will try to make a relationship between this budget by the provincial government and the federal government's previous budgets under Liberal governments.

In 1980, the federal government was spending approximately $1.20 for every $1 of revenue it received. The deficit that year was $9.2 billion and the total debt represented about 29% of the gross domestic product. During the following recession, the government increased the deficit from $14 billion to $28 billion. It doubled, much like this government's. This spending trend continued to the point where upon the changeover in power in 1984 the deficit had reached a record $38 billion. At this point in time --

Hon Mr Wildman: Under the Tories?

Mr Stockwell: No, that was in 1984.

At this point in time, for every revenue dollar the government received, it spent $1.33. The most startling feature of this statistic is that by this time the recession had been over for more than two years. The federal debt, which was around $80 billion in 1980, had blossomed to $199 billion by 1984. The $1.33 monster was alive and its appetite proved to be insatiable.

By 1991, after adding debt-financed annual def