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

June 18, 1991

35th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

SPECIAL EDUCATION

Mr Daigeler: On 27 June 1990, Richard Johnston, the then member for Scarborough West and now NDP-appointed chair of the Council of Regents, strongly supported in this House my efforts to speed up changes to the special education act. In particular, I asked that school boards be allowed to provide educational services to developmentally handicapped pupils beyond the age of 21. At the time, the then Minister of Education, the member for Renfrew North, promised that appropriate reforms would be introduced in the fall.

We all know that the government has changed since then, but my interest and concern for this matter has not. I have been informed that the Ottawa-Carleton four-board co-ordinating committee for the developmentally handicapped has recently petitioned the minister to fund a post-21 education pilot project in the Ottawa area.

I urge the minister to give speedy approval to this request and to be consistent with the NDP's position when it was the official opposition. Richard Johnston upbraided the Liberal Minister of Education last June by saying, "The minister knows that by delaying action on special education reforms, he is taking away the right to an education." The new government has a strong moral responsibility to carry through with its own party promises. Reforming the special education act is one of these, and I expect the minister to honour the NDP's commitment to the more vulnerable members of our society.

YOUNG DRIVERS

Mr Jackson: Last week was a week of mourning in Burlington. Last Tuesday, Christopher Evans, John Newby, Jodi Robins and Scott Grenier were all killed when their car went out of control on 1 Sideroad between Guelph Line and Walker's Line. Two days later, Carly MacNeil was killed and four others injured in a similar accident near Milton.

Death is always a tragedy, but the death of young people who are only beginning to experience the fullness of life comes as an especially acute shock. That shock is being experienced first and foremost by the families of the victims and by their school friends. I would like to take this opportunity to extend the sincerest condolences of all members of this House to the grieving families and friends of those five young people, whose memory will never be forgotten by the community of Burlington.

This tragedy has also focused our collective concern by asking the question, why? I would also like to echo the call of the Halton Regional Police and the association, PRIDE, People to Reduce Impaired Driving Everywhere, for tougher driving laws, including graduated driver's licences and limited-to-daylight driving for young drivers, which would help prevent future such tragedies.

Forty per cent of all those killed on our highways are teenagers. I call on the provincial government to move ahead quickly with legislation which would ensure that young people are allowed to drive alone only when they have achieved sufficient levels of experience and responsibility behind the wheel. Such legislation will indeed be a fitting memorial to the Burlington youths whose tragic deaths will have at least served to provoke needed legislative action on behalf of all young drivers in the province of Ontario.

JOHN STOREY

Mr B. Ward: I am very pleased to rise today to recognize John Storey, a lifelong resident of Brantford. Mr Storey is not a celebrity, a famous business person, a politician or a labour leader and as a result will not have a building, a bridge or a city street named after him. Mr Storey is a working person who raised a family in Brantford and, like all working people, did the best job he could for the many years he worked on the shop floor of Gates Rubber.

The reason I am honouring Mr Storey today is to give him the recognition he deserves for the years of volunteer service he gave to his union, the International Rubber Workers, and to the community of Brantford. Mr Storey spent many years on the health and safety committee in an effort to improve working conditions for his union brothers and sisters. He was a regular participant at the union local meetings and is always willing to support other workers during labour disputes.

Mr Storey's involvement in our community is quite extensive. He was co-chair of Brantford's wonderful 1967 centennial parade. His efforts resulted in the restoration of Brantford's oldest fire engine for public display. Since 1983, Mr Storey has worked towards improving Brantford's waterfront. He is currently a member of the Mohawk Lake task force, a community group working towards the cleanup of Mohawk Lake.

Mr Storey recently retired from his job and is now working with his fellow seniors to improve their quality of life. He has never sought public recognition, but I want the people of Ontario to know that I am proud to call John Storey my friend. To John I say: "Tend your garden, have a cold beer and enjoy your retirement, my friend. You have earned it."

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

Mr Cleary: I would like to spend a few moments this afternoon talking about the NDP's record on agriculture and its continuing effort to figure out which end of the cow is which.

In March we heard the Minister of Agriculture and Food and the Treasurer say that farmers would have to wait for over a month, until the budget, for news on an interest rate relief program but, under pressure from farm groups and the opposition, the NDP changed its mind and announced a program in the beginning of April.

At the spring cabinet meeting with the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, the Minister of Agriculture and Food told the farmers that the NDP had done enough for farmers and there would be no provincial commitment to the net income stabilization account program this year. This was in contradiction to the support he announced for the program in the fall.

Then later in the session, the minister did another about-face and announced a limited commitment to the net income stabilization program. It is obvious that the minister continues to be left out standing in the field when it comes to agriculture.

OATH OF ALLEGIANCE

Mr Turnbull: Since being elected as Ontario's first socialist Premier, the Premier has succeeded in a record number of flip-flops. The most recent and dramatic example was last Thursday when our Premier, applying his principle of "If you don't like these standards, I have others," stretched the credibility of his Spandex guidelines to the breaking point.

In April, his rejection of the position of vice-patron of the Royal Canadian Military Institute was just another of a growing list of royal snubs but, unlike his earlier unexplained absence from the Queen's birthday parade, the Premier at least had the good sense to reconsider and reverse his decision. I wonder if he first discussed it with his new adviser, the member for Brant-Haldimand, and received his recommendation.

Since this is the flip-flop Premier, I wonder if he might now consider flipping his biggest flop and reverse his government's controversial decision to remove the oath to the Queen required of all new police officers.

SENIOR CITIZENS

Mr Frankford: As members are aware, the city of Scarborough has a population that, like the province in general, is multicultural and increasingly elderly. I am glad to inform the House of some initiatives in Scarborough East to address the population's future needs.

Seven Oaks is a Metropolitan Toronto home for the aged which has a certain number of beds for Armenians. This is an excellent approach to make individuals feel comfortable, with the assistance of care givers and volunteers who know their language and customs.

Masaryktown is a co-operative housing project that has just been opened, where a number of Czechoslovak seniors will be living.

The Momiji Health Care Society is a non-profit organization that is concerned with the health care of seniors of Japanese origin. It is constructing an apartment building for seniors in my riding. Two floors of the building will be for health-related amenities, and they plan to offer facilities for care of the broader community outside.

The announcement by the Minister of Community and Social Services about long-term care last week has been warmly welcomed. I am sure it will be of great help to voluntary community organizations such as these that have taken initiatives in providing housing, and I am pleased to note that the minister stated priority would be given to develop support programs in co-operation with non-profit housing. We can look forward to the provision of necessary support services while seniors continue to live in settings that understand their language and culture.

I would also like to recognize at this time the work and resources that volunteers in these organizations have put into these projects.

MICHAEL SMITH

Mr Miclash: I rise in my place today to praise the efforts of one of my constituents. Michael Smith, a student here in Toronto, hails from Kenora and, under the direction of coach Andy Higgins, has proven himself as one of the world's top athletes in the toughest track and field event, the decathlon.

Some of the members will remember when I introduced Michael here in the Legislature some two years ago. At that time he was recognized as an up and comer in the world of sports. Today he is ranked as one of the world's top three in this event.

The decathlon is a 10-event, two-day contest. In the first day, the events include the 100-metre run, the long jump, shot put, high jump and the 400-metre run. On the second day, it is the 110-metre hurdles, discus, pole vault, javelin and the 1,500-metre run.

This past Sunday, Michael became the first North American to win the decathlon championship in Austria when he scored 8,427 points in this event. This 23-year-old native of Kenora is beginning a historic trek to become the world's best. Over the summer he will continue to prepare for the world championships in Tokyo next September.

Even though he has yet to return home, might I ask the members of the House to join with me in congratulating this fine young athlete.

LAGOON CITY

Mr McLean: My statement is directed to the Minister of the Environment. I am pleased to see the Premier here, and I wish he would listen closely.

It has been brought to my attention by a large group of citizens in my riding of Simcoe East that this government, and the Minister of the Environment in particular, has steadfastly refused to listen to their concerns or even to acknowledge their existence. The situation concerns the development of Lagoon City, an urban resort town on the east shore of Lake Simcoe. A constituent who represents a cottage association has requested an environmental designation of the development under the auspices of the Environmental Assessment Act. This is his democratic right, and this party supports and encourages such participation in the public process.

However, this designation request represents only one point of view from my riding. There is a large and growing body of the community that understands the dramatic impact that an environmental designation of Lagoon City would have upon the social and economic fibre of Mara township.

A letter, dated 25 January 1991, was sent to the Minister of the Environment from the president of the local community association, representing nearly 4,000 residents. The minister refused to even acknowledge its correspondence. A follow-up letter, dated 24 May, was sent and so far there has been no acknowledgement. Since that time, copies of letters to the minister and the Premier have been pouring into my office. To date there has not been the slightest acknowledgement of the concerns of my constituents.

I want to say to the minister that they want to meet her and want to discuss this with her. I have sent a letter asking for that request. Will she acknowledge it and meet with these constituents?

PIGEON LAKE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSOCIATION

Mr Drainville: I would like to take this opportunity to comment on the significant accomplishments of the Pigeon Lake Environmental Association. This wonderful group of constituents has worked very hard and it has been in existence for only just a year. They have done a great deal to raise public and political awareness of important issues relating to the quality of the environment in their own community.

Pigeon Lake is part of the Trent-Severn waterway and is a major attraction for boaters and cottagers as well as those who make their permanent homes in the region. The Pigeon Lake Environmental Association has raised concerns about the quality of water, the adequacy of environmental safeguards and planning and development in the area and has made a major contribution to upgrading and restoring the shoreline. It was instrumental in arranging for 1,000 trees from the Kawartha Region Conservation Authority to be planted along the shore.

Another project of the association has been the effort to protect Boyd Island as park land and as a wildlife sanctuary. TVOntario will be airing a documentary on Pigeon Lake that was the result of another association effort.

As I have illustrated, this hardworking and ambitious group of environmental activists is having a strong and positive impact on the community and setting a laudable example for other community groups, not only in Victoria-Haliburton but throughout the province.

VISITORS

The Speaker: I invite all members to welcome to our assembly this afternoon a delegation from the Midwestern Legislative Conference of the United States, seated in the Speaker's gallery. It is headed by Representative Corliss Mushik of North Dakota, vice-chair of the MLC. He is accompanied by the Honourable Robert F. Griffin, Speaker of the Missouri House; Senator Bill Hutchins, majority leader of the Iowa Senate; and Senator Roger Moe, Minnesota majority leader. Would you please join me in welcoming our guests to the assembly.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Hon Mr Cooke: There are many individuals and organizations in our communities working for people who need safe, secure and affordable housing. We applaud the dedication of these groups, which we view as our partners, and recognize that they need resources to continue their good work.

That is why our government is committing $3.7 million this year to help them help themselves. I am pleased to announce a new, innovative program today called Partners in Housing. This program will mean continued support for community-based non-profit and co-operative housing groups as well as continued support for housing advocates striving to increase community acceptance of affordable housing. In addition, Partners in Housing will now expand this funding beyond the non-profit sector to groups that work on behalf of tenants living in private sector housing.

The grants will be allocated for a wide range of activities. For example, a tenant group might decide to operate a telephone information service that gives tenants the knowledge and direction they need to secure their rights. Funding may also be provided for conferences or workshops where people can share their ideas on how the rights of tenants can be enforced. Challenging discriminatory rental practices in the private and public sector is another worthwhile way community groups may use these grants.

I am pleased to say the $3.7 million in grant money is the most funding ever made available for these types of services. Partners in Housing will enable community groups and municipalities to continue working for affordable housing and partnership with our government. I believe this initiative is another example of our government's commitment to move towards greater social and economic equity for all. I am pleased that the government of Ontario is assisting these worthwhile efforts.

POLANYI AWARDS

Hon Mr Allen: University research in the sciences and in the humanities plays a vital role in helping to develop and sustain the province's social, economic and cultural wellbeing. Through university research, new and innovative ways of solving problems are found, opportunities are created and the human condition is enriched.

Five years ago, the research of one man at the University of Toronto gained worldwide acclaim. That man is Dr John Charles Polanyi. One reward for his dedicated research was the honour of being named co-recipient of the Nobel prize in chemistry.

In 1986, to commemorate Dr Polanyi's great achievement, the Ontario government established the John Charles Polanyi prizes. The Polanyi prizes recognize academic excellence and are awarded to students who are pursuing their post-doctoral studies at an Ontario university. The prizes are presented in the academic disciplines for which the Nobel prizes are awarded -- physics, chemistry, literature, physiology and medicine and economic science. Each award consists of a $15,000 cash prize.

Since the inception of the award, 17 exceptionally talented young men and women have been chosen to receive this prestigious prize. Today, it is my great pleasure to announce the selection of four more outstanding scholars who will be added to this list. They will have the distinction of being the recipients of the 1991 Polanyi prizes.

They are Dr Richard Burgess, of the department of classical studies at the University of Ottawa, who receives the prize in literature for his work in reinterpreting literary-historical texts of late Roman antiquity; Dr Warren Piers, of the department of chemistry and biochemistry at the University of Guelph, who receives the prize in chemistry for his work in organometallic chemistry; Dr Douglas Tweed, of the department of physiology and ophthalmology at the University of Western Ontario, who receives the prize in physiology and medicine for his contributions in mathematical modelling in the neurosciences; and Dr Lawrence Widrow, of the Canadian Institute for Theoretical Astrophysics at the University of Toronto, who receives the prize in physics for his work in cosmology.

I am sure all of my colleagues in the House will share with me in offering congratulations to these four very worthy recipients of the Polanyi prizes and in wishing each one of them continued success in their academic careers.

POLITICAL ACTIVITY BY POLICE OFFICERS

Hon Mr Farnan: I am pleased to inform this House that my ministry is releasing a discussion paper today called Political Activity Rights for Police Officers in Ontario. We hope that the input of interested parties and affected groups, through this discussion paper, will help us develop regulations that will best serve the needs of the police and the public.

Ultimately, the regulations we will develop with both public and police input will strike a balance between the rights of all Ontarians to receive the same high degree of impartial and politically neutral policing services they have come to expect and the rights of individual police officers as members of their communities.

The evolving roles of police officers in their communities are recognized by the provisions of the new Police Services Act. Its regulations support the premise that the police operate as part of their community, not apart from their community.

In conjunction with this, one of the key issues we will be examining will deal with political activity rights for police officers when they are off duty and out of uniform. Previous legislation did not address this issue of political activity for municipal police officers.

In the absence of legislated regulations on political activity for municipal police officers, some municipal police services developed policies on permissible political activities while others did not. This resulted in widely varying local practices with respect to political activity for municipal police officers across the province. New regulations will clarify and guarantee their political rights while ensuring province-wide consistency and fairness.

Political activity rights of all police officers in Ontario, municipal and OPP, will be addressed by our discussion paper. This is in keeping with our objective to develop, in parallel with the Human Resources Secretariat, a legislative framework that will apply fairly and equally across the province.

This consultative process will take place at the same time the Human Resources Secretariat examines political activity rights for crown employees. This will ensure consistency in our approach to these two situations. We will also consider the impact of the recent Supreme Court of Canada decision regarding political activity for federal public servants.

The role of police in Ontario is a special one. Their performance is an essential component in the quality of life we all enjoy in this province. That is why the tradition of politically neutral police service must be preserved and protected.

I invite all interested Ontarians to participate in this consultative process. This discussion paper is a public document and we welcome all written submissions to my ministry up until Friday 19 July 1991.

RESPONSES

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Ms Poole: We welcome today the announcement by the Minister of Housing that he is continuing the Liberal government programs regarding housing advocacy. However, I must say I am somewhat surprised that the minister is calling this a new initiative. It is a new name -- members should not get me wrong; we like the new name -- but it is definitely not a new initiative.

In fact, what the minister is announcing today is a continuation of three Liberal programs which have successfully helped tenants reach a level playing field and successfully helped to combat the not-in-my-backyard syndrome. We very much support those goals. We also very much support the increased funding the minister has announced today, but it is almost two full months since the government brought in its budget and daily we have been awaiting an announcement by the Minister of Housing on what he intends to do with building non-profit housing.

Now is the time to do it. The construction industry is in disarray. We could build non-profit housing for the most cost-efficient amount of dollars and yet the questions still beg to be asked. The minister has not told us whether the Homes Now program is on track. Is he going to be able to build the 30,000 units he has promised by the 30 September deadline? Is the minister going to be able to build the 10,000 units he promised this year? What are the answers? We are waiting to hear them.

POLANYI AWARDS

Mr Daigeler: I join the Minister of Colleges and Universities in congratulating the recipients of this year's Polanyi awards. It is always a great pleasure to see successful researchers in this province and to acknowledge with special recognition by the province their important work for future innovation in Canada.

I must say I was also pleasantly surprised that the new government is still supporting the idea of some financial reward for excellence in education. Perhaps the government has had a change of heart and mind. I hope the Minister of Education perhaps is going to follow that example with regard to the Ontario scholarships, because there too I think we need recognition for excellence, and excellence in education in particular.

I would like to say to the minister, though, that I was quite frankly expecting a very different announcement. If the minister would listen for a moment. The universities have been waiting for some two months now for the announcements with regard to capital construction. When is he coming forward with those announcements? We have two weeks left in this House and the universities are getting very nervous with regard to the intentions of the minister.

I would also like to say, surtout pendant cette semaine qui est très importante pour les francophones de cette province, qu'on s'attendait à l'annonce d'une installation permanente pour la Cité collégiale à Ottawa. On n'a encore rien entendu du ministre ; j'espère bien que, au cours des deux semaines qui nous restent, il y aura une annonce à cet égard.

POLITICAL ACTIVITY BY POLICE OFFICERS

Mr Curling: Any effort by the Solicitor General to do any kind of work is always welcome. I ran into the House today hoping he was going to bring about many of the regulations that are outstanding and save that for consultation. Therefore I welcome this part of it. I hope that he is consistent, that he will bring forward all the other regulations that are so long awaited and be open for discussion and for the public to see.

Yesterday I was a guest speaker at a recruiting of new police officers, and they spoke about the separation and the neutral aspect of keeping away from political interference in the justice system. I emphasize that. I hope the minister and his party can continue to exercise that type of strategy. We are very disappointed this is not the indication and this is not the intent of his party. We want real consultation. We hope that this time it is not a sham like what they have done in the past, that they have opened it up and not shut other people out from consultation.

We look forward to the other regulations that are so long awaited. I ask the minister: Where are these regulations? I know it is important that we have police officers participate in the political process in a very neutral way. What about the other regulations that are so important, of enforcement, of use of force by officers -- things that are awaited by the community? I am extremely disappointed. The minister is dragging himself slowly. We need the other regulations and we need the consultation to be real consultation.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Mr Turnbull: I am responding today to the announcement by the Minister of Housing. In his statement he says he is proud of the fact that it is the most money ever allocated.

It is quite obvious that this is the most confusing legislation that has come forward, that they are expecting they are going to need the most money and that there are going to be the most court challenges.

It seems unfortunate that the minister cannot grasp the fact that we have people in this province who are paying 40% and 50% of their gross household income in rent. Instead of addressing the core problem of those people being able to afford their rent, the government is tinkering away with the system and supporting groups which should not need funding. People should be able to have fair housing and affordable housing, but it will never happen under this government because it believes in blanket legislation which helps people who are paying an average of 17% of their gross family income instead of helping those most in need.

I ask the minister what quality criteria he is expecting to have and what the political affiliations of these advocates will be. This is the minister who has said he is allergic to landlords. I think he should be ashamed of himself and consider that we should have some equality in the system and have some fairness towards both tenants and landlords.

POLANYI AWARDS

Mrs Cunningham: It is not often that we have the opportunity to stand up in this House to speak in honour of one of Canada's Nobel prize winners such as Dr Polanyi from the University of Toronto, who won the prize in chemistry.

I will say also it is that person who is most upset with this country and this province, because of course we do not respect, honour or support the research and development necessary for Canada and Ontario to be competitive in the world. It is young people who are missing out.

Today we honour some of those young people who have chosen to stay in this province to do post-graduate research. We honour Dr Richard Burgess, Dr Warren Piers, Dr Douglas Tweed from the department of physiology and opthalmology at the University of Western Ontario -- a special one for myself -- and Dr Lawrence Widrow. We wish them the very best in their future studies.

We would also remind the minister that we have given him some specific advice on where he can move in order to support the research and development so necessary to the economics of this country.

We ask him to take a look at the WISE award for women in science and engineering. We ask him to take a look at the teacher training in this province. We ask him to take a look at skills development and apprenticeship programs that should be offered to our young people. Above all, we ask him to take a look at the reasons why young people are not as interested in science and mathematics as we would hope they would be. We share those views and our concerns with the Minister of Education.

POLITICAL ACTIVITY BY POLICE OFFICERS

Mr Carr: I am pleased to rise and talk about the statement by the Solicitor General. I too am pleased that we are going to be having some discussions on this issue.

One of the concerns I have, though, is that this process may end up like what happened during the standing committee on finance and economic affairs. The submissions were piled, as I said yesterday, as high as the Treasurer, and yet when the budget came out the government completely ignored them. Everything that was done was completely ignored. I hope that will not happen with this discussion paper.

I hope 30 days will be long enough to do it, because when we look at the activity of this government over the last little while, when the police forces across this province do get involved in political activity, it will certainly be against this government.

Everything the government has done has been against the police forces, from the oath to the Queen to the appointment of people like Susan Eng, who has been critical of the police in this province. What the police forces in this province will be looking forward to is for the first time consulting on some substantial issues where the government actually listens, not like in the finance and economics committee where the submissions are piled this high, all the submissions come in and then the government does what it wants anyway.

We want real consultation where the government listens to the people of this province. If it does that, we will be happy. We are going to be there following each step of the way to make sure it happens and to make sure the police in this province are representative of what is going to go on in the next period of time in this province.

POLANYI AWARDS

Mr Jackson: When the Minister of Colleges and Universities invokes the name of Professor Polanyi on behalf of the academic community in this province, we ask the government to reconsider the fact that it is sitting on $40 million of research money given to it by the federal government from the pharmaceutical manufacturers of Canada. That is $10 million for four universities, and the government puts it into general revenues.

Put it into research. That is what the professor would say if he were in the House.

CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST GUIDELINES

Mr Sorbara: Mr Speaker, I rise today on a matter which I believe to be both a point of order and a point of privilege in this House, and I want to bring it to your attention at this point.

If you will notice in the business of the day for today, the standing committee on administration of justice, of which I am a member, is to meet this afternoon to consider the Premier's conflict-of-interest guidelines.

That committee met yesterday as well, and at that meeting a motion was moved by a government member which I believe to be both a violation of my privileges as a member of this House and a violation of the standing orders.

Just as a matter of preface, I would remind you that the business of conflict of interest and the issues that have been raised in this House over the past several months have been central to what we have been debating here. Indeed, another couple of matters were raised on Thursday which had the Premier, in response to a question from my leader, say as follows:

"I have already made it clear what I hope will happen. The matter of the guidelines has been referred to a committee. It has been discussed in a committee. I have made it clear in answers on a number of occasions that I am looking forward to a report with respect to the general question of guidelines and conflict-of-interest law."

Earlier in the day he had said, "I have asked for the advice of the standing committee on administration of justice."

The Premier himself testified before that committee, and since that time we have not yet had an opportunity to review the guidelines clause by clause. We have not yet had an opportunity to review the very letter the Premier sent before the committee as evidence. We have not yet had an opportunity to review the recommendations submitted to the committee by Mr Justice Gregory Evans, who is the Conflict of Interest Commissioner, and we have not yet had an opportunity to consider alternatives to the guidelines.

Seemingly the direction that we would like to take is the very direction that the Premier has asked us to take. Nevertheless, yesterday during the deliberations of the committee, a motion was moved that is without precedence in this House and the committees of this House. The motion was in the following terms: That the committee vote today -- that would be yesterday -- on recommendations for the report, which was the first point; that the draft final report be drafted and sent out by Thursday of this week, which was the second point; and that the report be finalized and dissenting reports be due on Monday 24 June. That is next Monday.

Mr Speaker, I refer you to

section 128 of our standing orders.

Section 128(

c) reads as follows: "Every member shall be permitted to indicate in a report that he or she dissents from a particular recommendation or comment within the report. The committee shall permit a member to express the reasons for such dissent within its report."

That provision is the basis upon which each of us as a member of a committee has a right to consider a report and in due course submit a dissenting opinion. My privileges as a member of that committee are being constrained and eliminated by virtue of the fact that the government, we believe, intends to move today a motion which would require the Liberal and Conservative members of the committee to submit a dissenting report by next Monday.

I would submit that a requirement and a deadline for dissenting reports is a violation of the provisions of

section 128(c), that it is out of order and inappropriate to be moved, and that an attempt by the government to close off discussions on the conflict-of-interest guidelines in order to not permit us to fully examine the guidelines and the situations that have given rise to allegations of conflicts in the committee is in direct contradiction to what the Premier said he wanted from that committee. It is in contradiction to what we as members of this Legislature have a right to do as members of the committee, to the standing orders which govern our responsibilities and duties as members of that committee, and to my privileges as a member.

This Parliament has been plagued with allegations of conflicts of interest since it began several months ago. Now we have a set of guidelines to consider the regulation of those conflicts. The government members, seemingly at the direction of the Premier, seem to want to close off discussion on the very matters that have been so embarrassing to this government.

I ask you, Mr Speaker, for two things. I ask you for a direction and a ruling that a motion of that sort is out of order because it violates

section 128(

c) of the standing orders. I ask you as well for a ruling that an attempt by the government members to close down discussion of the conflict-of-interest guidelines, as they are doing by way of the motion they moved yesterday, is a violation of the privileges of the members of that committee.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Just a moment. Would the members take their seat, please.

Interjection.

The Speaker: If the member for St George-St David would just relax, before entertaining any other submissions which members may have, I tell you quite candidly that it is very helpful if the Speaker is able to hear the matters which are brought to his attention. It was quite difficult through part of the submission by the member for York Centre to hear what he was saying. If there is additional information which members wish to draw to my attention related to this matter, I would be pleased to hear it.

Mr Harnick: I can tell you, Mr Speaker, that I was in the committee yesterday. My friend the member for York Centre was not.

[Applause]

Mr Harnick: Is the clapping finished now?

Everything he says is factually accurate. Mr Speaker, I can tell you --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The member for Willowdale has additional information.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I realize there is a concerted effort to be pleasant by all members. Right now, the one member I wish to hear from is the member for Willowdale and no other.

Mr Harnick: I can tell members that the standing committee on administration of justice has been mandated to review the conflict-of-interest guidelines. The conflict-of-interest guidelines have been regurgitated back in the exact form they were given in a preliminary report.

There has been no clause-by-clause review of those guidelines. While we disagree philosophically whether they should be part of legislation or remain guidelines, we have never reviewed the guidelines on a clause-by-clause basis and we have never reviewed the letter of the Premier that was tabled with the committee. We have never so much as looked for a moment into the Members' Conflict of Interest Act. We have never looked at the amendments to the conflict of interest act recommended by the Conflict of Interest Commissioner, who attended on two occasions as a witness. All of that work remains to be done.

With that in mind, yesterday we were faced with a motion. The gist of the motion was that at yesterday's session we were to complete a review of the guidelines merely reciting the evidence of witnesses who appeared and recommending acceptance of the various sections holus-bolus without any further consideration into the real crux of the matter. We were told that had to be done by yesterday and that the opportunity for the opposition parties to prepare a dissenting opinion would be limited.

We would have the opportunity of seeing the majority report on 24 June, and we would have two days after that time to prepare a minority report, because we were advised yesterday that the report would be tabled with this Legislature on the 26th or 27th.

There was no advance warning that the motion would be brought. Clearly it is an abuse of the privileges of the opposition parties. I suspect it is not an abuse of the privileges of the government because most of the members sitting on that committee have no idea what is going on with this anyway. They have absolutely no understanding of what it contains. They have a mandate --

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Harnick: Well, I will be fair. To be perfectly fair, their mandate is to finish this off as quickly as possible and not make any recommendations with respect to these guidelines.

I remind members we are not dealing with legislation. We are dealing with guidelines. We have been mandated to review those guidelines and to comment.

Mr Scott: We want to hear Evelyn.

Mr Harnick: The member will hear the member for Ottawa Centre.

The opposition parties want to review these guidelines. We want to prepare minority reports. We are being precluded from the proper opportunity to do that by the time constraints that have now been imposed upon us. Our privileges as members clearly have been abused.

The Speaker: Your avid interest is duly noted.

Ms Gigantes: Mr Speaker, on the point of order, I became a member of the justice committee, which was seized of the matter of the Premier's conflict-of-interest guidelines some three to four weeks ago. At that stage the committee had proceeded so far in its work, having heard testimony from many witnesses, including the commissioner, the Premier and several members of cabinet, that it had reached the point of having a draft report.

When the Speaker considers this motion, I hope he will look back over the proceedings of the committee -- those many, many weeks of its work -- and I will also ask him to draw note in his own mind to the fact that the member from York Centre suggested to us that having dealt with the matter of divestment, which was the preoccupation of members of the opposition, we should now simply go ahead, finish dealing with the draft report and members opposite would be pleased to write dissenting reports.

What seems to be in contention is the number of days when, having completed a draft report in terms of committee work, they would have time to prepare a dissenting report. I suggest that under the rules of order within committee, if they find four or five days too little time to express their dissent from the report, perhaps they would like to amend the motion and we could proceed with the business in the committee.

Mr Bisson: That would be an excellent idea.

The Speaker: No. I have heard the point and I would appreciate members' attention for a moment.

First of all, I appreciate that --

Interjections.

The Speaker: I would appreciate the attention of all members, including the member for St George-St David. We are all happy that you are here.

I appreciate the fact that the member for York Centre raised this point outside of question period. The member may know that committees are to direct their own business. This matter quite properly should be brought to the attention of the committee concerned. The House can deal with matters brought to committees if the committees then bring a report on the procedural matter raised to the House. At that point the Speaker has a better opportunity to deal with the concerns raised. For the Speaker to do otherwise would be interfering in the work of committees, and that is not something you would want.

Hon Mr Cooke: Mr Speaker, a point of order --

The Speaker: I have dealt with this point of order. Is there another one?

Hon Mr Cooke: It is a question.

The Speaker: A question? No. Would the member take his seat. I have dealt with this matter. Is it another matter?

Hon Mr Cooke: We have dealt for 20 minutes with something that was not even supposed to be raised in the House. I would like to know how you as Speaker are going to take control of this place so that we are dealing with matters that are supposed to be dealt with in the House, and things that for committee are dealt with in committee. We just wasted 20 minutes.

The Speaker: To the Minister of Housing, let --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I am painfully aware of the amount of time that is utilized on occasion. At the same time, members get very upset if the Speaker does not listen to their considered point of order.

Now, if we can move on with the business of the House, it is question period time.

Mr Elston: Mr Speaker, is it your will that we bring the government down today after that last challenge, or will we let it struggle for a little bit longer?

The Speaker: I would prefer a question placed.

ORAL QUESTIONS

YOUTH EMPLOYMENT

Mr Elston: I have a question for the Premier. It is related to the Metro youth task force report released yesterday. It paints a very bleak picture of alienation, violence and crime and shows a situation where young people feel there is no stake for them in their community or that the community does not care for them. While we might remark for a moment that the budget makes no mention at all of youth unemployment, I would like to indicate that the number of youths unemployed in this province has risen by some 31,000 in May over April 1991 to the staggering figure of 165,000. I want the Premier to tell us how many jobs his government has created for young people in Ontario under his budget.

Hon Mr Rae: The member may have a different view, but I think the public out there understands that because of the position we have taken as a government in terms of fighting the recession, there is more employment in the economy today than there would have been under any other government and under other circumstances followed by other parties. There is no question about that.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Rae: I was interested in the comments the other day by Professor Galbraith, born in Elgin county and now the dean of the economics profession in the United States, who said this was the only government in North America that had chosen to fight the recession instead of slashing programs. We have increased programs for employment. We have set up the most major anti-recession package anywhere in North America and anywhere in Canada and we believe we have created more opportunities than there would have been under other governments and under other economic strategies suggested to us by the opposition and the federal government in Ottawa.

The situation is difficult; no one is happy with it at the moment, but as a government we are doing everything we can to fight unemployment and that is precisely the decision we made. Frankly, that is why we have a deficit. That is also why we have chosen not to fight this deficit on the backs of working families across the province.

Mr Elston: The Premier makes an interesting speech, but he does not get to the issue at hand. This year we have an increase of some 60% over last year's unemployment figures for youth in this province. We have 16.4% unemployment among young people. When that man stands here and says the government has increased programs, I read the following: 650 fewer students are being hired under the Environmental Youth Corps; 800 fewer students are being hired under the summer Experience programs; and 100 fewer people are being hired through the Junior Ranger program.

When he talks about not cutting back, those are the real-life figures; those are the real-life cutbacks this government has foisted upon young people in this province.

I want to let the people know that the Premier is absolutely and utterly wrong when he talks about not cutting programs. He has done it at a time when he has taken away the $100 from the Ontario scholars and decided to give more money to all the powerful groups in Ontario. I ask this Premier why he shows so little interest and concern for the young people of this province who feel a new alienation, a lack of confidence in the community, a lack in the institutions and in that sense also in the New Democratic Party of this province. How can he not begin to move to increase the support for youth employment in this province?

Hon Mr Rae: I look forward to hearing the suggestions from the Liberal Party, but every time I hear a suggestion from a Liberal, I get it two ways: I get the Liberal here saying "Spend more and create more programs," and a Liberal over there saying: "Why is your deficit so high? Your deficit is too high." The Liberal Party has to make up its mind. Having contributed directly to the most serious recession we have faced since the 1930s, they now turn around and say, "Why aren't you spending more money?" Sometimes it is a little hard to take when we hear it from the Liberal Party.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Elston: Here we have Peek-a-boo Bob at his best. He should run and hide. He does not want to face up to the problem his government has created. He has cut back on some 1,550 jobs for young people that would have been in place last year. At a time when recession has taken its toll, he has decided to increase tuition fees in universities by some 8%. He has decided to remove $100 from the Ontario scholars who would attend the university setting. He has done all that and then he took money and put it in the places where the powerful groups have directed him to put it. He has taken it from those people who are the very basis of our future growth and expansion in this province.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Elston: The plan of the New Democratic Party is to barrack so that we cannot ask our questions. While I can understand that they are afraid to hear the truth in this place, there are people who are alienated in a manner in which they have never been alienated before, and they must take care of the needs of our province.

The Speaker: And the interrogative part?

Interjections.

Mr Elston: Can I ask my question?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I am fully aware of what day of the week this is. All three groups have had their meetings this morning, everybody is excited, but I have to be able to hear the question and the response. Would the member for Bruce succinctly place his final supplementary.

Mr Elston: While there was no mention of assistance for the unemployed youth in the budget, and while the Premier has indicated he has had some kind of strategic scheme at hand to deal with unemployment problems, the most famous relation I have seen of strategic schemes is a general who described a strategic scheme to determine what a retreat really was.

The Speaker: And your supplementary?

Mr Elston: This man has retreated from his responsibilities. I want the Premier to tell us -- not to avoid the question, but to tell us -- what he is going to do about fulfilling the mandate of creating jobs for the young people of this province.

Hon Mr Rae: I think I have already answered that question, but what I would say to the member who just asked it is that I think what people are alienated from is politicians who speak out of both sides of their mouths, and that is what we have heard today from the Liberal Party of Ontario.

The Speaker: New question, the member for Mississauga North.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Stop the clock, please. If it would be helpful for members to have a break for a few minutes in order to restore a commonsense approach to asking and responding to questions, then that certainly would be in order. I do not believe we can continue to conduct our business the way we have for the last little while today.

Interjections.

The Speaker: I think the members of this assembly are going to have to conduct things in a more orderly way. Otherwise, we cannot do the public business the way it deserves to be dealt with. If members will come to order, we will hear the member for Mississauga North with his question.

Mr Offer: As the Premier said, if there is increasing alienation caused by politicians speaking out of both sides of their mouths, then in the last while the Premier has become the king of that.

LABOUR RELATIONS

Mr Offer: My question is to the Minister of Labour. The minister will know that the labour community is asking why he backed down on Bill 70 and what that means for his proposed late changes to the Ontario Labour Relations Act. In fact, it was just six days after I brought, in my speech to this Legislature, the need for change to Bill 70, four changes together with the need for public consultation, that those changes were announced. But according to labour leaders, they were announced without any meaningful consultation. They in fact just dropped out of the sky as far as they were concerned.

The minister said that the original Bill 70 went through cabinet like a buzz-saw, but I think we see today a few toothmarks on his shelf where that buzz-saw seems to have gone right over him. Labour is starting to ask the question, is the minister an advocate for its cause or is he merely a backslider in terms of the proposed changes to the Labour Relations Act?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I think the member has asked a fair question, but I would like to correct his chronological order of things, if I could. Before he asked those questions about whether we were listening or prepared to change Bill 70, I had already responded at least twice, once almost a week earlier, to the critic from the Conservative Party that we were taking a look at those questions that were being raised.

Mr Offer: I thank the minister for that very informative answer. We have to ask, what happened to the labour leaders when the minister announced the changes as to what is happening to the job creating sector with the proposed changes to the province's labour laws? No consultation took place; there was no advance warning, no opportunity for any input whatsoever. In fact, look at the newspaper headlines today: The Toronto Star reports, "NDP Accused of Frightening Business Off." The Globe and Mail talks about "'Unfriendly' Air Scaring Investors." The Toronto Sun reports, "NDP Not 'Listening' to Business."

Why can the minister not commit today to broadly based public consultations and hearings on those very important matters which have been brought forward through the Ontario Labour Relations Act consultation document? Why can he not commit today to broadly based consultation before legislation is introduced this fall?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I want to tell the member, to continue with the first part of his question first, what we did in Bill 70 was simply listen to the concerns that were being raised out there in the community and respond to those concerns. I want to tell him also, as I think he already knows, that we have gone through only the first preliminary stage in terms of looking at Ontario Labour Relations Act amendments that are needed, but we will certainly be going through several stages further on that and we will be consulting with all of the parties involved before that legislation hits this House.

Mr Offer: The minister's words today do not follow through with what the actions are. There are business associations across this province that are very concerned with his action. They are saying that there is no real consultation, that they have not been brought into the consultation process, that they are effectively being shut out of very important proposals being brought forward with respect to the Ontario Labour Relations Act.

Every single bill that the minister introduced in opposition related to the Labour Relations Act is embodied in these 30 proposals. No less than 10 NDP policy resolutions, passed at its last convention, called for measures embodied in the 30 proposals. Access to employer property, contracting out, use of replacement workers, employer involvement in union certification -- this is the minister's particular personal agenda.

Business is saying that it has not been brought into the consultation process, that the consultation process has not been long enough, or wide enough and that the minister has clearly indicated that there is not going to be any further consultation prior to the introduction of legislation. Will he ensure today that those channels of consultation, of discussion with all people in this province, are wide enough and broad enough before introducing the legislation, or is he going to continue to follow the route he has taken with respect to Bill 70 by bringing in legislation and then rapidly backtracking? Which is it?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I think the member simply knows that once again his outline of the events is not quite accurate. We have had one round of consultations at which both management and labour were asked to submit their views of the OLRB. That has been done. They have both had that opportunity. We have absolutely no legislation drafted as yet. That was the first round of it. We will be taking it the next steps, and we have consulted with the parties already. We will be consulting with them in future.

NATIVE HUNTING AND FISHING

Mr Harris: I have another question for the Premier about his government's relationship with the justice system. Last week, a justice of the peace in Owen Sound adjourned charges against seven non-natives for fishing without a licence, citing, and I quote from the justice of the peace, "blatant discrimination on the part of the Ministry of Natural Resources." Justice of the Peace Ross Forgrave says that with regard to the treatment of natives and non-natives, when laying fish and game charges, "Obviously, there is a double standard."

This decision, if used as a precedent, means that none of the fish and game laws are enforceable against anybody for anything in our province. I would like to ask the Premier how he intends to respond to this serious legal precedent involving fish and game infractions in our province.

Hon Mr Rae: I am going to refer that question to the Minister of Natural Resources.

Mr Scott: Refer it to the Attorney General. He's the one who writes letters.

Hon Mr Wildman: I am sure the House will understand that I cannot comment specifically on the particular issue raised.

Mr Scott: Well, write him a letter.

Hon Mr Wildman: However, this is a very important issue and not one about which one should be facetious.

Mr Scott: I'm having a good time today.

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

Hon Mr Wildman: I do intend to deal with this question, because it is a very important one which deals with the justice system, with the management of the fish and game in this province and with racial issues.

This House is aware that there is an interim enforcement policy in effect. I have explained to the House very clearly how that policy works, and the leader of the third party knows what has been reported to the House in that regard. I will not repeat it.

The fact is that the comments made by the justice of the peace involved are being considered and we will respond in due course. I cannot deal with them right now, but it is incorrect to say that there is no enforcement. In fact, this House knows full well how these laws and regulations are being enforced.

Mr Harris: No one questions the right of natives to fish or hunt for food for community use. I have not heard that. What Justice of the Peace Ross Forgrave has cited is an apparent announcement by the Owen Sound MNR office that it recognizes the right of the Cape Croker reserve, and I am quoting from a front page

article in the local newspaper, "to carry on commercial fishing without a licence and without any quota." It further states, "MNR has allowed the sale of native catch off-reserve, without a commercial licence or quota, in violation of the federal Fisheries Act and in violation of the Ontario Game and Fish Act, in order not to jeopardize negotiations with the natives."

We are not talking about personal consumption. We are talking about the illegal sale of tons of fish for commercial purposes. I would ask the minister, does he not understand the difference between his duty to respect legitimate native rights, as opposed to his duty to uphold laws in support of responsible resource management?

Hon Mr Wildman: There is no contradiction; the two are complementary. The point is that the interim enforcement policy announced in this House deals with the constitutional recognition of aboriginal rights to hunt and fish for food and for personal consumption, as the leader of the third party has indicated, but it also deals with those aboriginal communities that have a tradition of commercial activity that is integral to their way of life. It also points to the need to develop and negotiate agreements with those communities to ensure that there are proper rules so that the conservation of the resource is protected.

As the member knows, we are currently involved in negotiations with Cape Croker and we are very close to an agreement which will indeed control the commercial activity there. In the meantime, we are recognizing that the community is continuing to carry on the type of fishing it has done in the past.

Mr Harris: It is precisely because they are following the minister's policy that we are in trouble, because his policy has no foundation or basis in law. What we have here is political interference in the judicial process by the NDP government. The minister has not changed the law, which is within his power to do; he now is directing officers of the justice system to apply the law unequally. Decisions about who is charged and what is prosecuted are now being made by politicians and bureaucrats instead of the appropriate enforcement officials, who now find themselves in limbo.

The justice of the peace says it is discrimination and he will not take any decisions until he receives some direction. The conservation officer who laid the charges says he will not talk because, in his words, he is afraid of losing his job. The crown attorney, Brian Farmer, says: "I have requested confirmation from the regional crown attorney's office as to whether or not there are specific category persons who are to be dealt with differently. As of yet, I have not had an answer."

Does the minister really believe this is the proper way to be running our courts and enforcing our laws here in Ontario?

Hon Mr Wildman: That was a very long question. I will attempt to deal with each point as it was raised.

First, I categorically reject the view that this government is in any way improperly, directly or indirectly, interfering in the judicial system in this province. It is most unfortunate that these kinds of allegations are thrown around so easily in this House.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Wildman: In regard to the other issues raised by the member, the question of whether there is interference is quite clear. Since 1986 in this province questions of investigations related to possible commercialization of the harvest of fish by aboriginal people have had a process which has been followed and continues to be followed in this government. That process involves a conservation officer who is carrying out his duty contacting the deputy minister and the senior staff to authorize special investigations with regard to commercialization.

When those commercial investigations are authorized and conservation officers, carrying out those investigations and having gathered the evidence, believe charges should be laid, they again refer the evidence and the proposed charges to the deputy minister and the senior staff at the Ministry of Natural Resources for consideration, at which time the deputy minister will authorize the proceeding with charges or not.

The interim enforcement policy I announced in the House indicated clearly that at any time in this process the Attorney General could intervene to determine whether charges can be laid. There is no interference. The policy has not changed. We are continuing to enforce the regulations, keeping in mind treaty and aboriginal rights, which are guaranteed in the Constitution of this country.

Mr Harris: The minister seems to be the only one who believes that. The justice of the peace clearly believes there is discrimination and, on the basis of that, there is no way he can proceed with charges against anybody in this province, native or non-native.

TAX INCREASES

Mr Harris: My second question is to the Treasurer. On 16 May the Treasurer met behind closed doors with Bob White and the auto manufacturers and agreed to rethink his gas guzzler tax. Since the gas guzzler tax is scheduled to come into effect in less than two weeks, will the Treasurer tell us today the fate of that tax? Has he changed his mind? What exactly is going to happen? The automobile manufacturers, the auto retailers, the potential purchasers, the Canadian Auto Workers would like to know.

Hon Mr Laughren: I appreciate the question. I just want to correct the impression the leader of the third party had, because I distinctly recall the door was open and nobody stumbled in to listen to our conversation, but it was not because the door was closed.

Since that time, a number of meetings have been held with the Treasury people, the representatives of the Canadian Auto Workers union, the Big Three automobile producers, the dealers and the environmental movement, because the member would know and support, I am sure, the fact that there was an environmental component to the gas guzzler tax.

Since that time, there have been a number of meetings which I think have been very positive, and at the appropriate time I hope to be able to make some kind of announcement. But I hasten to add that at this point we have nothing to announce on a change in the tax.

Mr Harris: The Treasurer will understand the uncertainty that exists right now. Is there going to be $1,200 on this vehicle two weeks from now or not? And delivery dates; surely the Treasurer indicated, I thought with good intent, that he was prepared to meet and consider whether this tax should go ahead. Aside from the fact that he would not do that when I raised it or when the automobile industry raised it, but when Bob White joined my campaign against this budget -- and I expect to see Bob White out on the front lawn at Queen's Park on the 27th as part of that fight -- then at least the Treasurer did meet.

The Motor Vehicle Manufacturers' Association and the Canadian Auto Workers both agree, they are united, that if the Treasurer's tax proceeds as he proposed there will be sales losses and job losses. Ken Harrigan, chairman of Ford, has confirmed jobs will be lost in St Thomas and Windsor. We know jobs will be lost in St Catharines as well.

Will the Treasurer not tell us, since this tax is coming in two weeks from now, if the Canadian Auto Workers, who may well be out in force on the front lawn in two weeks as they join the battle against this budget, can expect some good news from the Treasurer, and can they expect it shortly so we get rid of this confusion out there in the automobile industry?

Hon Mr Laughren: I want to make a couple of points. One is that I was not going to call in Bob White and talk to him until the leader of the third party insisted I do so. Second, I can tell the leader of the third party that my good friend George Peapples and Ken Harrigan and others from the manufacturers' industry have already expressed some degree of satisfaction with the consultative process. I just wanted to reassure the leader of the third party that in my opinion, despite some of the things you might read in the paper, I believe there has never been a government in this province that has consulted as much with the business community as this government has.

Mr Harris: It is me and my pal Bob White who are concerned here. We are concerned about Canadian Auto Workers' jobs in this province. The signal the Treasurer is sending out is that we are going to get some good news next week. I am sorry he could not announce that to us today.

Next 1 January there are scheduled 1.7-cent-a-litre gas tax increases to go into effect, gas and fuel taxes. Now that the Treasurer has agreed to reconsider the gas guzzler tax, I would like to ask him if he would agree, and if we can expect him to come to some consensus with all the border communities concerned about the hike in gas tax -- they say it is the main reason it drives people across the border in the first place -- with the truckers, the unionized workers in the trucking industry, the tourism industry, all of those concerned about the cost of living and the transport of goods around this province, and reconsider the 1.7-cent gas tax hike next 1 January?

Hon Mr Laughren: No. The issue of cross-border shopping is much more complex than the leader of the third party would lead us to believe. We did look at the whole question. Before the budget, when I was looking at the question of gas prices in northern Ontario, for example, I did think about the question of gas prices in the border communities. When I looked very carefully at the pricing of gas across Ontario, it became very difficult to come to grips with the whole problem of differential gas prices across the province, because in some cases the price is higher in southern or eastern Ontario than it is in northern Ontario.

On the question of gasoline as a cross-border shopping issue, I think the member would agree that is not the main reason people cross the border to shop. Also, the 1.7-cent increase would not in itself drive people across the border to shop. I personally think there is a bigger reason for cross-border shopping. There are several big reasons for cross-border shopping; one is the value of the Canadian dollar. Second, I do not believe setting up express lanes, which Otto Jelinek seems to want to do, is in any way the answer either.

Mr Bradley: I want to pursue the matter with the Treasurer of this tax on auto workers in Ontario. The Treasurer has given some hints that he might be considering moving from his original ill-conceived position, the one which was going to be so difficult for those who work in the automotive industry in Ontario, the one which brought labour and management together, and I give him credit for bringing labour and management together on this particular occasion.

Does the Treasurer now understand after consulting, as he says, with so many groups in our society, particularly those in the automotive industry, that with his ill-conceived tax -- whoever hatched it in the government -- the effect on the automotive industry was far greater than he anticipated, because it deals not only with those who assemble vehicles in Ontario but also with those who make parts in Ontario? Does he now understand that in the midst of the deepest recession since the 1930s, with unprecedented competition from offshore and the United States, the tax was ill-conceived, and is he now prepared to withdraw it?

Hon Mr Laughren: I think the former Environment minister should be fairer in his categorization of the tax. Any tax that concentrates on the preservation of non-renewable fuel and on the protection of the environment is not by nature an ill-conceived tax. I would have thought the former Minister of the Environment would also acknowledge the fact that not only were the manufacturers and the auto workers' union called in, but the environmentalists as well. I know that was a regretful case of just overlooking an important group out there in society by the member for St Catharines.

Just because we set up a working group that takes a look at a tax to see if there is a way of fine-tuning it, I do not think that means the original proposal was ill-conceived at all. It is an unfair categorization by the member.

Mr Bradley: This is one case where I would be praising the member for Nickel Belt, the Treasurer, for retreating, and I would not be accusing him of retreating in this case, because I think it would be a good move to withdraw it.

Does the Treasurer not agree with me now, having listened to the environmental groups who had to kick the door in to get into his office because they were not initially consulted, that the best way to achieve good health in the automotive industry at the same time as the environmental goals that are set -- that is, of providing vehicles that have better fuel efficiency and better emissions -- is in fact to provide incentives for people to purchase new vehicles in the province of Ontario, which will have the better fuel standards and better emissions?

Hon Mr Laughren: I have been a partisan politician around here for some time, but I do regret the way in which the member puts his question, that as soon as we consult, as soon as we talk to the major players or stakeholders on an issue, suddenly it is a retreat or it was ill-conceived in the first instance. Now would the member make up his mind? Does he want this government to consult or does he not?

I keep hearing from members opposite that we should be doing more consultation. As soon as we sit down and consult, they tell us we are retreating or we are considering an ill-conceived tax. I think there is no question that we are determined to have concern for the environment and conservation as one of the hallmarks of this government, and we will never retreat from that principle.

BIOMEDICAL WASTE DISPOSAL

Mr Cousens: I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. Earlier this year during estimates I had a chance to raise the whole question about biomedical waste and the concern we have with some 16,000 tons of biomedical waste, which is human body parts, blood, needles, syringes, swabs and bandages. When I asked the minister about these concerns her answer was, "I am satisfied that the enforcement and operation of the regulations administered by my ministry are designed to protect the public and to protect the environment and that, if followed, will do that."

The presence of needles in Metropolitan Toronto's beaches from drug addicts and diabetics raises a much larger issue of pathological waste. Can the minister assure this House that the guidelines she talked about back in February in estimates are now being followed to the fullest extent possible?

Hon Mrs Grier: Obviously, they are not being followed by people who dispose of syringes and needles in parks and in public places. That is certainly a very serious issue and I share the concern of the member that it is inappropriate. I quite frankly am not sure that no matter what our guidelines said or how they were administered we could in fact overcome that particular issue. There has to be a strategy of the whole question of drug abuse, and I know my colleague is dealing with that.

On the question of biomedical waste generally, as I indicated in estimates, there are guidelines and there are policies within my ministry that are being reviewed since I was sworn in in October. We are working co-operatively with the Ministry of Health and I think there is a great deal that needs to be done before we have in place an overall and comprehensive system of dealing with biomedical waste in this province.

Mr Cousens: I appreciate the direction the minister is trying to take in her answer, because the whole question of biomedical waste does raise a number of serious questions and is a matter of concern to the public at large. Syringes and medical waste are a threat to life and are obviously not being handled in an environmentally sound fashion, but the monitoring systems for biohazardous waste are very much in question.

I have three questions. Can the minister assure the House that untreated blood is not going into the sewer systems? Can she assure the House that all biomedical waste from doctors' offices and labs and hospitals is being incinerated at facilities that meet Ontario's toughest environmental safety standards? Will she assure this House that all of Ontario's biohazardous wastes will be safely eliminated in Ontario and never exported outside of it?

Hon Mrs Grier: I think I see the direction in which the member's question is taking him, and that of course is the issue of the export of biomedical waste from the province of Ontario.

When I took office I found that 60% of the biomedical waste in this province was in fact being sent to jurisdictions beyond the province. I have been working co-operatively with the Ministry of Health to see how best we can establish across this province an infrastructure to deal with this problem, something that has been lacking in the past, that I think is long overdue for resolution, and that I am very happy to tell the member is going to be resolved in co-operation with other ministries.

JOB SECURITY

Mr Waters: My question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. The minister will be aware of the concern that many employees of some of the larger institutions serving developmentally disabled people are facing about the security of their jobs. They are afraid that with the movement of persons with developmental handicaps to smaller community-based placements they will not receive adequate notice as to the continuation of their employment. Can the minister tell me and all concerned members what she is doing about this concern?

Hon Ms Akande: Since we have taken office we have set up a committee and a process whereby we would be developing procedures with the workers, with members of the union and with staff to help move the patients from the larger facilities into the smaller centres. The purpose of the process is so that the workers, the unions and the staff would all be aware of the time lines and would be better able to prepare for the eventuality where they may in fact want to change their place of employment.

Mr Waters: I thank the minister for her answer and appreciate her commitment to the long-term needs of these workers. Can the minister tell me what she is doing in the short term to address the immediate concerns of these workers?

Hon Ms Akande: We have used a consultant from out of province to meet with some of the workers and with many of the people from the unions as well as the staff and to initiate the consultation process. They have not only been involved in designing the process but they are also establishing the time lines by which it may be completed. So they are assured that in fact the decision will not be made arbitrarily.

GLOBAL WARMING

Mr McGuinty: My question is for the Minister of Energy. I want to remind the minister of two specific commitments made by her party relating to the problems of global warming and ozone depletion.

The first commitment is contained in the party paper entitled Greening the Party, Greening the Province. That policy was adopted in June 1990. "Ontario should adopt a 20% carbon emission reduction target (from 1988 levels) for the year 2005, with the ultimate aim of achieving a 50% reduction."

The second commitment is contained in a letter dated 14 August 1990. It was from the then Leader of the Opposition, the member for York South, to Gord Perks of Greenpeace and four other environmental groups. "The NDP supports an immediate ban on CFCs and flexible furniture foam and rigid foam insulation, with a complete ban by 1995 of all ozone destroying CFCs, methylchloroform, halon and carbon tetrachloride."

Does the minister still expect to meet these promised targets and time frames?

Hon Ms Carter: We have not at this point set a definite target for reduction of global warming gases, but Ontario is determined to take a leadership role in reducing emissions of these gases. It is far more effective to take action without expressing a target than it is to have a target and not take action.

On 14 June, that was last Friday, the Minister of Energy met with 150 representatives of labour, industry, environmental and consumer groups on a proposed energy strategy. These stakeholders supported the government's effort to move ahead on energy efficiency. Some of the measures -- tough measures -- we are taking to combat global warming are strong controls on the emission of CFCs, policy direction to Ontario Hydro to spend more on energy efficiency, a $5-billion commitment to improve public transit, our government's commitment to the 3Rs, reducing energy use in government buildings --

The Speaker: Could the minister conclude her remarks please.

Hon Ms Carter: -- a 75% increase in Ministry of Energy program funding and sustainable forestry. All these efforts show the government's ongoing commitment to move ahead with measures that will benefit Ontario's economy and environment.

Mr McGuinty: I say with respect to the minister that the initiatives she has just outlined hardly represent a thoughtful, methodical and comprehensive approach to the problems of global warming and ozone depletion. The only way we are going to get a handle on those kinds of problems is through that kind of approach and that has yet to be taken by this government.

I want to make reference now to an

article that appeared in today's Globe and Mail. That

article states three things in particular. First, it says the Ministry of Energy and the Ministry of the Environment commissioned a special report entitled Degrees of Change: Steps Towards an Ontario Global Warming Strategy; second, it says that report contains recommendations for reducing greenhouse gases; third, it says the cabinet has shelved the recommendations contained in that report. I would ask the minister, which of these three statements, if any, are not true?

Hon Ms Carter: I do not think it would be appropriate for me to discuss the details of cabinet decisions in the House. However, I would like to repeat what I said in answer to the last question, that the efforts we are making in this province towards energy efficiency are efforts that will have the consequence of reducing global warming. The reality of these efforts puts us in the lead in North America in the attempt to reduce greenhouse gases.

HOCKEY FRANCHISE

Mr Sterling: I would like to ask the Minister of Agriculture and Food about the Ottawa Senators. Hockey teams have supporters from all political persuasions -- they have right wingers who support them and they have left wingers who support them and they have farmers who support them. The local farmers in the areas support the building of the Palladium in the city of Kanata.

I want to ask the Minister of Agriculture and Food about the town of Seaton in North Pickering. There are 7,000 acres of prime agricultural land zoned for residential development, industrial development, commercial development, ready to go, for the roads to be put in, the sewers to be put in, etc. Therefore, there would not be an OMB hearing with regard to the official plan amendment and therefore the minister would not have the opportunity to interject his thoughts at that stage.

Save and except for this one special place in Ontario, there is the matter that the minister owns all 7,000 acres. Is he willing to kill the town of Seaton to show his upholding of the need for preservation of agricultural land here in Ontario?

Hon Mr Buchanan: My job as minister from the time I took over on 1 October is to look forward, not backward, on what has happened in terms of rezoning decisions or economic decisions that were made for planning in the past. This government believes very strongly in the planning process. The minister announced the other day that there is going to be a review of the planning process. We are concerned about the preservation of agriculture land in Ontario. This is one particular OMB hearing that we are participating in in order to preserve and uphold the guidelines.

I do not think it is proper to be talking about decisions that were made in the past for Seaton or other economic projects for housing.

Mr Sterling: I have to tell members that the people of eastern Ontario and Ottawa-Carleton find this minister and this government so hypocritical it is unbelievable.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. If the member for Carleton would withdraw the unparliamentary language which he used with respect to a member of the House.

Mr Sterling: If it will make the Speaker more comfortable, I thought the Premier used the same language earlier and therefore I thought it was satisfactory. I will withdraw.

But I will say that the people in eastern Ontario cannot understand the double standard that seems to be leveled at them when dealing with the Ottawa Senators -- 7,000 acres of prime agricultural land in Seaton, 800 acres around the town of Markham, prime agricultural land dealt with differently by this government than 98 acres of questionable agricultural land in eastern Ontario.

Mr Chiarelli: They changed it. Double standard again.

The Speaker: The member for Ottawa West, come to order. The member for Carleton, place his question.

Mr Sterling: Tonight the Friends of the Ottawa Senators are going to be putting on a demonstration in front of the Ontario Municipal Board. They have asked the minister how much he is spending to oppose the Ottawa Senators in Ottawa-Carleton. He has refused to answer that question in the past. They have submitted to him a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. Recently they found out that the minister stalled them for another 30 days for no apparent reason. They have appealed that to the Information and Privacy Commissioner. The minister knows that they are entitled to the information.

The Speaker: Will the member conclude his question, please?

Mr Sterling: Why does the minister not permit them the courtesy of providing them -- the taxpayers of Ontario -- with information as to how he is spending their money? They are entitled to that information. Will the minister put his job on the line so that if they are successful with the freedom of information commissioner, he will resign?

Hon Mr Buchanan: There was a curious mix of items in the question. The preservation of farm land, whether it is in eastern Ontario or southwestern Ontario, anywhere in this province, is a principled argument. To tie that to the amount of money that might be spent in terms of consultant or legal fees is irrelevant.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Would the minister take his seat. It is quite evident there is no interest in hearing the response. New question.

COMMUNITY RADIO

Mr Wood: My question is for the honourable Minister of Culture and Communications. My riding of Cochrane North is the second-largest riding in the province. It covers many thousand square kilometres. Obtaining news and information and keeping in touch with one another is almost impossible without community radio. I am encouraged by this government's commitment to community-based radio. The minister's announcement a couple of weeks ago of $1.7 million indicates the ministry is serious about community radio.

How will the money be disbursed throughout the north, and will any of that money be coming to Cochrane North?

Hon Mr Marchese: All community radio stations that are licensed by the CRTC will be eligible to apply for those funds, and that includes the francophone and native aboriginal communities. The funds will be available to each station at the end of next April. They will receive a maximum of $25,000. We believe many will benefit in the north. In the riding of Cochrane North there may be as many as seven stations that can benefit and can apply.

My ministry staff is working at developing funding criteria for all native and francophone community radio stations in northern and southern Ontario. All native and francophone communities owning a community radio station will be consulted on the development of those criteria.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr H. O'Neil: My question is to the Minister of Tourism and Recreation and it concerns the Sunday shopping tourist criteria and whether these criteria are fair and responsive.

It is clear to us that the criteria are subjective and very open to abuse, and I think the minister will agree that not everyone shares the same opinion on whether a retail establishment is culturally appealing or a building's architectural features are distinct. However, yesterday when I asked the Solicitor General whether or not the Eaton Centre, Toronto's premier tourist attraction, will be eligible for a tourist exemption under the guidelines, he either refused to or could not answer this question. It would seem that no one understands how the NDP's tourist criteria are going to work.

What is the minister going to do to make sure that people understand the tourist criteria, that they enforce them in a fair and uniform manner and that no one applies them in a manner inconsistent with his stated objectives?

Hon Mr North: I appreciate the question from the member across the floor. We have had some consultations within our own ministry and worked with the consultants to give them a good idea and a good explanation of how this will work. The consultants will go into the field and will work with municipalities on request to explain the criteria very clearly to them and give them all the pertinent information they require.

Mr H. O'Neil: Again, I do not think the minister has answered the question for ourselves or for the municipalities.

On 4 June, when asked what the government would do if the municipalities interpreted the tourist criteria in a manner inconsistent with the government's stated objectives, the Solicitor General said it was a municipal issue and people could take the municipality to court if they felt the municipality did not interpret the criteria in a consistent manner. He also refused to accept any provincial authority for enforcing the criteria.

If the minister is unwilling to intervene to ensure that his guidelines are interpreted in a manner consistent with the provincial policy, how does he expect to develop the fair and responsive system he promised?

Hon Mr North: We have laboured at some length to develop criteria which we felt were adequate and were fair to workers and municipalities and to consumers as well. We feel we have criteria which are relevant to the tourism industry, which the tourism industry feels are relevant to itself, and are very good. We feel they will do the job that we asked them to do as we put them in place, and we are looking forward to having a common pause day in the province of Ontario.

NATIVE HUNTING AND FISHING

Mr J. Wilson: My question is to the Minister of Natural Resources. On 28 May the minister said in this Legislature, "We have an agreement with the Algonquins of Golden Lake on principles for hunting deer and moose within the context of this policy." It was announced last night at a public meeting in Barry's Bay that the Golden Lake band has withdrawn from negotiations regarding the subagreements for hunting and fishing rights in Algonquin Park.

Given that we are heading into peak season for tourists in Algonquin Park, has he been successful in limiting hunting by the Golden Lake people in all circumstances in Algonquin Park to the late fall and mid-January period of the year, and if so, in what area of the park?

Hon Mr Wildman: This a very timely question. I must say I am a little surprised, though, if the statement is accurate about what was said at the meeting last night, because surely the member is aware that we opened negotiations formally at Golden Lake on Saturday. To suggest the Algonquins have withdrawn from negotiations ignores that fact.

Our negotiators met with the chief and council and the negotiators for the Golden Lake band, along with representatives of the federal government, at Golden Lake on Saturday. At that time they identified a number of the issues and areas of concern and started to develop a timetable and framework for the negotiations.

One of the most important and pressing issues that will be dealt with in those negotiations is the finalization of the interim measures agreements with regard to the deer, moose and fishing regulations which will be in place as the negotiations on the land claim proceed.

Mr J. Wilson: On 28 March in this House the minister was quoted as saying that hunting during this period, late fall to mid-January, will be excluded from areas frequented by tourists. On 28 May he also said that the subagreements will protect public safety. From this, I can only conclude that hunting by the Algonquins of Golden Lake will be banned in all areas of the park which are open to travel and use by the public, be it by public road and/or maintained trail or canoe routes.

Will the minister confirm that this will indeed be the case and provide some assurance to tourists that Algonquin is still a safe and enjoyable place to visit?

Hon Mr Wildman: Algonquin Park is, as we all know, the jewel of the park system and is one that all tourists should be happy to visit and enjoy this summer. The negotiations with regard to the interim subagreements on moose and deer hunting and fishing are ongoing and we hope to have them finalized soon. There is no hunting, as the member knows, going on in Algonquin Park at this time.

The first nation in the negotiations is developing community rules which will be negotiated and finalized and which will limit the numbers of deer that will be taken, the areas where they will be taken, the number of moose that will be taken, the time of the year when they will be taken and the areas. Those will be outside the regular and most frequented tourist areas.

The fishing agreement is more difficult and complex and is ongoing but we anticipate that in good faith we will be able to negotiate agreements which will be acceptable to both sides and will preserve conservation and park values and ensure that all tourists and all Ontarians can enjoy Algonquin Park.

PETITIONS

AMALGAMATION OF TOWNSHIPS

Mr Drainville: It gives me great pleasure today to present a petition from residents of Verulam township in the riding of Victoria-Haliburton. In fact, they are with us today: Janet Sheridan, Malcolm Junkin and Bob Junkin, in the gallery over here beside the government side. There are 1,543 signatures, which represent about 60% or more of the eligible voters in Verulam township.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the council of the county of Victoria has voted to accept a recommendation from the steering committee on county government to amalgamate the village of Bobcaygeon with the township of Verulam; and

"Whereas the residents of Verulam were not given the opportunity for public review and comment on the recommendations being made before they were voted upon by county council,

"We, the undersigned residents of Verulam township, petition the Legislative Assembly as follows:

"The recommendation for amalgamation between the village of Bobcaygeon and the township of Verulam not be accepted until such time as the residents of both jurisdictions have had the opportunity to provide formal comment on and acceptance of the proposal in a municipal referendum."

I have signed this.

OATH OF ALLEGIANCE

Mr J. Wilson: I am pleased to rise and present a petition to the Legislature of Ontario on behalf of constituents in my riding of Simcoe West. The petition reads as follows:

"Whereas the Queen of Canada has long been a symbol of national unity for Canadians from all walks of life and from all ethnic backgrounds; and

"Whereas the people of Canada are currently facing a constitutional crisis which could potentially result in the breakup of the federation and are in need of unifying symbols,

"We, the undersigned, respectfully petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to restore the oath to the Queen for Ontario's police officers."

That is signed by some 20 constituents in the riding of Simcoe West and I too am pleased to affix my name to this petition.

Mr Cooper: I would like to present a petition on behalf of the Royal Canadian Legion, East Toronto Branch 11. It is signed by 153 members or friends. It states:

"We, the undersigned, affiliated with the Royal Canadian Legion, East Toronto Branch 11, either through membership or friendship, wish to add our voices to the protest regarding the removal of the oath of allegiance to the Queen for the Metro Toronto Police department or civilian commissioners. This action only further erodes the heritage of Canada in a time when unity is an issue, not only for those born and raised in this country but for those who chose Canada as their homeland."

Mr J. Wilson: I am pleased to rise and present a petition to the Legislature of Ontario on behalf of constituents in my riding of Simcoe West. The petition reads as follows:

"Whereas the Queen of Canada has long been a symbol of national unity for Canadians from all walks of life and from all ethnic backgrounds; and

"Whereas the people of Canada are currently facing a constitutional crisis which could potentially result in the breakup of the federation, and are in need of unifying symbols;

"We, the undersigned, respectfully petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to restore the oath to the Queen for Ontario's police officers."

That is signed by a number of members of the Tosorontio township council, and I too have affixed my name to this petition.

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

TOWNSHIP OF CHANDOS ACT, 1991

Mr Drainville moved first reading of Bill Pr77,

An Act respecting The Corporation of the Township of Chandos.

Motion agreed to.

The Speaker: Orders of the day, the member for Bruce.

Mr Elston: Before I move the motion, I think it has been agreed among all the parties that the clock be allowed to run for equal portions of time for the debate in each of the parties. I am not sure whether I was supposed to announce that earlier or not.

Interjection.

Mr Elston: Actually, I think the debate is to run until 5:50 and we hope a vote will be taken at about 5:55.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

WANT OF CONFIDENCE MOTION: STANDARDS OF MINISTERIAL CONDUCT

Mr Elston moved that, since the New Democratic Party government has demonstrated a total disregard for the standards of conduct traditionally adhered to by cabinet ministers, as exemplified by the failure of the Solicitor General to comply with the conflict-of-interest guidelines and code of conduct as laid down by the Premier, and since the Solicitor General has failed to comply with the long-standing parliamentary tradition which promotes the independence of the judiciary, thereby jeopardizing the separation of powers traditionally associated with Ontario parliamentary history, therefore, pursuant to the provisions of standing order 42(a), the House no longer has confidence in the government.

Mr Elston: For those of us in the Liberal Party, I think no time has been more difficult than this one because of the fact that we were under such a tremendous rush of attacks by the New Democratic Party when we were the governing party in this province.

In those days, while we were trying to conduct the affairs of the government of Ontario, we were subject to vicious attacks and assaults led by the member for York South, the leader of the New Democratic Party, the member who now assumes the role of Premier and who, because of his own guidelines, has assumed the mantle of chief judge and executioner with respect to the standards of conduct of his cabinet ministers, his parliamentary assistants and indeed of his caucus.

While we note he has assumed that mantle early through speeches made to the public after his election on 6 September, the assumption of power on 1 October and through the issuance of several pieces of written material since that time, we note he has been unable and unwilling to carry out the execution of his office and the activity of providing the judgement required to enforce the Members' Conflict of Interest Act, the code of conduct and the guidelines he himself has established for the operation of politicians in his party, in his parliamentary assistants corps and in his cabinet.

This is a particularly difficult time for all of us in Ontario. At a time when there must be a sense of stability, a sense of reliance on the good, old-fashioned values of honesty and integrity, the prime minister of this province has not provided a distinct direction towards integrity by enforcing his guidelines. He makes great speeches. He makes great assaults on the opposition parties when they ask for resignations of ministers who have indicated they have transgressed the guidelines and the code of conduct required of them as members of the executive council. He does not make a stand on behalf of the people who require integrity and honesty in government.

The most notorious of the group is the minister who has been named in my want of confidence motion, the Solicitor General. His situation is well known to the people of Ontario because it has been analysed and analysed, not only in the daily press and in the electronic media, but day by day here in the House as we ask the questions necessary to unfold the sordid details behind the writing of letters to justices of the peace with respect to parking tickets.

While the Solicitor General would try to pooh-pooh this as merely a matter dealing with a $35 parking ticket, it is the most serious of problems associated with his office. It is an interference with the justice system the likes of which we have never seen in this province to this date, and he begs that he did not write, see or authorize the letter. He washes his hands in public while this travesty occurs.

Not only does he breach the conflict-of-interest guidelines and spurn the advice from the people in the Office of the Premier, but he also breaks the great and deep tradition of parliamentary and judiciary separation upon which our principles of government and social order have been built in this province. That alone is enough to disqualify this person from sitting in the executive council. He took an oath to be true to those traditions and support the law of this nation and this province and he has forgotten all. His declaration of ignorance is not enough to save him.

The Premier, in accepting ignorance as an excuse, means to say that it is not enough to save his government as far as we are concerned. The Premier cannot and must not accept ignorance as an excuse in this situation. There are so many places where he can stand up for honesty when we need to bolster the institutions of this province. Cynicism is everywhere. In a province where we stand long by tradition, the institution of parliamentary democracy is under assault. The office of political leader, of politician, is being questioned at all turns by several people in the public.

The media write editorials, the people write letters and question us and day by day the leader of the province adds fuel to the fire that feeds the cynicism that attacks the very basis upon which our social and cultural history has been constructed. That cannot continue to happen.

If we are to have no integrity at the head of government, then we cannot have government that can survive long. If we have no integrity at the head of this government, then we cannot convince people to come to Ontario and put into practice their full support of the economic system we have here, of the laws that are passed in this House or of the laws that are passed in the Parliament of Canada.

How can we have a Premier running around saying that he wants to instil pride in the business people of this province and get them to stay in Ontario when the types of things he does, and allows his Solicitor General to do, tend to destroy the very patriotic support he would want to kindle in the hearts of the people who now live in Ontario?

People are ashamed of the way this sordid event has unfolded: the contrived sort of intervention by way of the Attorney General inviting the RCMP to come and investigate, then indicating that the investigation report, when it yielded no criminal charges -- just as this opposition party said there would be none -- now being kept secret will be hidden for ever from the public, and a full disclosure of all the sordid details has been prevented in a way that allows all of us in this democracy to pass our own judgements.

While they refused to issue a copy of the report to the public, and even to us in the Legislative Assembly, they also refused to take this matter before a parliamentary standing committee to analyse what has taken place. We cannot interview the Solicitor General in that committee. We can only accept his stonewalling-type answers here in this House. We cannot interview the three people in this constituency office who obviously were not on the same wavelength when they answered the investigation questions by the RCMP. We cannot ask questions of the people in the Premier's office about their involvement.

We cannot ask the Attorney General about the involvement of his people in his department and in fact about his own involvement in this whole sordid issue.

All of those closures of avenues of information, the shutting down of the openness of communication and the tramping upon the integrity of the system here in this House that this government has put on our shoulders, leave the opposition with only one tool, and that is to move this motion of want of confidence in the government's ability to manage the affairs of this province.

This is of the most serious nature, but it is not the only means by which we sought to have an open discussion of this event. Each time we asked it was prevented. Each time we inquired whether the Premier would allow us to do certain things he said no. Each time we asked it was not granted. So we have but the use of standing order 42(

a) to move a motion of want of confidence in an administration that has quickly grown arrogant, that has quite early grown corrupt and that in my view is not able to command the respect either of the members of this House or of the people of Ontario.

Mr Speaker, it looks as if I cannot use the word "corrupt." I apologize. I withdraw that word. They are not able to command the support of the people of the province because they do not display integrity and honesty. They do not display the types of qualities the people expect in a governing party, and they will not command the respect of the opposition party until they move to clean up the events that surrounded the affairs as begun by the Solicitor General. That is quite clear, and that is why there is a want of confidence in this House for this government.

Mr Carr: I am pleased to participate in this debate and to add a few comments. I am going to start off by reading what the Premier said when he brought in the conflict-of-interest guidelines back in December, I guess. He was going to be different from all the other governments and have a situation where he was going to be so pure that there would be no scandals. It is kind of ironic that as we sit here only a few short months later, we have had more scandals and resignations in this government than we have had bills passed in this House. That is a sad commentary on this government.

When the guidelines were brought out, the Premier said: "We must at all times act in a manner that will not only bear the closest public scrutiny, but will go further and ensure public confidence and trust in the integrity of government." I think, like everybody else, we were all in a non-partisan manner hoping this would happen, because we all get tarred as politicians when something happens that affects us, because everybody puts us in a lump and says all politicians are alike.

The rules and guidelines were laid out and championed by this Premier who was going to be different, who was going to bring back integrity to government. It is ironic that in just a short period even the most objective observer would say there have been more problems with conflict of interest in the time this government has been in power than any other government in the history of this province and in fact, I would submit, probably in the history of this country.

Here is a man who said on 12 December: "We must at all times act in a manner that will not only bear the closest public scrutiny, but will go further and ensure public confidence and trust." Here we are with a motion saying there is no trust in this government, that the House no longer has confidence in the government. For days on end we have heard the wrangling that has gone on.

I had the pleasure of participating with the standing committee on administration of justice and going through some of these conflict guidelines. When the Premier came in way back in February and laid it out, I was one of those who believed that he was going to try to be different, that he really meant what he said. But a funny thing happened on the way. He said what he said in February when there were no problems, no hint of scandals; then when it happened to him, all of a sudden things changed very quickly.

We had a man in February who said he was trying to uphold the public confidence and trust, and as we sit here today people are saying this Premier is no different than any other Premier. He has not lived up to the high standards he tried to set when he was in opposition.

I have had a little bit of pleasure speaking to some of the people about what it was like. I did not sit in this Legislature when the Premier was in opposition, but I have heard the stories of what he was like over some of the other people, how careers were destroyed over people like Joan Smith and the member for Oriole and some of the others. They were absolutely destroyed by a man who now is saying: "It doesn't matter as long as you didn't do it for any personal gain. As long as you didn't do it for any personal gain it's okay." It is ironic that this was the same individual who at the time he came before this committee said he was going to try to be different.

I read some of the headlines that unfortunately back up what I say. It is not just the two opposition parties saying this. In fact, a good part of the province is saying the same things. I read a headline in one of our daily papers that said: "Passing the Buck." The

article said: "Provincially the only people who do not seem to realize that Solicitor General Mike Farnan has no credibility left in the great parking ticket affair are the Premier and his trained socialist seals." That is what the people of this province are saying about a man who I think everybody in the beginning thought was going to try to uphold the high standards of this fine office as Premier.

The next headline reads, "Bumbling Bob." The

article says: "We would remind Rae -- since obviously somebody has to, that he is no longer the opposition leader, shooting his mouth off in all directions, but the Premier. Act like it, not like some frustrated graduate student with a different answer for every new political quiz."

In fact, that is what has happened over the last little while. Initially, when some of the problems broke, he got rid of one minister for posing in the Toronto Sun. As we went along he realized the high standards he set could not possibly be upheld but, instead of coming out to the people of this province and saying, "I made a mistake, I want to admit there was a mistake; the standards that I thought I could uphold in opposition, I realize I can't as Premier," he did not do that. He did not admit his mistakes. He has tried to hide things. All we wanted during this period was for the justice committee to have some time to review the situation.

Even as recently as yesterday I believed the Premier when he said: "The justice committee: I want to get input of what needs to be done. We've got to make this non-political so we can all improve the integrity." Then he turns around the very day he says that and his members of the committee rush through and try to invoke closure in the committee.

So it is indeed a bit frustrating for a new member who came in to this Legislature and was interested in taking people for what was said and trying to contribute, and here we are in only a few short months where a government that came in with such high expectations has slipped lower than any other government in the history of this province and indeed the history of this country.

I look at some of the things that were said during that time when we met on the standing committee on administration of justice. It was interesting when we questioned the Premier -- I guess there were some of the problems with the member for Victoria-Haliburton and his problems with the ministry -- he said at that time -- and I guess we should not have been too surprised he would later come to this conclusion -- it was okay to break the law because he did it with conscience and there was no personal gain.

As I said to the Premier then, I guess it is okay to go out and rob a bank in Ontario as long as you give the money to the poor, because that is indeed what he is saying. In fact, he has repeated that back during these last few days, saying, "It does not matter; you can do some things we might have thought wrong in the past because they were not done for personal gain."

Some of the people he tried to go after so strongly when he was in opposition, like the former Solicitor General who went to help a constituent at the police station when she believed there was some wrongdoing, did not do it for any personal gain. There was no personal gain there. But of course he, in his ideals of opposition leader, called for a resignation. Here is the same one who turns around and talks about compassion. He had very little compassion in the past when it came to people like Joan Smith and the member for Oriole and some of the other ones.

Here we have a Premier who says one thing before the election, another thing after the election; one thing when he is trying to get political points in bringing in some tough legislation and another thing when some of the scandals begin to hit.

For some of those who have not had a chance to read the conflict-of-interest guidelines that were submitted -- and I suspect as we go along that is probably the bulk of the cabinet -- when you look at it, it is very clear on page 4, "Ministers (except the Attorney General in the exercise of official duties) shall not communicate with members of the judiciary concerning any matter pending before the court."

It is very clear, very simple. Anyone can understand that. Yet what we have had recently is a Premier who says, "It is okay during this period of time because the Solicitor General did not know the letters were written."

At a time when people are a little bit cynical and sceptical about politicians, we said, "Let's not take your word for it, let's not take the Solicitor General's word for it, let's not take the opposition; let's have some of the people who were involved come before the justice committee." He would not do that. He did not want to have it come out in the open. Instead, he tried to hide behind the RCMP report on criminal activities and wrongdoings when everybody realized that was not what was at issue.

What was at issue is a Premier who, when he believes it is in the political interest to do so, will stand up and champion guidelines and then not live up to them. Then we wonder why the public is a little bit cynical and sceptical about politicians, because indeed we are all tarred by this action.

During that time we had some very good submissions that came before us. I guess some of the best material was from Judge Evans, who of course is the Conflict of Interest Commissioner. Some of the points the judge, who is well respected, made -- and I will read it out. For those members who did not participate in that committee there is a

summary of the standing committee on administration of justice done by the fine research officer, dated 6 May. It talks about some of the things that are important, laid out in very precise detail.

What Judge Evans said at that time was: "Neither the ministers nor their parliamentary assistants should make representation on behalf of constituents before government agencies, including the Workers' Compensation Board and the Liquor Control Board of Ontario. There must be a level of non-interference by ministers and parliamentary assistants. Instead, the constituency office workers should be making those representations, but without waving a flag about the minister's or the parliamentary assistant's position."

The quote I think is important is "without waving a flag." In the case of the Solicitor General, the name was being signed by another individual saying "Mike Farnan, MPP." That certainly waved a flag and is what Judge Evans was talking about. He went on to say that ministers and parliamentary assistants and their constituency offices should not engage in activities on behalf of constituents which might involve an agency that falls within the minister's or the parliamentary assistant's portfolio.

My good friend the member for Durham East, during some of those presentations, talked about an incident in his riding where some constituents wanted to get him involved, and he said: "I can't do it. I've got to step aside. I'm a parliamentary assistant to the Solicitor General. I can't become involved." The constituents got a little bit upset with him at the time, because they felt he should have become involved. But here is a new member, elected a few short months, who knew he should not be involved. Very clearly he stepped back from it and did not become involved.

We are led to believe that the Solicitor General of the day let his office know about the fact that they were not to become involved in any proceedings, but these rules were not made very clear. The RCMP report said staff member number 2 in the constituency office did not have any written guidelines or directions in relation to correspondence.

What troubles me more than anything else is, had this government admitted to it and said, "Yes, we realize we did not give clear direction to the people in that constituency office," I think most people would be fair. But they did not, they tried to hide behind it saying, "Yes, we did tell them." Very clearly this RCMP report says something different.

The way to get it out in the open and to clear it and, I submit, make it so that the matter will not only bear the closest public scrutiny but go farther and ensure public confidence and trust, like the Premier wanted, would have been to send this whole matter before the standing committee on administration of justice. He chose not to do it, because then we would have been able to have the situation aired and everybody would have been able to hear exactly what went on.

We had days upon days where information by the Attorney General -- days when he knew about it, his deputy knew about it, his deputy knew about the situation, and this House was not made aware of it, and then we wonder why the public is a little bit cynical and sceptical with politicians.

This motion that was brought forward today speaks volumes to the lack of confidence in this government. I have actually heard some things I never thought would be heard so quickly in a government's mandate. I had some people who are calling me in my constituency office the other day saying: "Is there anything we can do? Is there any way the Lieutenant Governor can get the Premier to resign? Is there any way an election could be called?" They are so upset and angry with what has happened in this province over the last little while. That is a sad commentary on a government after just a few short months.

I think people on all sides are hoping we are going to be able to change things a little bit and bring back some integrity.

Here is a man who came out, championed the cause and in fact slipped further than any other Premier in the history of this province with regard to integrity. That is what the public looks at more than anything else. If he did not come out and champion it during the throne speech, and if he did not make the headlines with his guidelines when he introduced them -- but here was a man who was going to be different and in fact he is no different. Nothing has changed. We have no change in the government and over the last little while, I submit, things have actually gotten worse.

As we look here at this motion, I suspect it was not brought lightly by the member, it was brought because of the fact that this New Democratic government has demonstrated a total disregard for the standards and conduct traditionally adhered to by cabinet ministers. Not only did they go farther to try to get rid of some of the public perception out there they have slipped backwards, and instead of improving we are now faced with a situation where indeed we have more public cynicism out there towards this government and the political process.

We heard