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

February 2, 1987

33rd Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L096 - Mon 2 Feb 1987 / Lun 2 fév 1987

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

APPRENTICESHIP OFFICE

AUDITOR GENERAL-PRISONS

TELEVISION PROGRAM

FRENCH-LANGUAGE EDUCATION

HELP CENTRE

NURSING HOME

DELEGATION TO HAITI

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

WILDLIFE '87

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF HAMILTON-WENTWORTH

RESPONSES

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF HAMILTON-WENTWORTH

WILDLIFE '87

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF HAMILTON-WENTWORTH

ORAL QUESTIONS

WESTERN COAL

TECHNOLOGY FUND

DAY CARE

PAPER MILL

NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT

HAZARDOUS SPILL

LABOUR DISPUTE

AGRICULTURAL FUNDING

NUCLEAR ARMS FREE ZONE

COURT FACILITIES

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

GASOLINE TAX

UNEMPLOYMENT

ENERGY-FROM-WASTE PLANT

PETITIONS

DIALYSIS UNIT

HOSPITAL CLOSING

MOTION

COMMITTEE SITTING

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF HAMILTON-WENTWORTH STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT

CITY OF MISSISSAUGA ACT

PLANNING AMENDMENT ACT

NUCLEAR WEAPONS ECONOMIC CONVERSION ACT

HIGH STREET RECREATION COMPLEX OF ST. THOMAS AND ELGIN ACT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THIRD READINGS

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

ESTIMATES, OFFICE OF THE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR

ESTIMATES, OFFICE OF THE PREMIER AND CABINET OFFICE

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

APPRENTICESHIP OFFICE

Mr. O'Connor: I wish to express my concerns to the Minister of Skills Development (Mr. Sorbara) regarding the decision by his ministry to close down the Oakville apprenticeship office.

This satellite office at any given time is serving 1,200 apprentices, has no secretarial support for the two consultants, who spend four days of each week on the road arranging job placements. Consequently, the office is open to the public only two days per week, one day per consultant. Despite these conditions, the consultants are filling a vital need in our community and have established an excellent reputation with the business and industrial community.

I do not believe anybody's best interests will be served by shutting down this local office and requiring everybody to begin dealing with a mammoth bureaucracy in Mississauga at the "Dundas Tower." To go to a Mississauga superoffice will inevitably mean long lineups, delays and no guarantees that those being served will meet with the same consultant on a regular basis.

The Oakville office serves all of Halton and as far north as Orangeville. The minister must not close down this office. Will he not, in the best interests of all concerned, acknowledge that the Oakville office should stay open, with secretarial support, to continue the high level of service that is now being provided? Will he realize that in this particular case, big will not be better?

AUDITOR GENERAL-PRISONS

Ms. Bryden: I bring to the attention of the House a very interesting proposal, in which it is suggested that this Legislature establish a new position to be known as auditor general-prisons. This innovative proposal is being supported by six very distinguished Canadians, who have organized a Canadian Campaign for Prison System Improvement to promote the idea at the federal and provincial levels.

The six distinguished Canadians who are organizing the campaign are Professor Israel Halperin, University of Toronto mathematics department; Archbishop Edward Scott, former primate, Anglican Church of Canada; Clarke MacDonald, former moderator of the United Church of Canada; Pierre Berton, author and broadcaster; June Callwood, author and journalist, and Yvon Beaulne, former ambassador to the United Nations Human Rights Commission.

The auditor general-prisons, like the Ontario Provincial Auditor, would be appointed by the Legislature, would report annually to the Legislature and would be independent of any ministry. He or she would not supplant the Ontario Provincial Auditor in his role of reviewing how the money allotted to prisons and other ministries is spent. Instead, she or he would review how our prison system is meeting its responsibilities and goals.

TELEVISION PROGRAM

Mr. Reycraft: I draw to the attention of members of the Legislature a recent and superb production by CFPL-TV in London. The program is called Season to Season, A Farmer's Story, and was broadcast last Thursday evening.

To those in this Legislature and in this province who do not know what it is really like to try to raise a family and earn a living by growing crops and raising livestock, this program should be required viewing. Season to Season is about John Walls, a beef and cash-crop farmer in London township near Ilderton, his wife Mary, son Greg and daughters Ellen and Joanne. It is an excellent portrayal of a year on a family farm, as it really happens.

Season to Season shows a farm family working about 280 hectares; dealing with a cash flow of over $600,000 to produce a profit of about $10,000; operating a high-intensity business; contending with steadily increasing production costs, diminishing commodity prices and adverse weather conditions, and doing it all while continuing to contribute to community life in Ilderton.

I want to congratulate CFPL-TV for its superb production. In particular, managing editor John MacDonald, who conceived Season to Season, producer Helen Wainman and cameraman Richard Johnstone have made a very valuable contribution to helping all of us understand the true essence of life on a family farm.

FRENCH-LANGUAGE EDUCATION

Mr. Davis: The public trustees of boards of education and teacher affiliates must have great difficulty comprehending the apparent flip-flop of the Minister of Education (Mr. Conway) with respect to a single board of education.

The Ottawa-Carleton French-Language Education Advisory Committee is recommending a single French-language school board with two sections: a Roman Catholic

section and a public section. The Minister of Education will have to explain why constitutional advice now says this action is recommended and will not be affected by

section 93 of the Constitution Act and

section 29 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, for it was these specific sections the minister quoted, supported by the New Democratic Party, in refusing to support a Progressive Conservative amendment to Bill 30 that would have provided for diversity of unity with the establishment of a single school board in educational jurisdictions where the public indicated support. It would have been not mandatory but permissive.

Will the Ottawa model be the model for the rest of Ontario in the delivery of francophone education? We ask the minister to pass enabling legislation that will allow for the creation of a single school board for areas that desire it. If it is possible for the francophones, it is also a possibility for the anglophones of Ontario.

HELP CENTRE

Mr. Warner: The unemployed help centre in Peterborough has closed. It has closed because the people who are unemployed in that community were unable to raise $42,000 to keep the centre open. To quote the person who was helping to run the centre, she is afraid that the clients, who number between 800 and 1,200, will be without a place to get the skills they need in order to find a job.

The centre was indeed providing a good service to many people in the community in Peterborough. The "frustrating part" for her, as stated in the Toronto Star, and for this party as well, is "that the need continues to grow and yet the government's priorities go elsewhere."

How true it is. It is so easy for the government to sit back and say unemployed people in a community should raise the necessary funds to keep a centre open, without providing the kind of assistance that this government should be capable of providing. It is frustrating to me as well that this government does not have a solid commitment to assist unemployed people in the community of Peterborough and in other communities around this province.

NURSING HOME

Mr. McGuigan: On January 28 last, the Ministry of Health advertised for persons to submit proposals to provide facilities and operate a nursing home of up to 40 beds in the community of Ridgetown. East Kent has lacked a nursing home for five years because of the precipitate action of the former government and, specifically, of the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Grossman).

When he was Minister of Health, he sanctioned the sale of the former Barnwell nursing home and the transfer of the licence and beds to the Progressive Conservative-held riding of Chatham. Rather than cancel the licence of the Barnwell home because of its alleged shortcomings and allot a new licence, the licence and beds were sold and the licence, beds and most of the residents were transferred to Chatham. This action has denied the people of Ridgetown and district the services of a nursing home since early 1982.

Because of my own representations and similar representations of other members, the former government created the Compliance Plan Review Board. This board has the power to review and recommend that minor variants from the regulations can be accepted. Had this board been in place earlier, it is quite possible the Barnwell home could have continued, because the calibre of nursing care was not under question.

I am very pleased the residents of east Kent now see that this injustice visited upon them by the former government can be corrected. We thank the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston).

DELEGATION TO HAITI

Mr. Brandt: I rise to bring to the attention of my colleagues in the Legislature a rather interesting activity being engaged in by some 17 residents of the great riding of Sarnia. These residents are among a delegation which has recently returned from Haiti. The leader of the delegation is Ray Wyrzykowski, a local lawyer.

The concept started back in 1984 when some of these residents from Sarnia went to Haiti with the intention of assisting that very poor country by bringing up its standard of living and helping with some of its construction projects. The delegation from Sarnia went there with everything from soap to construction materials, which they are making available to those residents.

I am sure the members of this Legislature would like to applaud the volunteer actions of a group such as that, willing to assist some of our less fortunate citizens in this troubled world of ours.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

WILDLIFE '87

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: As members of this House know, this government is very much committed to keeping Ontario a world leader in the responsible management of wildlife. So I am very pleased to tell the members today that Ontario will be involved in Wildlife '87, the national wildlife conservation year declared by the federal government.

Wildlife '87 is a national effort commemorating the 100th anniversary of the creation of Canada's first wildlife sanctuary at Last Mountain Lake in Saskatchewan. The program has a number of objectives that are not only a priority for my ministry and the government but for a large proportion of the residents of Ontario.

First and foremost, Wildlife '87 will encourage wildlife conservation activities by individuals, businesses, governments and conservation organizations. We have already begun that encouragement. I am very pleased to announce today that the first winner of the Conservationist of the Month Award celebrating Wildlife '87 has been chosen under the program. It is being awarded to Lloyd Cook of Barrie, Ontario, for his long and distinguished record in the study, practice and teaching of humane trapping.

Recognition of contributions such as those made by Mr. Cook is one purpose of Wildlife '87. In addition, this program will provide a national theme and focus for our conservation activities, encourage and improve networking and dialogue among national conservation groups, and promote public awareness of the world conservation strategy. This is the strategy advocating sound wildlife management and conservation, written in 1980 by the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, or IUCN. It is endorsed by governments and independent groups around the world.

Ontario has a long-standing and proud record of leadership in wildlife management. We are an acknowledged leader in the management of fur-bearing animals and the study of rabies. In the 1980s, our highly successful deer management program came to fruition and now stands as an example of sound wildlife management to other provinces and American states.

In this national wildlife conservation year, we will be moving aggressively to do our part. Wildlife conservation year will see Ontario taking steps to better manage black bear population, step up the reintroduction of peregrine falcons to the wild, spotlight our exciting and innovative new educational program called Project WILD and transfer moose to Michigan in co-operation with US conservationists.

We will emphasize our community wildlife involvement program, or CWIP, under which conservation-minded groups can get financial support for projects to improve wildlife habitats. This summer Ontario will make an important announcement with respect to the naming of a wetland of international significance at an international conservation convention in Regina, Saskatchewan.

Ontario will also be a strong participant at the convention of international trade in endangered species to be held in Ottawa this summer. Our active participation in this event will again show that Ontario is, without question, a leader in the field of wildlife management.

I am pleased to announce that during 1987 we will focus our expertise and management policies on the preparation of a discussion paper on long-range wildlife management. This ambitious initiative will take us into the next 100 years of wildlife management and is very much in keeping with the Wildlife `87 theme gaining momentum.

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF HAMILTON-WENTWORTH

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: I would like to advise the House that later today I will be introducing for first reading a bill to make an important amendment to the Regional Municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth Act. This will provide for the chairman of Hamilton-Wentworth to be elected at large by the residents of the entire regional municipality. This will replace the present method of having the chairman elected by members of the regional council.

This change has the support of the people of the region of Hamilton-Wentworth, the regional council and a majority of local councils. With the support of this House, this change will be in place in time for the 1988 municipal elections.

Je tiens à préciser, Monsieur le Président, que ce n'est là qu'un des nombreux changements à nos méthodes d'administration métropolitaine et régionale que notre gouvernement a entrepris d'apporter.

Comme les députés le savent, les municipalités de la communauté urbaine de Toronto examinent et commenteront bientôt les choix offerts pour améliorer l'administration municipale en ce qui concerne sa représentation et sa responsabilité.

Les municipalités ont jusqu'à la fin mars pour déposer leurs commentaires, ce qui, à notre avis, est très important pour la procédure. Avant toute décision finale sur les changements à apporter, il est donc essentiel que nous obtenions les données des municipalités et de la population.

In the near future I will be announcing a study of the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton. In that announcement, I will set out terms of reference and structure for review. I have been asked by the regional council to make this a wide-ranging review.

Je sais que plusieurs travaux de cette nature ont été réalisés auparavant et qu'on y a peu donné suite. Par conséquent, je préférerais que les régions me fassent elles-mêmes part de leurs préoccupations qui pourront ainsi etre couvertes par l'étude.

We will be undertaking or assisting in other reviews of regional municipalities as time and resources allow.

In conclusion, I want to assure the House that the change proposed for Hamilton-Wentworth is not an isolated event but part of a general strategy. My government intends to move on many fronts to ensure that citizens understand better the functions and capacities of local government in Ontario.

RESPONSES

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF HAMILTON-WENTWORTH

Mr. Dean: I would like to reply briefly to the statement made by the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Grandmaître) regarding the election of a chairman for the regional council of Hamilton-Wentworth by the voters at large rather than by appointment.

Those of us who have a tradition of belonging to county councils know it is a time-honoured process there that the warden or chairman of the council has been elected by his or her peers in the council. It was on that basis that the first and, up to the present time, all of the appointments of chairmen have, after election of the initial council, been made by the members of council.

Having served on such a council for some terms, I have noted that this has worked well. I must agree with the minister that there is support by a majority of the members of regional council, by a majority of the local councils and by a majority of citizens who took

part in the plebiscite a few years ago on this issue. Therefore, it certainly is fitting that the majority wish be accommodated in this way.

I must say, however, that I still retain some reservations because of the size of the constituency that will be represented by the regional area, which comprises six provincial ridings. It will make it increasingly difficult for the ordinary person to run for a position such as that. I have some concern that it may restrict the candidacy of people who wish to be a chairman of the region elected in this fashion to those who have private means to ensure their support or, alternatively, partisan political support.

I do not think the latter is something we need in municipal councils. It works well in this area, but I do not think it works well there. I caution the minister and those who follow that this should be something they go into with their eyes wide open, albeit in the name of democracy.

WILDLIFE '87

Mr. Bernier: I want to respond to the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio) and compliment him and his government on recognizing Wildlife `87. I am most pleased that he recognized that Ontario is a world leader in the responsible management of wildlife. I hope he follows the 42-year tradition of the Tory government when it was on that side of the House in the management of the wildlife of this province and continues the sound practices of the previous administration.

I also want to commend the minister in recognizing Lloyd Cook as the conservationist of the month. That is an excellent choice. As we all know on this side of the House, Lloyd Cook is very instrumental in improved trapping programs and humane trapping in this province.

We on this side of the House look forward to working closely with the minister as we celebrate Wildlife `87. One of my very close friends, Jim Hook from Kenora, is on the federal side of that organization, and I know he will keep us all in line.

Mr. Harris: I do not want to compliment the minister at all. I want to talk to the minister about the ridiculous statement on wetlands. Over two years ago, an inventory was taken to evaluate wetlands in Ontario. This is an ongoing process that has now been ongoing for about three years.

Mr. Speaker: Are you tying in with the statement?

Mr. Harris: The major part of the announcement is the big statement they are going to make on wetlands this summer. Today the minister is telling us about a big statement this summer on the wonderful things he is doing towards naming a wetland of international significance. He is not going to do it in Ontario; he is not going to do it today. It is already about two years behind time. He is going to do it in Regina.

On the whole issue of wetlands, we know that absolutely nothing, other than a silly statement by the Premier (Mr. Peterson) saying he is going to do something in a speech copying my leader's statement of two weeks before, has been done. Right now, we are asking farmers and all kinds of people to protect wetlands and we are offering them absolutely no compensation for it.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Harris: I want to know why, in the statement he made today, the minister was talking about the significance of the announcement he is going to make about wetlands in Regina this summer when he has done absolutely nothing for two years to preserve these wetlands for Ontario or to provide some compensation to the farmers and other land owners we are asking to save these very important wetlands for Ontario.

Mr. Laughren: I too would like to respond to the Minister of Natural Resources. I must say it takes something that can best be described as chutzpah for the member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris) to get up and launch into a tirade about inaction on wetlands, given the history of the Tory government for the last number of years.

The Minister of Natural Resources has not moved with dispatch on the designation of wetlands. We still do not have a wetlands policy in Ontario. Despite all the years and all the studies, we do not have a wetlands policy in this province.

Before the minister beats his chest too much about the preservation of wildlife, he might take a look at a couple of his own policies, such as hunting deer in the Peterborough crown game preserve. I am not too sure what hunting deer in a crown game preserve does for the preservation of natural wildlife.

Finally, as a form of criticism, I really wonder how the minister can ever be viewed as a conservationist as long as he is willing to negotiate with the federal government to have chemicals sprayed on our forests that do not attack only the budworm but also all forms of life in the forests where the spray happens to fall.

Finally -- a final "finally" -- I commend the minister for his selection of the conservationist of the month award, and I hope he continues this practice.

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF HAMILTON-WENTWORTH

Mr. Allen: In response to the statement by the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Grandmaître), I am delighted that the minister has been as good as his word and that he is following through in his co-operation with my initiative to achieve a democratic election of the regional chairman of the Hamilton-Wentworth area.

The minister will know I have been presenting this issue before the House for the last two years. We had a little difficulty with the previous administration when it came to enhancing local government democracy in this way. The previous Municipal Affairs minister was totally unsympathetic, and the cabinet of course followed his advice, and we got nowhere. When I introduced a private member's bill, this House was most gracious in its reception of it and provided in effect unanimous support for the bill when it was debated for second reading.

The government for its own reasons has felt it needs to take responsibility for municipal affairs, and I understand that. I would have preferred that it had come forward with my own bill, but the important thing is that this get done and that the further democratization of the regional government in our area take place.

I want to say the minister is wise, I think, in extending this initiative in a general sense to other regions in the province. I want to say at the same time that not every region is alike in its electoral characteristics, its demography, its scale of operations, its media relations and all the rest. Therefore, I would not suggest that what happens in Hamilton-Wentworth become the exact model for Ottawa-Carleton, or for Toronto for that matter.

May I again say that we in this party all look forward to a greater spirit of democracy in our regional and local governments, and I hope that indicates that the part of my original bill that dealt with enhancing regional representation on police commissions in our region will be followed through. If not, I will have another bill for the minister, and we can work together on that one too.

ORAL QUESTIONS

WESTERN COAL

Ms. Fish: I have a question today for this Legislature's version of Toller Cranston, the Premier. Perhaps he would share with this House why he considered that a photo opportunity at a courthouse, at an Ontario high school and a skate on the Rideau Canal were more important to him than meeting with federal officials to discuss the implication of low-sulphur coal that would reduce Ontario's acid gas emissions by some 50 per cent and be of substantial benefit to Thunder Bay?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I do not know how this little matter got out of hand. I gather the honourable member has read the newspaper and Mr. Mazankowski has been telling her about some difficulty co-ordinating dates. To the best of my knowledge, there was never a meeting planned for that particular day in Ottawa when the courthouse was opened and nice things were said about the member's former colleague Roy McMurtry in that regard.

We have tried on several occasions to make an appointment with the Deputy Prime Minister to discuss the matter of western coal, as the member may or may not be aware. I have arranged meetings for him with the president of Ontario Hydro. There have been working groups going on. We have been meeting with Premier Vander Zalm and Ontario Hydro as well as officials from the ministry in Alberta.

If the member would like to get into some of the substance of the problems, I will be very happy to discuss them with her, but I can assure the honourable member that I am prepared to meet with her or anyone else on this matter, even though it will be at least five years before anything develops because of the take-or-pay contracts which Ontario Hydro has at the present time.

Ms. Fish: The Premier himself on several occasions has complained about problems and the lack of communication from the federal government on federal-provincial matters. He has had his Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) flying down to the United States twice within a matter of days to try to persuade sportsmen there to join the fight against acid rain. Yet the Premier, with a clear opportunity in Ottawa to respond to the specific request for a meeting that would cut Ontario's acid gas emissions by 50 per cent if implemented, refused to do so.

What is he really telling us, that he finds more headlines by fighting the feds than sitting down and having a proper meeting on such an important matter?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Perhaps Mr. Mazankowski wrote that question for my honourable friend today in the House, but I can tell her with great respect that her

interpretation of the events is completely fallacious. Indeed, I cannot believe even she believes what she has just said.

Let me explain the situation. There have been many meetings going on. I have already met far in advance of these so-called discussions with Premier Vander Zalm on the subject. I have told Ontario Hydro that I want it to buy everything possible from western coal producers. The member is aware, I am sure, that at the present time the landed price difference in Ontario is something like 47 per cent. In other words, it is substantially cheaper, because of transportation problems and other things, to bring in western coal.

The member will be aware that it would require a very substantial retrofit of the Ontario Hydro plants to use that coal. There are take-or-pay contracts signed by Ontario Hydro with other producers; signed, I do not believe in our administration but in the member's administration. If she is so interested in it, why did she not pursue these matters? I have actively pursued these matters with Premier Getty and Premier Vander Zalm, and Ontario Hydro is going through discussions. I can assure the honourable member I am most anxious to conclude deals if we possibly can. Many details have to be worked out.

Ms. Fish: The Premier has made reference to problems in the contracts and to retrofit in dealing with coal that might come from western Canada, knowing, I am sure, about the substantial retrofit required for Ontario Hydro to be burning high-sulphur US coal, which may be closer.

We have seen the conversion of the Minister of Energy (Mr. Kerrio) on the road to Darlington when he talks about Hydro being an independent organization -- which the Premier used to refer to as a monster out of control -- and says the final decisions on low-sulphur coal purchased from the west will have to be made by that independent board. Can the Premier tell the House today whether he supports the minister's view that the decision is entirely within Hydro or whether he is going to show some leadership and ensure that the purchase of low-sulphur western coal is made?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I compliment the honourable member on her radical conversion with respect to coal purchased in this country, because that is not something her administration ever did. We are dealing now with a situation we inherited from that administration. If that is her new position on the matter, I am delighted to take it into account. But as I have said, and I will repeat it to the honourable member, I am sure she understands there are take-or-pay contracts in that regard; so even at best, it would take three, four or five years to work out the situation.

I have said to Mr. Mazankowski, as I have said to the member and to the western Premiers, that I believe it is a good thing for Confederation if we can buy in Canada. That is my preference. The honourable minister has expressed that view to his counterparts, as have I. We are searching for ways to do that. I am sure the honourable member would not be so superficial as to think that could be done tomorrow, particularly given those contracts that exist and given the fact particularly that our plants cannot accommodate that western coal at the present time without a massive retrofit.

I can assure the honourable member that we are doing the best we can to clean up the past we have inherited and to go on to build a stronger Canada through the purchase of western coal.

TECHNOLOGY FUND

Mr. Harris: I have a question to the Premier. He and the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) have told reporters that external reviews have shown that Exploracom was not coming together and would need additional money to sustain it year after year. The Premier was also quoted last Thursday as saying, "All the reviews show that the project was being grossly mishandled and was out of control."

Can the Premier tell us which company or companies conducted all these reviews and at what cost?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I apologize that I cannot give the member the exact cost. Coopers and Lybrand was involved, as well as external auditors and lawyers, in looking at the entire situation. I believe Osler, Hoskin and Lang, Michener, as well as other accountants, were involved. I cannot give him the total cost.

Mr. Harris: The Premier has been asked about these reviews on a number of occasions. There are many people who do not believe these external reviews even exist. I say his credibility is in question. His stonewalling is doing nothing to disabuse those people who feel that way, that it is in this case the facts.

The Premier has made very serious allegations about his close friend. He has charged that Mr. Schwartz has mishandled funds, that "The whole project was out of control; expenses were way out of line," and it was not being managed properly. These are his allegations. If he is going to make these types of allegations mean anything, I suggest he had better be prepared to prove them. If these reviews are legitimate and if in fact they do exist, why does the Premier not table them here and now?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I can assure the member I would be very happy to so do. I believe all the information should come out and, indeed, it will come out. We have had advice from the solicitors that it would not be appropriate at this time to make a response in this Legislature because it is subject to litigation that will be coming down the pike. I am sure that in the final wash, all this information will be shared with the member and I am delighted to see his support for the project.

Mr. Harris: When we questioned this project at the time he announced it, the Premier assured this House it had been properly reviewed. Obviously, that is not now the case. When he pulls the plug on Exploracom, he talks about these mysterious reviews, with vague references to companies he thinks are there. Why should anybody believe him? If all these reviews exist, he owes it to Mr. Schwartz, he owes it to the 46 laid-off employees and he owes it to all Exploracom's creditors to prove why his government reneged on his commitment.

Is Mr. Schwartz telling the truth when he says the Premier pulled out of this project for "strictly political reasons"? I also challenge the Premier; if he does not provide all these so-called legitimate external reviews, why should anyone trust anything he or his government says?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I guess the member has a right to make these inflammatory statements in the House. He is entitled to his view on the subject. I gather he has changed his mind on this whole project. It is an interesting conversion that his party has gone through on the matter.

I regret very much the decisions that had to be made. I would have much preferred to see the project go ahead, but we do have a responsibility to the taxpayers. I believe we exercised that responsibility with good judgement in the circumstances.

DAY CARE

Ms. Gigantes: My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. In the prolonged saga of policy and program development we have been witnessing from this government, the minister told us on December 2 that by January 26 he hoped he would have an agreement with the federal government that would allow federal funding to flow through to private profit-oriented day care centres in this province.

Why is the minister deliberately refusing to use the federal moneys which are available now through the Canada assistance plan to give direct operating grants to the nonprofit day care centres in this province?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: My recollection of needing information from the federal government dealt with the fact that we did not know what the ground rules were going to be in terms of the new programs we wanted to put forward. The member will be well aware that we are now on our way in a joint venture between ourselves and the federal government in establishing what those ground rules will be.

Given the rather short time frame for that joint review -- approximately four to five months -- it seems to me it would make a great deal more sense for us to wait and know what they are before we move ahead on any front.

Ms. Gigantes: As a supplementary, I would like to ask the minister why it is that having had to wait until last June for a policy paper that did not arrive, being told in December we should wait until January 26, now being told we have to wait until the end of June for federal-provincial decisions to be made surrounding the question of funding for private profit-oriented day care services, the minister is refusing to use those mechanisms and funding programs which exist now in federal-provincial agreements under CAP to provide the moneys that nonprofit day care centres and the families who use them need.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: One of the things we want to avoid, if we possibly can, is creating any more inequity in the system. It is our judgement that providing funding assistance to half the system and not to the other is going to create that greater inequity. I remind the honourable member that the document that was prepared for the federal task force clearly indicated that kind of inequity exists at the present time. It does not seem to make much sense, to me at least, that we would do any good by exacerbating an already bad situation.

Ms. Gigantes: What is the minister going to do for the municipally operated day care centre in Wingham where families are going to be facing fee hikes of from $13 to $26 per child per day come July? He has made no commitment that will allow that day care centre to keep operating. His holding back on policy and programs in this area means our nonprofit day care sector is threatened now. What is he going to do?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I believe the honourable member is referring to the situation where that particular municipality was using the indirect grant approach to keep the fees for that day care centre artificially low in terms of the real costs and of the costs that are more appropriate across the province.

The member will also be aware that we have given our assurance to each of those centres that transitional grants will be made available while a financial analysis and review are being made on an individual basis on each of these centres. Finally, it is my hope that by the time that review is complete, we will be able to put some of the new funding mechanisms in place.

PAPER MILL

Mr. Pouliot: I have a question for the Premier regarding the Kimberly-Clark control order issued last Friday.

Over the last month, the men and women of Terrace Bay in the great riding of Lake Nipigon have been the victims of a climate of anxiety that borders on the criminal. Men and women have seen their lifestyle and their community put into jeopardy simply because they were caught in limbo among the Ministry of the Environment's office, a parade of civil servants and the inefficiency of the Premier's office in handling what is really a simple situation.

Can the Premier give us a guarantee today that never again will the people of Lake Nipigon, or for that matter, elsewhere in the province, be put in that kind of limbo, and that he will adopt a reasonable and comprehensive approach to deal with future control orders?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I appreciate the point the honourable member makes in this Legislature. As one who is intimately involved in that community, he knows at first hand the difficulty that the discussion the government had with Kimberly-Clark has created. I accept that there was some insecurity over that entire discussion.

However, the honourable member will know there were two interests at stake here, which some would view as competing, that were very difficult to reconcile. He will be aware of past control orders that were not honoured. He will be aware of the amount of pollution that is coming out of that plant. At the same time, like myself, he wants to maintain those 1,600 jobs. I do not believe they are competing desires; I believe they are complementary.

That being said, many discussions went on for a long period of time. My honourable friend accuses this government of creating insecurity, but I can tell him there has been insecurity there for a very long period of time over the potential closedown of the mill and over discussions that are going on now with respect to the woodlands. I have been in Geraldton and Longlac; I have sat and talked with people.

I do not think the honourable member would want to leave the impression that this government is the only one that created insecurity. Indeed, I think the government and the minister came in and solved an extremely difficult situation in an honourable way. I think it is a win-win situation. It is our view that the environment will be cleaned up and the jobs will be maintained.

I apologize for any insecurity during the length of the discussion, but the honourable member will know that this government did not create all of that. It has been going on for a long time with respect to the operation of Kimberly-Clark, when there were suggestions it was going to be closed down, not this year but the year before that and the year before that, because it has lost a lot of money We are determined to work with that company to get it profitable and clean up the environment. I think we have accomplished both and I want to thank the honourable member for his assistance in this matter.

Mrs. Grier: We on this side find it very hard to understand how the Premier can allege that it is a win-win situation and that he has accomplished both of his objectives. Can the Premier explain to the House why in all those protracted negotiations there was no negotiation of some guarantees that those jobs would remain, and why the control order that his office finally approved contains this very peculiar clause, clause 3(e), that says very explicitly, "The company reserves its full rights to suspend or terminate operations at Terrace Bay if necessary to comply with the order"?

What security is there in that; and why, instead of negotiating job guarantees, has he negotiated an out for the company and continued the insecurity?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I say to the honourable member with great respect she is getting very confused on this matter. No one uses control orders to guarantee employment; that is not what control orders are about. They are to control pollution, and that is why it is there.

She cannot guarantee their jobs any more than I can. There has been a down-sizing in the mill, and they are now looking at the woodlands operation. The member would not want me to try to persuade her, or she try to persuade me, that we can use control orders to guarantee employment across northern Ontario.

It is a recognition of the realities of the situation. Any company can close down tomorrow or the day after that -- I cannot prevent that. What we have done is talk to the company about looking for the best technology to solve that problem. As the honourable member knows, as one who is knowledgeable about the environment, there is a considerable amount of disagreement with respect to the appropriate technology to solve that problem, whether it is in-plant solutions or using a lagoon or some external system. There are very different opinions on that matter. Even with a lagoon, it would take a couple of years to build that lagoon.

I think the honourable member is confusing the matter. I do not think she would want to leave the impression that we can control the levels of employment through control orders. I am sure she does not believe that.

Mrs. Grier: I am well aware that control orders do not usually contain guarantees of employment, but they also do not usually contain phrases that say the company has the right to terminate its operations if it wants to, and that was the point I was raising with the Premier.

Can the Premier perhaps go further and explain to this House whether this is how all future control orders are going to be negotiated? Are control orders going to be negotiated by the Premier's office, with the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) brought in by plane from New York from the sportsmen's show to rubber-stamp the agreement? Is that how we are looking after the environment in this province at this point? Who is in charge of the environment?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I say to the honourable member, who has gone to the mat many times with the Minister of the Environment --

Hon. Mr. Nixon: So to speak.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: So to speak. She knows full well who is in charge of the environment and she knows how he was lauded in New York. His attention is desired everywhere in North America as the leading spokesman for environmental matters. The member knows that as well as I do. I am very proud of the role we have played.

The minister has demonstrated sensitivity and judgement rarely seen by some of the members opposite with respect to these matters. He has cleaned up the environment; he has saved the jobs. His presence is demanded in New York, Washington, Chicago, Terrace Bay; you name it. That minister is fully in charge, and we are all lucky that he is.

Mr. Harris: He may be a leading spokesman, but when it comes to action he sure pulls up the other end of the donkey.

Mr. Speaker: The question is to which minister?

Mr. Harris: I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. Now that we know the deal for Kimberly-Clark has certainly failed miserably in protecting the environment -- in fact, I think the Premier has signalled that US companies are now dictating Ontario environmental policies -- can the minister tell us what involvement he or his ministry had in this deal that gave up on the environment and what job guarantees he was trying to secure or may have been able to secure for the 1,600 workers at Kimberly-Clark?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: This ministry has been fully involved in the discussions that went on and the solution that was found. I was in Geraldton about a month ago dealing with many of the problems related to the woodlands and other things. We had a very successful evening there, and many things were resolved.

Mr. Harris: I beg to differ with the Premier. What we have here is a lose-lose situation. We have lost on the environment, we have accepted a US made-in-Dallas solution for the pollution equipment and we have no job guarantees.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Your facts are wrong. You do not know what you are talking about.

Mr. Harris: The company signalled that in order to put in this $20 million that was required to solve the environmental problem, it could afford only $10 million. Did the minister explore $10 million to this company for a win-win instead of a lose-lose? Did he perhaps explore the possibility of an equity position in the company for the sake of $10 million? The $10 million, by the way, is two years' sales tax revenue the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) gets on those products that Kimberly-Clark sells.

Mr. Speaker: The questions have been asked.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: You do not know what you are talking about.

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: A couple of comments have come from this side that the member does not know what he is talking about. If he were to go to that area and talk to the people, he would see they are very happy with the decision and solution this government has brought about.

NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Morin-Strom: I have a question for the Premier about the study released by the United Steelworkers of America in regard to the future of Algoma Steel and what governments, as well as the company and the union, could do to improve the prospects for the long-term future of that company.

In particular, the union made a number of recommendations focused heavily on getting all the partners involved in the process. The key to that process includes the involvement of the provincial government. The recommendation for the provincial government was that as part of the provincial government's northern economic initiative it should encourage manufacturing industries that consume steel to relocate to Sault Ste. Marie to take advantage of Sault Ste. Marie's key industry.

Can the Premier tell us if he is going to take action in that regard, what that action will be and when we might see such industry locating in northern Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: A great deal of activity has gone on with respect to pursuing that particular idea, not just as a result of that report but prior to that. As the member knows, it was one of the things talked about in the Rosehart report and other reports as well. Obviously, one of the things we would very much like to see is more secondary manufacturing in northern Ontario.

I do not think there is anybody who has looked at northern Ontario for the last 100 years who has not said the same thing. The member will be aware that is much easier to say than it is to do.

There are some discussions going on at the moment with respect to specific projects. I cannot honestly stand in my place and guarantee him that they will be successful. We are most cognizant of our desires to effect that change in northern Ontario and to bring in more secondary manufacturing. We are working on the projects. I wish I had a specific answer for the member, but I do not have one today.

Mr. Wildman: I have a supplementary of the Premier with regard to one of the specific discussions that are ongoing and particularly with regard to the short-term, immediate future of the Algoma Ore division operation in Wawa and the Algoma Central Railway. Can the Premier inform the House when he expects those discussions involving the federal government, his government and the two companies to be completed, and can he confirm that any subsidy of freight rates will involve assurances that the companies will be viable and job guarantees?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Those discussions have been ongoing, as the member knows. This government indicated some time ago it was prepared to sit down and try to find a mutually acceptable solution between the various levels of government and the railroad. In addition, the federal government has recently indicated its willingness to participate as well. I cannot tell the honourable member the results of those discussions today. We are hopeful, but again there are many factors at play here.

With respect to the questions of the member and his colleague, both very legitimate questions, I do not want to raise false hopes. These are difficult discussions that are going on. There are many ramifications, including countervail and other things one has to think about and try to tailor the solutions to match our specific problems. I can assure the member they are very high priority for the government. If the member has any specific suggestions on how to do it, I am most anxious to have his help. We are determined to try to effect a real result, but I cannot tell him today what that will be, if, in fact, there will be one.

Hon. Ms. Munro: I should tell my honourable colleague that the ministry as a whole is on the forefront of impressing on people within our cultural industry, agencies and clients, the importance of our adherence to the use of both languages within our agencies. As part of that, the delivery of French-language services is paramount. We have impressed on all of the agencies in this case the importance of their documenting their commitment within the three-year plan.

I understand that as late as the middle of December, the Office of Francophone Affairs had been in touch with the Ontario Science Centre with some suggestions to which it wanted an answer -- for example, signage, newsletters, the use of French by guides, etc. I am expecting the science centre will report back to that office and I can keep the member informed through that route.

M. Poirier: J'aimerais savoir si ce serait possible que les services soient en place avant les prochaines visites scolaires de fin d'année? Je pense que c'est très important de savoir cela.

Hon. Ms. Munro: The Ontario Science Centre has some tour guides who are proficient in both languages. With the member's question in the House today and the commitment of the science centre, I am sure we will see an escalation. Again, I will keep the member informed about the commitment.

HAZARDOUS SPILL

Ms. Fish: My question is to the Premier. Returning to Ottawa, the Premier has already told us that in the course of skating around the canal he did not have time to meet with federal officials on an important environmental matter. Can he tell us if he did have the time to meet with regional officials on the matter of the Lees Avenue coal tar cleanup?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: No. I have not met with them in that regard.

Ms. Fish: Fond as the Premier is of taking environmental matters away from the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley), he is surely aware that the regional municipality has already spent in excess of $8 million in cleaning up the coal tar deposits. Will he take this issue away from his Environment minister as well and make a serious offer to Ottawa-Carleton to pay the cost of that cleanup?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: This matter is firmly in the hands of the very able Minister of the Environment, and if the member has any questions in that regard, I am sure he will be happy to answer them for her.

LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I have a question to the Minister of Labour regarding a strike in the minister's riding that I think is going to be a major test of the minister's ability to solve labour problems in Ontario. It concerns a strike at Maple Leaf Mills, which is owned by Archer-Daniel-Midland, a major United States company.

What steps has the minister taken to resolve this labour dispute, and in particular, what steps has he taken to turn around the company's position that one of its demands is that the Canadian Auto Workers union at this plant must insert in the contract a clause which will allow the workers to work over 48 hours a week, thus giving up their rights under labour legislation regarding overtime and implementing a policy this company has implemented with all its employees in the United States? Do we have to accept the policies of American corporations contrary to Ontario law?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I am very concerned about this strike, as I am concerned any time there is a labour dispute. I am concerned about it not because it is in my riding, not because it is in my community, but because we have 78 men and women on the picket lines in a dispute in Ontario and we want that strike to end as quickly as possible. I want to make that clear to my friend.

I am well aware of this specific issue, which is a very troubling one. It is my view, and that of my ministry, that notwithstanding any agreement that may theoretically be reached along the lines pointed out by the honourable member, the Employment Standards Act will continue to apply with its minimums and individual complaints will be allowed to apply. I believe that, through the involvement of senior officials of the industrial relations division, that point has been made to the company in this dispute.

I want to indicate to the member in a general sense that I have been involved personally, as has my assistant deputy minister and a very senior mediator, Dennis Nelson. We are hopeful the parties will resume direct bargaining within the next week to week and a half.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: What efforts has the minister taken to make sure this company does not hire scabs? As he knows, they have advertised in the local newspaper to hire scabs to break the strike, to break the union. He knows they have also recruited scabs through the local Manpower office, which advertised and tried to recruit scabs for this company. What has the minister done with respect to the union's request to him on Saturday that he directly contact the company and indicate that it should not be following this practice in Ontario? Or has he done what he told the union he was going to do on Saturday, which was to bring it back to his bureaucrats to let them make the decision?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I had a meeting with the president of Local 195 -- and I believe he is the deputy plant chairman -- Mike Renaud, on Saturday. The meeting was off the record. I am not prepared to discuss the specifics involved in that meeting. It was certainly off the record from my point of view. That matter was made clear to the gentleman before the meeting. I thought we had a very productive meeting and I have had an opportunity to discuss this matter since that time with a number of people. Beyond that, I do not think any other comments I can make publicly in this House will be helpful to resolving this dispute.

AGRICULTURAL FUNDING

Mr. Stevenson: I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. I have now received a copy of a letter from Brian Slemko, director of the food processing branch, to Mr. Squires, president of Natural Fry. This letter states that the minister will be seeking support for money for loan guarantees and that money would be coming from the Ontario Development Corp. and his cabinet colleagues. It goes on: "The administrative details regarding the loan guarantee are presently being prepared by the ministry and the ODC. It is our intention to obtain the appropriate approvals as soon as possible."

It is positive statements such as that, plus phone calls to bank managers by Doug Stone in the ministry, that led potato growers to continue to sell to Natural Fry against their own personal concerns. The minister clearly has some responsibility for the financial position these growers are in. Will the minister not agree that he and his ministry are obligated to help these potato growers?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: Legal counsel for the Ministry of Agriculture and Food have advised me that since W. D. Potato Ltd. is contemplating a legal action against the crown, it would not be proper to comment further on the specifics of the Natural Fry situation. Based on that advice, most unfortunately, I decline to answer any such questions in order to protect the rights of the crown in any civil action.

However, if the member for Durham-York (Mr. Stevenson) is genuinely interested in the Ontario potato industry, I am pleased to report that progress has been made towards the development of a financial protection plan for processing potatoes.

A meeting in this connection involving the potato board, processors and ministry staff was held last week, and another meeting is planned for this week. Naturally, in the development of such a program, it is necessary through the meeting process to allow for full discussion of all the aspects that have to be considered.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Stevenson: The minister will remember his statements made at the Ontario Federation of Agriculture: "I am in the driver's seat. I am in control now."

Mr. Speaker: Order. Does the member have a supplementary ?

Mr. Stevenson: Yes, I do. The minister has the responsibility for his ministry and his staff. Why does he not get off his duff and help these financially troubled farmers get out of the mess the minister and his ministry have led them into?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, continuing with the answer to the first question that you thought was a little too long, we are certainly prepared to look into the special problems that have been faced by the potato growers who sold their potatoes to Natural Fry. If indeed the potato growers and processors decide to put a financial protection program in place, I think we can find the way to help them.

NUCLEAR ARMS FREE ZONE

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I have a question of the Premier. First, I would like to quote the Premier:

"I am one of those who has become somewhat disillusioned with the process of private members' business and the introduction of resolutions. They have become all motherhood, because nothing happens to them. Theoretically, they should represent the weight of opinion of this House and they should have, at least, a strong moral force in the creation of public policy. But we have seen so many of those resolutions being well debated and then die."

I am getting the feeling that my resolution on nuclear weapons free zones is having the same kind of fate with the government. This weekend I sent the Premier copies of two bills as follow-ups to the nuclear weapons free zone resolution, and I would like his comments on them. The first was on assisting companies such as Litton to convert to civilian production and taking provincial action to assist companies to do that. What is his position on that? Would he be willing to bring in that kind of legislation in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Let me compliment the honourable member on his choice of authorities. When I want to make my point in this Legislature, sometimes I quote some of the wisest, most thoughtful people I know of, be they some of the great philosophers, great historians or great politicians, be they Winston Churchill, John F. Kennedy, Spinoza, Schopenhauer or --

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Socrates.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Socrates; and I compliment the member on his choice of authorities in this regard. It shows he is very well read.

With respect to the point he has raised in this House, I was not aware he had sent me a letter. I have been dealing with Mr. Mazankowski's mail, which I just received today, but I appreciate his telling me about this. I have not seen the substance of his bills, but I am prepared to discuss it with him when I have had a chance to go through them.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I am disappointed that the Premier has not seen it as yet.

The second act is

An Act to amend the Planning Act. I have been quite frustrated by the Premier's notion that there is nothing we can do in Ontario that is within our jurisdiction. It struck me that we have the Planning Act. I wonder whether the Premier will support the provision I am suggesting, that every official plan shall be deemed to include a provision that no new facilities shall be established for and no facilities shall be converted to the production of nuclear weapons material in the province of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: As I understand it, the two bills the member is talking about today have not been debated in this House. Is that correct? Obviously, he would not want me to prejudge something as important as private members' hour. He has the option of bringing them into the House. I look forward to that debate. I was not familiar with his amendment to the Planning Act in that regard, but I look forward to a thorough, wholesome and fulsome debate on the subject. Obviously, this government takes the views of private members very seriously.

The quotation the member used was talking about the past government, not about the present government, which is sensitive to the needs of private members. The member will recall that his very esteemed colleague the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan) brought in a motion with respect to the Time Act. He will stand in history as the man who individually changed the way we read our watches in this province and I congratulate him. We do take thoughtful suggestions very seriously and I am sure this member's suggestions fall into that category.

After they are fully debated and all the members have had an opportunity to express their points of view, I can assure him that this government will deal with it with all the seriousness it deserves.

COURT FACILITIES

Mr. Hennessy: On behalf of the people of Thunder Bay, I would like to ask the Premier a question. For seven years, Thunder Bay has been the only city in Ontario where trials are held in hotel rooms because of lack of court space. Lawyers often conduct interviews in halls, stairwells and washrooms. The lack of space and lack of decorum allows jury members to encounter the accused and witnesses, a situation that could lead to a mistrial. Thunder Bay has been fourth on a priority list for new court facilities. Why was Thunder Bay dropped from this list?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I appreciate the honourable member bringing the point to my attention with respect to the inadequacy of court facilities in Thunder Bay. Regrettably, I do not think that is the only community where that has gone on in this province; there are others. He will know that there is a great long list of demands for courtroom facilities across the province. I am not aware -- I could be misinformed -- of Thunder Bay having been struck off any list. I will bring his thoughtful expression of concern to the attention of the Attorney General (Mr. Scott), who is responsible for these decisions.

Mr. Hennessy: In view of the Premier's concern about the north and his trying to represent northwestern Ontario with Liberal people, it seems very odd. Thunder Bay was fourth on the list. He gave courtrooms to Toronto, North Bay and Ottawa, but when it came time for the city of Thunder Bay to receive its courtroom, he conveniently took it off the list. He should not tell me he does not know he took it off the list. Why is he trying to treat the people in northwestern Ontario -- he gets up and gives us a foolish answer such as that.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I appreciate the thoughtful way the member puts his point. I am not sure what his point is about the Liberals being involved in this whole matter --

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am not aware of that. I can tell him that this government has done a great number of things to support activity in northern Ontario. There is no question about that. I think the member will recognize that. On the point he raises, I said I would undertake to discuss it with the Attorney General. As I said, I am not aware of it being cut off anyone's list and I appreciate the honourable member's concern.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr. Martel: I have a question for the Minister of Labour about the swamp. I have a letter and a document, dated one day apart, January 19 and 20, both signed by the Minister of Labour.

In the one document, the Minister of Labour says to me with respect to the number of convictions of workers and employers, "The number of employers convicted under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, 158; the number of supervisors, 56; the number of workers, 28." The next document, one day later, signed by the Minister of Labour, says, "The number of companies convicted, 158; the number of workers who were charged and convicted, 229." Can the minister tell me which one of these two documents I should believe?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: Without looking at the two letters, I would have to check a minor, little detail, which is whether the time frames involved are exactly the same. I am sure the honourable gentleman likes to stand up and raise these questions out of the blue. Quite frankly, if he would like me to give him an answer, for the period between April 1986 and November 1986, the total was 198-118 employer-owners on a total of 138 counts, 37 supervisors on a total of 41 counts and 19 workers on a total of 19 counts. I also presume the member is not mixing individuals and companies in the number of counts, but until I look at those documents I cannot give him any better answer than that.

Mr. Martel: Since the fiscal year is 1985-86 on both documents, I cannot figure out the discrepancy, but maybe the minister can tell me the other discrepancy.

He is the tough fellow who is going to lay charges against everyone. Can he tell me why in the first fiscal year, 1984-85, there were 161 companies convicted and in 1985-86 there were 158, or three less; while at the same time, in the year 1984-85 there were 87 workers convicted and in 1985-86, his first full year, there were 229 workers convicted? Will the minister tell me who he is after, if it is not workers, where he has tripled the number of convictions and with the employers he reduced it by three? Is his position, as it was on Dateline Ontario, that it is the dumb workers who create their own problems and that is why he lays charges against them?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I certainly approve of my friend's dedication to health and safety, but the problem with my friend is, he plucks a one-year number out of thin air and says, "This shows...." The problem with my friends on the other side is that they ask their questions and then they will not listen to a response.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: The problem is that a figure is plucked out of mid-air over one year, one specific figure. In asking his question, I notice the honourable gentleman did not wish to use the figures of the first nine months of this fiscal year, in which the recommendations to the legal branch for prosecution went up 95 per cent over the previous year. That figure includes companies, supervisors and workers. Unfortunately, it does not fit into the neat little world the honourable gentleman is trying to create and so he did not use it.

GASOLINE TAX

Mr. Callahan: My question is addressed to the Treasurer. On my way up to Barrie on Friday evening, I heard a soliloquy being put forth by the member for Simcoe Centre (Mr. Rowe) -- in a mini-torial, they call it -- under the title "Barrie Drivers Are Ripped Off." He was addressing the question of the fixed tax as opposed to the ad valorem tax. I felt it was unfair that he went on to say that the Treasurer would have nothing to do with those additional funds. I would like to give the Treasurer an opportunity to tell us all the things that have to be looked after as a result of the inactivity of the previous government.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I certainly appreciate this special opportunity. I left my notes on the answer in my other suit. The honourable member really has inherent in his question the answer I would like to have put to the House, that is, that we decide democratically in this jurisdiction what the tax will be on a litre of motor vehicle fuel or gasoline. We think that is the appropriate way to do it.

In fact, we reduced the taxes at that time from the ad valorem 20 per cent, as it would have been. The member would know the projections for gasoline tax revenue of just a shade over $1 billion are right on target. As a matter of fact, it is one of the few projections of revenue that has not changed since the budget.

One of the things that concerns me is that the revenues are down a bit as more efficient cars are brought on. The buoyancy of the economy has this effect, that more people are able to go out and buy a new car with the efficiency of the new engines. This is affecting our revenues in a negative way.

Mr. Speaker: New question, the member for Sarnia.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the member would just want to rest until the other members stop shouting across the floor.

UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr. Brandt: My question is for the Premier. The Premier will be aware that approximately two weeks ago I wrote a letter to him requesting a meeting that was asked for by a delegation from the city of Sarnia to discuss assistance for my community, which, as the Premier is aware, is undergoing some very serious unemployment problems as a result of the slowdown in the petrochemical industry.

My understanding is that the Premier did indicate to reporters outside of the House that he was prepared to meet with that delegation. My question to the Premier today is whether a time has been established with his office for the representatives from the Sarnia city council to meet with him. If not, will he agree to have his office make the necessary contacts to set up that meeting?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I appreciate the honourable member's bringing these important matters to my attention in the House. I

s was quite aware of it and I did say I would be happy to meet.

Regrettably, since the member conveyed his message to me, I learned that the mayor of that community is very ill, and I am very sad about that situation. Of course, like many of his friends, I am optimistic that he will be recovering very quickly. It seemed appropriate that we would attend his recovery. As I understand it, he is currently in the hospital, although I may be wrong, but I am hopeful that as soon as he is out of the hospital and feeling better, we can get together.

Mr. Brandt: I want the Premier to be aware of the fact that there are some 900 out of 1,000 construction workers in one particular union at the moment who are unemployed in my community, and the figures would indicate that in the construction trades alone perhaps some 75 per cent of the construction workers are currently unable to find work.

The Premier is also aware, I am sure, that most of the growth that he and the Treasurer talk about in such optimistic terms relative to Ontario is taking place generally in the Metro Toronto area. The citizens of this province who live in the north, who live in the east and who live in the western part of the province are not enjoying the same level of buoyancy in the economy that they brag about so frequently on that side of the House.

I would like to ask whether the Premier, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. O'Neil) or other members of his cabinet have any ideas, any solutions, any programs to bring forward that might alleviate the very critical unemployment problem my colleagues are facing in the north, many in the east, certainly in my community and others in the western part of Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am aware of the letter the member sent. As I recall, he asked me to move a ministry of the government to Sarnia. That was his specific suggestion to solve the problem. If my thoughts are wrong, then the member, I am sure, will correct me. He will be aware of the great decentralization program where we are in the process of moving thousands of jobs out of Toronto, particularly to northern Ontario, to try to stabilize those economies.

I think the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) was the first one to stand up and say, "In spite of the buoyancy of the economy in this province, we recognize those regional disparities." He has applied a substantial amount of funds to solving those problems.

Sarnia is one community; there are other communities that are having difficulties at present. Interestingly enough, this morning I met with a number of people in the chemical industry and I am somewhat familiar with the problems they are having.

We are, obviously, concerned about issues such as pricing, competitiveness, surplus tests and other things to keep that industry competitive. Any help the member can be in talking to his federal colleagues, his close friends in Ottawa who make so many of these decisions, to keep the petrochemical industry healthy and alive would be very much appreciated, not just by me but by his electorate in Sarnia as well.

I do not honestly think his suggestion of moving a ministry there is particularly constructive. It is one of the problems we have in this House. When we move a ministry somewhere else, everybody else would like to have the same ministry. I do not think at the moment that is what we are planning to do, because of the chronically depressed area of northern Ontario where we are putting our efforts at the moment.

However, we are looking at a number of industrial development opportunities right now. I know the honourable member has been looking at them. I am not in a position to announce anything today, but perhaps we can in the future.

I remind the honourable member, just in case he gets too pessimistic about this situation, it is tough there, but the employment numbers are better in this province than they have been in six years. That is a measure of the Treasurer's competence in running this province.

ENERGY-FROM-WASTE PLANT

Mr. Reville: Seeing that the Premier has not been able to talk out the clock, I would like to pose a question to the Minister of the Environment.

The minister has been sharing his joy at his reappointment to his ministry twice in this question period with my friend from Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren).

Now that he is in charge of the Ministry of the Environment again, I would like him to tell the House what he has decided to do as Minister of the Environment with the energy-from-waste proposal, a private sector proposal capable of burning 650 tons of garbage per day in the city of Toronto; whether or not he has decided to subject that private sector proposal to a full environmental assessment under the Environment Assessment Act, given that the citizens think a moratorium on energy from waste is a much more appropriate idea than speeding ahead with an energy-from-waste plant in south Riverdale.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I guess what the stand might be would depend on whom the member would speak to and in what part of Ontario. I think there are a number of people on city council who have different points of view on this matter. I think Alderman Richard Gilbert -- is he a New Democrat? -- was in favour of it and others have not been in favour of it; so there is a division of opinion even within other parties.

I expect for the member's sake that we will have a decision very soon, because we now have information from the city council on what direction it would like to take; so I think we are now in a position to be able to give an answer to the member at the earliest opportunity. I know he has a sincere interest in this matter.

PETITIONS

DIALYSIS UNIT

Mr. Warner: I wish to table the following petition:

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

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

"That the Ministry of Health respond to the need for a renal dialysis unit at Scarborough General Hospital, since no such unit exists between the city of Toronto and the city of Kingston."

It is signed by 173 people. This brings the total now to 397. There are many more to come until we get that unit.

HOSPITAL CLOSING

Mr. Guindon: I have a petition, which reads as follows:

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

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

"That any decision to close Macdonnell Memorial Hospital in Cornwall, Ontario, would add to an already unacceptable jobless rate and would only serve to add to unemployment and welfare rolls. We request the reassessment of this so-called cost-saving proposal so as to not cause undue hardship to employees of Macdonnell Memorial Hospital; and that guarantees of no job losses be put in place should the Minister of Health proceed with the building of another facility in Cornwall."

It is signed by 330 residents of Cornwall.

MOTION

COMMITTEE SITTING

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved that the select committee on the environment be authorized to meet on Thursday, February 5, 1987, following routine proceedings.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF HAMILTON-WENTWORTH STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître moved first reading of Bill 192,

An Act to amend the Regional Municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth Act and the Municipal Elections Act.

Motion agreed to.

CITY OF MISSISSAUGA ACT

Mr. Offer moved first reading of Bill Pr66,

An Act respecting the City of Mississauga.

Motion agreed to.

PLANNING AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. R. F. Johnston moved first reading of Bill 193,

An Act to amend the Planning Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Let me apologize for not having a form to go with the bill. My mind was elsewhere. Members should not ask me where.

I have a brief comment or two about the bill. This is an amendment to the Planning Act, which will do two things. First, it will add to the list of factors the minister must consider in carrying out his duties, the question about whether health, social fabric and environment are threatened by the production of nuclear weapons material.

Second, it will be deemed to be the case that all official plans in Ontario will make impossible the production and manufacture of nuclear weapons or their component parts in Ontario.

NUCLEAR WEAPONS ECONOMIC CONVERSION ACT

Mr. R. F. Johnston moved first reading of Bill 194,

An Act to provide for the Conversion of Technologies and Skills used in the Nuclear Weapons Industry to Civilian Uses.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: This bill is the first of its kind I know of in Canada, although similar bills have been brought before Congress in the United States. Essentially, it provides for any company that is involved in a nuclear weapons contract to undertake establishment of a committee of its employees, its management and people from the community to work on a plan to convert the uses of that plant after the expiration of the contract for civilian uses, and if no plan can be brought about for those purposes, at least to provide a fund to protect the workers who would lose their jobs at the end of that contract.

HIGH STREET RECREATION COMPLEX OF ST. THOMAS AND ELGIN ACT

Mr. McNeil moved first reading of Bill Pr44,

An Act respecting the High Street Recreation Complex of St. Thomas and Elgin.

Motion agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THIRD READINGS

The following bills were given third reading on motion:

Bill 161,

An Act to amend the Courts of Justice Act, 1984;

Bill 163,

An Act to repeal the Inflation Restraint Act, 1982, and the Public Sector Prices and Compensation Review Act, 1983;

Bill 164,

An Act to repeal the Farm Loans Act and the Farm Loans Adjustment Act;

Bill 186,

An Act to amend the Election Finances Act, 1986.

House in committee of supply.

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

On vote 301, ministry administration program:

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The Premier (Mr. Peterson), who will be responding to these estimates, will be here in a moment. He is washing his hands.

Mr. Chairman: Do you wish to speak for a while until he gets here?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I am sure that if the honourable members want to address comments or questions, our efficient public address system will bring their views to him as he even now moves towards the chamber.

Mr. Wildman: If the Premier is within earshot, perhaps I can make a few comments.

Mr. Chairman: I am sorry, I cannot hear you.

Mr. Wildman: If you cannot hear me, he cannot either. I said, if the Premier is within earshot, I will make a few comments.

I am particularly concerned, under the main office of the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs, about two or three particular issues. The first I would like to deal with is the question of aboriginal rights.

As the House knows, the federal government and the provincial governments, along with the native organizations in this country, made a commitment that by this year a conference would be held that would deal with a constitutional amendment related to native rights. I understand that a conference was held just within the last couple of weeks in Halifax in preparation for that conference.

The impression from reading the press is that the conference was not very successful; that in fact there are major differences between the federal government and the Indian organizations. Certainly the comments of Mr. Erasmus during the conference and subsequent to the conference do not bode well for success in reaching a consensus that would be acceptable to the aboriginal organizations as well as to the federal government and the provincial governments, or certainly all of the provincial governments.

The Premier will recall that at the time in October when the Chiefs of Ontario held a rally in front of the Legislature, the aboriginal organizations of this province requested a commitment from the provincial government that this government would not enter into an accord with regard to the passage of a constitutional amendment unless such an amendment were acceptable to the aboriginal organizations.

Basically, what they were asking for was a veto, and I am not sure what the Premier's view is of that. It seems to me that what the Indian organizations are asking for is that they will not be faced with a fait accompli; that they will not be faced, as was Quebec earlier, with the kind of kitchen accord that brought about an amendment and a historic change to the Constitution that was not acceptable to that province.

What the aboriginal organizations of Ontario are requesting, what the Chiefs of Ontario are requesting, basically is that no agreement will be accepted by the government of Ontario unless that agreement on the wording of an amendment has in fact already been accepted as appropriate by the aboriginal organizations of this province.

I do not know whether it would be better for me to go on with the other matters I wanted to raise or whether the Premier would like to respond immediately to that particular issue.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am very happy to respond now. Just as a matter of general style of conducting the discussion, I am very happy to respond issue by issue. Let me say that if the member takes exception to something I say or would like to add to it, or if some other member wants to add remarks on this issue while we are discussing it, then I am very happy to conduct the discussions this way; because it is a difficult issue, the honourable member will be aware of that. It is complicated, and it needs the advice and benefit of all members of this House. I suspect it is one of those issues that we all care about.

We all have some knowledge about it, and particularly as we are moving towards a first ministers' conference on this issue on March 26 and 27, I am anxious to have the benefit of the experience of my colleagues.

The member is quite right; although I will be intimately involved in these discussions, the essential carriage is with the Attorney General (Mr. Scott), who was in Halifax a couple of weeks ago at those discussions. Really, we continue on the same line I inherited from my predecessor, Mr. Davis, and others in the previous government. In general terms, we would like to see a constitutional amendment. We would like to see the native peoples included, and in the long run we want to see the setting of the terms for self-government to be negotiated.

I do not want to be presumptuous. I suspect everyone in the House agrees in general terms with that thrust. If some do not, I would be happy to have them share their views with me. Certainly, it would be helpful to me and the Attorney General when we go to the talks in a couple of weeks to have that assistance from the House, knowing we have our colleagues standing behind us on this issue.

I recall the meeting on the front lawn, and I recall the question in the House that day with respect to the veto. Will we sign anything that has not been agreed to by the native people? I say to the honourable member that even though that sounds good and is something that would be nice to say "yes" to, it is more complicated than that. I cannot give him that absolutely flat assurance.

I can assure him that if the native people of this province do not like what is coming out of these discussions, it will give us great pause. It is not our intention to railroad something over them. It is something we want to discuss, negotiate, share and consult with them about. I can assure him I do not think we are going to run into a back room, make a deal and foist it down other people's throats. To give that blanket assurance that we will not under any circumstances raises a number of questions.

One, whose veto? As the member knows, no group, including the native people, is monolithic. They have their elected organizations, as do we, but there are a variety of different voices. There is no guarantee there will be unanimity in that regard. As I said, we ignore their advice in these matters at our peril, but I think we have to leave the government some flexibility in that regard.

Second, it depends on the discussions with our colleagues and peers at the first ministers' conference, what will come out, the kinds of shades and nuances. My experience with these things -- and I do not pretend to be all-seeing or all-knowledgeable about these issues -- is that compromise is frequently the order of the day.

This is going to be a difficult decision. I say to my honourable friend -- and I am not here to criticize my sister provinces or Premiers in any way -- this province is one of the most advanced on this particular issue. We are further ahead than a number of the other provinces in the sense of looking for a settlement.

It may be what comes out of the pipe. It is not going to be my decision; it is going to be agreed on among my peers. It may not be perfect. Maybe other people will want more. Then we will have to ask the question, "Shall we go part-way? Is half a loaf, a quarter of a loaf or three quarters of a loaf better than no loaf?" We do not know the answers to those questions at this time.

I would not like to saddle the people of Ontario, the government and my colleagues with an absolutely flat assurance on that matter. As I have said, if we come to a conclusion with which the member disagrees or the native people disagree, we make that decision at our peril. Leadership is sometimes a lonely job. No matter what we do, we will be criticized.

It is like this House. I come in here and I know I am going to be criticized, no matter what happens. That is the reality of the business. We want to make a fair-minded decision. We are committed to rectifying some historic injustices with respect to our native people. The member would be aware of some of the offers of land claims and other things that have been made that frankly, in an historic perspective, are major breakthroughs.

The member can argue, and I would argue, that it is not happening fast enough. There are still lots of frustrations for all of us in this regard. I cannot give my honourable friend that blanket assurance, but I am most anxious to hear any advice he has in that regard. I hope I have answered his question.

Mr. Wildman: I would like to ask a supplementary to this.

Mr. Sterling: I have a supplementary as well.

Mr. Chairman: On the same subject or a different subject?

Mr. Wildman: On the same subject; it is just a supplementary. I know the interest of my friend opposite because of his former responsibilities in cabinet on this issue.

I understand the comments the Premier has made. I would like to ask him specifically whether he can give us some idea of how the Ontario delegation to the conference will be made up. I recall that in the earlier discussions of the Constitution and native rights, a number of representatives of Ontario aboriginal organizations were included in the Ontario delegation. Also, I thought the then minister, the Honourable Tom Wells, was very gracious in extending an invitation to one member, I think, of each of the two opposition parties at that time to attend as observers to the conference. It was most helpful.

I agree with the Premier that it is important for all members of this House, as well as the members of the government, to be informed and to know what is going on. It might be beneficial if members of the opposition can attend as observers; obviously they are not participants.

In regard to what the Premier said about the difficulty in gaining unanimity, that is well taken, but if the Premier is unable to say categorically that no agreement will be reached without the full acceptance of the native organizations, at least it is important for us to note the Premier said reaching an agreement that is not acceptable to the native organizations would be at the peril of the government.

I think that certainly is an indication this government is prepared to do everything it can to gain unanimity or to gain consensus -- consensus perhaps is a better term -- on whatever proposals are made for Indian rights in the amendment to the Constitution. I accept that view. I understand what the Premier is saying. Perhaps he can give us some indication of how the Ontario delegation will be constituted.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: We are inviting, to all ministerial meetings, representatives of the Ontario Metis and Non-Status Indian Association, the Chiefs of Ontario and the Ontario Native Women's Association. To the best of my knowledge, the relationships are reasonably close. They are familiar with what we are doing.

We are privileged to have an Attorney General who is very knowledgeable about these issues and who has spent a good part of his professional life, prior to coming into public life, dealing with these questions. Apart from having a professional interest, he has a deep, personal interest as we sort through these problems. I am delighted I will be able to have his assistance.

The member's idea is excellent. I had not really applied my mind to the question of the composition of the delegation but I hereby invite the member. It is an excellent idea. Perhaps the appropriate thing to do is to signify that to the leader of his party, who will make the appropriate designation. I will be very happy to have the member. I particularly hope his leader will choose him because of his great knowledge and interest in this subject and the help he can be to the Ontario delegation. I will do the same thing with the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Grossman). I hope we have all the help we can get in resolving these questions.

It is not going to be an easy fight. I am one of those people who are great optimists in life. I want very much to see a resolution. A lot of things have been hanging around in our society for a long period of time and are not going to go away. My view is we should wrestle with them, deal with them and get on with building the future.

This one certainly antedates me; I hope it does not postdate me, or any of us for that matter. We need everybody's help. I will officially extend that invitation. I will ask the deputy minister to do that. If I forget, he will remind me.

Mr. Sterling: I believe the Premier has acknowledged the role of the previous government and basically has stated that our position has not changed with regard to the thrust Ontario took in trying to propel our native communities to the status of self-government. He has also learned that to propel people to that status is not as easy as just handing over power and control to a group of individuals, because they live in a very complicated society and have very many different relationships with society.

In Ontario we have status Indians, nonstatus Indians, Metis, status Indians who live off reserves and status Indians who live on reserves. We have a number of different native communities to deal with. In dealing with self-government, we have to try to deal with all those different groups. I do not think many people in Ontario are aware that Ontario has more natives than any other province in Canada, although they do not make up as great a percentage as other groups do.

Having been one of the ministers who was involved, two constitutional conferences ago, with the delegation that went to the conference and with the people who were involved with it, I advise the Premier to listen very closely to one group, the native women's group. The native women's group probably has its feet more firmly planted on the ground than any of the other native groups one may talk to. In my view, they have the genuine concerns of the native communities within the grasp of their understanding and are most anxious to make progress of any sort in improving their situation and making their communities become more self-determining.

The Premier knows that some time ago Ontario, I believe along with Manitoba and New Brunswick, supported the entrenchment of principles that would lead to the altering of

section 35 of our Constitution. I ask the Premier whether he still stands behind the entrenchment of those principles and whether other provinces or the federal government have fallen in behind him.

I understand that this next conference is the last conference to deal with aboriginal rights for which a timetable has been set. Because I am somewhat removed from the negotiations at this time, I am not aware whether there are plans to hold subsequent conferences dealing with native rights, and in particular with self-government.

The only other piece of advice I will offer is that no one in all these discussions ever seems to talk about the burdensome side of government. They talk about exercising the powers of government; they talk about exercising the power to make rules, to run courts, to run their police forces and to run their educational systems.

I have no objection to allowing a far greater amount of autonomy in dealing with these matters, and after some kind of trial period, perhaps even going farther and farther down the road to allowing them all kinds of liberties in terms of self-government, but somewhere along the line some politician has to stand up and ask: "Where does the responsibility end in terms of self-government? Where does that stop? Where does the right to make the rules and spend the money, the right to do all these different things stop, and where does the responsibility in terms of obligations come in?

When do native communities have to become financially responsible or partially responsible?" There have to be some choices, when you talk about governing, for communities not only to benefit in some ways but also, if they make wrong decisions, to suffer in some ways as well.

I do not have the firsthand experience in the riding I represent that the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman) has. When I was Provincial Secretary for Justice, I believe I engendered a certain degree of trust between myself and the native communities. Although we did not seem to progress in terms of advancement in a lot of ways, I think the former government -- Mr. Davis, Mr. McMurtry, Mr. Wells and, I hope, myself -- was propelled by the right motives in terms of trying to push the progress of this whole process forward.

I had hoped the Premier, along with the Attorney General and the government, would continue that process in the future. Given the goodwill of all members of the Legislature, as exhibited by the member for Algoma and I can speak on our party's behalf, we are very much in favour of going down this road and will support the government's efforts to deal with this problem.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I appreciate very much the thoughtful remarks by my colleagues on this issue. We all share, for want of a better word, a collective sense of guilt and a collective sense of determination to try to do something with this question. I cannot honestly predict the result to the member, with the role of the other provinces in this matter. As the member knows, Ontario does not have the right to go it alone. I think my honourable colleague is right that the last formally agreed-to meeting was two years ago. That was the last regularly scheduled meeting resulting from the last constitutional round.

At that point, the complexion of the country was quite substantially different to what it is now. As the member knows, the people who agreed to that were a latter-day set of Fathers of Confederation, people like Bill Davis, Rend Lévesque, Lougheed and others who were in the country, and then Prime Minister Trudeau. The interesting question is going to be to find out the resolve of the new round of players.

As the member knows, the political leadership in this country at the first ministerial level has changed quite substantially in the last couple of years. There has been a more than 50 per cent turnover. It is going to be an interesting thing to see the resolve of that group. I think that first group that I talked about -- Messrs. Davis, Trudeau and others -- did have a determination to try to solve this problem, could not solve it, but left it over for a couple of meetings and were hoping something would result out of it. I do not honestly know how it will turn out.

There might be a decision coming out of it to meet again if some of the issues are not resolved. Frankly, I think a lot of it will depend on the leadership of the Prime Minister.

That is not to say for a moment that I do not have a responsibility in this matter. I do and I accept that, but I think it is not impossible that the Prime Minister, if he seizes this as an issue of personal responsibility and is prepared to drive it, as he has the greatest power to drive the national agenda, could make things happen; if not at this meeting then at some future meeting. That is something for the future to determine. I just say to the member that I hope we do not need any more meetings. I hope we can solve it at this next meeting. That will be the approach that I will take with the members' help and guidance.

To answer the member's question with respect to the change of the sexual equality provisions of

section 35, we are still supportive of the policy position taken at the first ministers' conference in March 1985. I am told it has not been a major focus of the discussion over the past 12 months but is, in fact, still on the agenda.

I hope I have answered the member's questions. I hope his leader will choose him to join us on that occasion when we can take advantage of his specific advice.

Mr. Sterling: May I just make one other brief comment? One of the problems in dealing with native rights that I experienced was over who is responsible for which group of native people one is dealing with. There has always and for ever been a confusion as to who is responsible for which individuals in dealing with natives. Who is responsible for natives who live on reserves? Who is responsible for natives who live off reserves? Who is responsible for the Metis? Who is responsible for our first aboriginal people? Who is responsible for nonstatus natives?

The problem is that the confusion continues. My suggestion to the Premier is that he should try to draw some lines as to who is going to be responsible for this group and who is going to be responsible for that group. No matter what resources he or his government is kind enough to put forward for the native community, if he duplicates what the federal government is responsible for, he will be diluting his efforts.

It has always been my feeling the Premier should draw the line in terms of his responsibility for dealing with nonstatus Indians and their needs in urban communities, in dealing with Metis and in dealing with status Indians who do not live on the reserves and leave the other matter for the federal government to deal with. If he could draw those lines more distinctly, I think progress could be more easily made.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: That point is well taken. The more we delve into the detail of this situation, the more we see how infinitely complicated it is. We tend to think of status Indians on reserves when we think of the native people question. As the honourable member said, it is way beyond that, to people in urban communities in the south and others as well.

I do not know the answer to his question about who is responsible for whom. It is an extremely difficult decision we have to make. I remember when we came in to form the government a year and a half or so ago, I asked myself the question, "Should this matter have a separate minister responsible for native affairs?" We came to the conclusion it would not be too sound a thing to do organizationally. How do you deal with native health, education, housing, policing and all the other things that are part of the system'? It is part of their community; so we do it through a cabinet committee, chaired by the Attorney General, the minister responsible for native affairs.

In a way, that is the same organizational problem we have when organizing a difficult concept like race relations or women's issues for that matter. Women are obviously involved in every single part of every ministry right across the board. It is the question of trying to co-ordinate our response, getting everyone singing out of the same hymnbook and forcing each ministry to take an active and supportive role in the policy and direction the government has set.

The member's advice is well taken. I do not have a better answer for him than that at the moment. We will try not to let this thing get so diffused that it ends up turning into nothing.

Mr. Wildman: I do not want to prolong this issue, but there are a couple of comments I want to make in conclusion. Perhaps the Premier can respond to them.

In regard to his statement that the players are different, that is quite true, but there are still some players who were around at that time. One is Mr. Pawley and the other is Mr. Hatfield. Along with Ontario, those two provinces and those two Premiers were out front in trying to bring about a satisfactory consensus to all. There were some problems other provinces had, whether it was British Columbia, Saskatchewan or Alberta particularly; Nova Scotia had some difficulties as well.

In regard to Quebec, I know I am simplifying it, but it seems to me that at the time, because of the differences between the péquiste government and the federal government and the fact that the kitchen deal had been made behind the back of Mr. Lévesque, the Quebec government took the position that it was not going to participate. It did not see the new Constitution as being acceptable because it was not part of the deal. With thiss, they sat there and basically did not say very much.

With Mr. Bourassa now, with the new government and the new view of Quebec's position in confederation, particularly with the new Prime Minister, who is from Quebec and who perhaps, unlike his predecessor, can take a fresh look at this, we do have a chance to move ahead and bring about a consensus, at least among the number of provinces that are required to bring about a satisfactory conclusion.

I want to make a couple of comments about the question of self-government. I understand the view of my colleague the member for Carleton-Grenville (Mr. Sterling) that not only must people who are gaining self-government understand the rights involved and the right to set the rules and determine their own destiny, but also they must take on the responsibility.

I submit that in a situation where people historically have not been given the opportunity to make mistakes, we, the people who have decided they should not have been given that opportunity, have to be prepared to accept the fact that in some cases they will do so. It is going to be a long learning process for the aboriginal organizations, the Indian bands and for us. We have to be prepared to say that we accept the fact that not everything is going to go right and that there will be problems. I think everyone involved understands there are going to be problems.

I for one have a great deal of confidence, though, that the Indian bands of this province and the other Indian and aboriginal organizations have a great deal of expertise and ability, not only to represent the concerns of their people well but also, if and when they are given the chance, actually to institute and implement programs and policies that will respond to and deal with those concerns in a much better way than white governments -- forgive me if I use that term, but I am going to use it -- have been able to do.

My friend the member for Cochrane North (Mr. Fontaine) has a lot of sympathy for what I am saying. I know his interest in this issue and I understand the interest of the Attorney General as well.

I am optimistic; I am not pessimistic about self-government. There are going to be problems. It is not going to be easy, but whenever you are talking about the self-determination of people, you have to be prepared to say that the destiny of that people will be determined by them as much as possible and that if sometimes they take a wrong turn on the road to their destiny, that is to be expected, but we will not condemn them the first time a mistake is made.

With regard to the responsibility for the various types of aboriginals we have determined through the Indian Act and other pieces of legislation -- because it is we who have made the divisions, not they -- it is important to recognize there is a large group of people who have historically fallen between the cracks.

The problems of Indian women have already been mentioned. We have had the issues about Metis and nonstatus people raised time and again, but we have also had a group of status Indian people, people who are treaty Indians, who do not live on reserves. In my riding, I can point to the community of Hornepayne, where there is a long-established community of mainly status Indian people who have no reserve. They are living off the reserve. Many of them are members of one or other of the Longlac bands, but they are many miles from Longlac.

Some are even members of the Moose Factory band and are even more distant from there and were not born there. They were born and raised in Hornepayne, but they have no reserve.

It is a condemnation of white government historically. Those people did not receive any education until 1968 because they were status Indians. If they had lived on the reserve, they would have got an education, but because they lived off the reserve, they were not seen as the responsibility of the provincial government because they were status Indians, and they were not seen as the responsibility of the federal government, because they were not living on a reserve. We have had many problems in that community because they were missed and were not served by either of the governments.

Since 1968, of course, they have been eligible and are being educated through the local board of education or the separate school board, with funding from the provincial government.

I think it is also important for us to remember in talking about self-government that it was not until the 1960s that Indians were allowed to vote in this country. That was not very long ago.

The Premier said we all share the guilt. I suppose that is a facile comment, I do not think he meant it that way, but in fact we all do, we really do. With this constitutional conference and the possibility of an amendment, we have a chance to start putting things right and we have a chance to stop doing things for native people or even to allow native people to do things for themselves. We have a chance actually to operate as partners, equals, their leaders and the leaders of the white community, to make a community that is good for all of us and that allows all of us to reach our potential. It is not going to be easy, but I am optimistic and I am looking forward to it.

This government could look provincially at the problem of status people off a reserve and deal with a couple of issues. We have had some problems with the Ministry of Revenue and the whole question of the eligibility of status Indian people for paying taxes and the question of whether the Indian Act, archaic as that piece of legislation is, does protect the treaty right of treaty Indians not to pay tax if they do not live on the reserve. There is even some question about whether or not they should have to pay something like sales tax if they live on the reserve.

That has sort of been worked out with an ad hoc approach, so that basically they are not having to pay the tax. There are some problems with cigarettes, but let us not get into that.

The question still remains: what about the treaty Indian who believes he or she has treaty rights but does not live on the reserve? If it is complicated now, it is going to be even more complicated with self-government and recognizing who is a member of a band and who is not.

I do not suppose we can resolve these questions here today, but those are some of the kinds of issues that are going to have to be dealt with when we do reach the point of recognizing aboriginal self-government in this country and in this province. It is something I am particularly interested in, but I know most members of the House share an interest, whether or not they have many native people in their ridings. It is something that is of importance not only to the Indian community, and the Metis and nonstatus Indian community, but also to all of us as people who believe in fairness and equity in our society.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am not sure I can add much to the remarks of the honourable member. I thank him for his eloquent speech. He makes the impassioned plea as a committed democrat not to be too harsh if, after we turn over responsibilities, people make mistakes. I think his point is well taken. If one believes in people's right to self-determination, one has to believe in their right to enjoy the fruits of that success or to fail as well. I very much respect what the member has said.

Some of my best friends in this House have made mistakes along the way. Does anyone find me critical? I am very supportive. I am sympathetic when my friends turn too far to the left or too far to the right and could not keep true on that path that we think is important on this side of the House, but that is a reality as well.

I will keep my friend's words in mind, but I do not think I can add anything at all to his eloquent speech.

Mr. McFadden: I have two or three questions of the Premier. One matter is a follow-up to the estimates of a few weeks ago. Has he managed to secure information as to the amount of money the province currently has allocated in terms of representations in Washington?

As he will recall, during the last estimates we talked about the potential desirability of having an office or some kind of ongoing presence in Washington. Given the fact that we do not now have that representation, would the Premier now have the figures, which he said he would be able to provide to us, concerning the amount we are currently spending on whatever representation we are making in Washington in all the various issues related to Canada-US trade and all other matters to do with pollution and so on involving Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: To answer the member's questions specifically, divided by ministry, the Ministry of Agriculture and Food in 1986-87 retained the firm AgriWashington on a fee-for-service basis to provide information and advice on US agricultural policy, for a total of US$13,726 to date.

The Ministry of Energy no longer retains an information agent in Washington; however, Ontario Hydro retained the Washington-based law firm of Kirby, Gillick, Schwartz and Tuohey to provide information and advice on US energy policy for the calendar year 1986 at a cost of US$65,000. Hydro is currently negotiating a contract for legal service in 1987. Hydro also retains the services of Mahalley and Associates to provide information and advice on new business ventures, particularly in the Middle East via the sale of technology, provision of training, etc., via Canadian International Development Agency programs and World Bank funding.

The Ministry of the Environment retained the firm of Wellford, Wegman, Krulwich and Hoff from August 1985 to March 31, 1986, to provide regular reports and advice on US policy on acid rain, Superfund and the Clean Water Act. The total cost was approximately US$60,000 from April 1, 1986, to the present. Environment has spent approximately US$30,000 for services provided by Wellford, Wegman, Krulwich and Hoff.

The Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology retained the firm of Dow, Lohnes and Albertson from September 1, 1985, to September 30, 1986, at a cost of US$36,000. In November 1985, the cost of the contract was increased by US$6,000 for a total annual cost of US$42,000. However, the contract was cancelled July 23, 1986, after a total expenditure of US$35,000. The firm provided MITT with advice and information on access to the US market and on US legislative initiatives that could affect the export of Ontario goods and services.

MITT also retained Blake, Cassels and Graydon in Toronto and Hogan and Hartson, Washington, to provide general advice and information on US initiatives related to Canada-US trade activities. The legal fees incurred for the 1986 calendar year are: Blake, Cassels and Graydon, $59,000; Hogan and Hartson, US$39,300.

To the best of my knowledge, that is all that is there. It was particularly helpful to me in the last case when we were talking about the softwood lumber issue, which the member will know is a very complicated issue. I feel we were well served in that regard, in that I was personally quite involved in those discussions.

If I may, I will respond to the member's general question about representation in Washington and should this add up to necessity for some kind of an office in Washington. Again, I say to the member, nothing much has changed, although there have been more discussions lately, and I was recently there. It is an interesting thing to me that we do have representation in London, England, a capital; we have it in Paris, a capital; in Tokyo, a capital; but in the wisdom of the federal government, we should not do so in Washington.

They are concerned about mixing the message or having a variety of people to play with there, or confusion or diminution of their authority or something. Anyway, the bureaucratic advice going to the minister is that there should not be provincial presences there.

The member knows my view on the situation. If he does not, I will tell him. I think we should do something there, but I say very frankly, in spite of what the member may have read in the newspaper today -- land I am not interested in causing unnecessarily a diplomatic fuss with Ottawa -- I think they are wrong on the matter. I do not think it would hurt anything, but they feel very strongly about it.

As the member knows, we have an ambassador there in whom I have great confidence -- I think he is very capable -- and an embassy that serves us all well, but they have a different master than we do, the federal government, which is understandable. There is a wide range of issues, including these ones and the trade ones I said I think are more severe, where we could use extra help. We have had some discussions with the federal government with respect to some kind of role, perhaps in the embassy, on a priority basis of getting information back. We were talking about one provincial member who would serve all 10 provinces. I do not like any of the solutions I hear so far.

I say to the member that if we wanted to, we could go and plunk an office in Washington tomorrow morning. They could not throw us out; it is still probably a free country. That would create a battle with the embassy. The embassy would come and say, "Please do not talk to those people," and run around and scurry for turf on the instructions of the Department of External Affairs. It is not the kind of fight I like to fight, very frankly.

We are just continuing to talk. I would be very grateful if the member would take advantage of his prestigious position in the Conservative Party, not only of Ontario but also of Canada, and speak to the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Prime Minister and all his other close friends and associates in Ottawa, and persuade them we are really not trying to threaten their turf, we are not interested in doing the same things they are doing, but we are interested in maintaining and protecting our interests in Washington, which are very grave.

It is my view that we do have a responsibility to take our message to Washington. The member has some ideas. I guess he thinks all the members should go down and carry the can, and certainly it is all right with me. If he wants to go and talk to anybody he knows down there and tell them anything he wants to tell them, it is okay with me, because I think we have a responsibility to know them better and for them to know us better and to accentuate the positive rather than the negative things in our relationship.

That is the current status of discussion. At the moment, it is stalled in neutral, but I am sure my honourable friend, in his conversation with the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs, can break the logjam and allow Ontario to put in a diplomatic listening post in Washington. It would be constructive in all of our interests.

Mr. McFadden: This is certainly an area in which the Premier and I agree. I think there is probably all-party agreement in this House that we should establish diplomatic representation -- pardon me, I had better correct that or I really will create a problem -- some form of effective representation in Washington, separate perhaps from the various legal firms and lobbyists who have been retained over the years.

For some reason, as the Premier has noted, successive federal governments over the years have been resistant to any province establishing a presence in Washington. It seems to me, though, that given the level of dependence of Canada on the American market, which is far in