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

June 28, 1989

34th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

VISITOR

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

TAXATION OF MINING COMPANIES

PETERBOROUGH RAPE CRISIS CENTRE

POLITICAL MORALITY

CONSERVATION OFFICERS

GOVERNMENT’S RECORD

MUSKOKA-GEORGIAN BAY TOURIST AREA

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

DEVELOPMENT OF GOVERNMENT LAND

RESPONSES

DEVELOPMENT OF GOVERNMENT LAND

ORAL QUESTIONS

PATRICIA STARR

PUBLIC INQUIRY

PATRICIA STARR

POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS

PUBLIC INQUIRY

PATRICIA STARR

POLICIES ON ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES

OTTAWA CENTRE NURSING HOME

PATRICIA STARR

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

PATRICIA STARR

MARCO MUZZO

DUNNVILLE DAM

NORTHERN HEALTH SERVICES

PATRICIA STARR

HORSE RACING

HOSPITAL FINANCING

VISITOR

PETITIONS

NATUROPATHY

NATUROPATHY

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION

WASTE DISPOSAL

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF PHARMACISTS

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

MOTION

WITHDRAWAL OF BILL 13

ORDERS OF THE DAY

STANDARDS OF CONDUCT / LIGNES DE CONDUITE

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

VISITOR

The Speaker: I would ask all members of the Legislative Assembly to recognize in the Speaker’s gallery the United States representative to the United Nations Human Rights Commission. His Excellency Armando Valladares.

Please join me in welcoming our guest.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

TAXATION OF MINING COMPANIES

Miss Martel: On Monday I had the opportunity to meet with two busloads of senior citizens from Sudbury and area who were demonstrating outside this Legislature. They were here calling on the government to amend the Assessment Act to ensure mining companies pay their fair share of municipal taxes. Further, they were seeking a commitment to review the regional government structure in light of duplication of services.

The concerns of these seniors are legitimate and the frustration associated with the Assessment Act in particular is shared by taxpayers in mining communities across this province. First, the Assessment Act does not allow for taxation of underground mining operations. Those companies moving more and more of their equipment underground are benefiting from a reduction in this level of assessment to the detriment of local individual taxpayers.

Second, the act does not recognize the need to tax mining company operations located outside municipal boundaries. The town of lgnace, for example. cannot assess the operations of Mattabi Mines, in spite of the fact that the employer enjoys the services provided in that community. The resource equalization grants provided by the provincial government to compensate for this loss in no way reflect the revenues Ignace would obtain if proper assessment were implemented.

The demonstration here on Monday by the Sudbury seniors is evidence that people on fixed incomes cannot accept their increasing tax burden in the face of decreasing mining company assessment. Surely it is time the government responded with changes to the Assessment Act.

PETERBOROUGH RAPE CRISIS CENTRE

Mr Jackson: I wish to advise all members of this House that two days ago the Peterborough Rape Crisis Centre notified this government that, because of the serious financial situation it finds itself in, if relief is not obtained from the provincial government it will be forced to close its doors. In fact, the board of directors will be meeting tomorrow night and the purpose of that meeting is to plan the office closure and the staff severances.

It strikes me that at a time when this government has stated that it has a commitment to fighting violence against women, that it has a stated policy objective in that area, it must produce the necessary dollars to ensure that these centres remain open. In fact, when the government says that it increased this centre’s budget by 14 per cent last year, it failed to recognize that the increase in victim-client counselling increased fourfold. Statistics like that are burdening rape crisis centres all across Ontario.

Quite frankly, we have not heard yet from the acting Solicitor General (Mr Scott) whether he will be able to assist the Peterborough Rape Crisis Centre, but it strikes me that, given the legitimate pleas of the centre, this government must act sensitively and swiftly to ensure that the Peterborough Rape Crisis Centre is not forced to close this weekend.

POLITICAL MORALITY

Mr Daigeler: As a trained theologian, permit me to reflect in a spiritual light on recent events surrounding this House. Such a perspective may be unusual, but could we not all benefit on occasion from a more in-depth analysis of our day-to-day experiences?

Public opinion today seems to require that politicians leave behind, at the time of their election, all human frailty and weakness. This reminds me of a time when priests were idolized as holy men simply because of their ordination. Unfortunately, human error, weakness, temptation, do not cease after we enter this chamber, nor do they stop at a sacristy’s doorstep.

Remembering our ordinary human condition is no excuse for downplaying, or even less, for tolerating error and moral failure, prices must be paid for mistakes made. However, a price we should not pay is our continued faith in our collective ability to redress problems, to learn from past bad experiences and to maintain a critical but confident pride in our political traditions and leaders.

CONSERVATION OFFICERS

Mr Hampton: Conservation officers do important work in protecting and conserving our natural resources. Unfortunately, the important work that our conservation officers do does not seem to be accepted or at least is not appreciated by the Ministry of Natural Resources, which employs them.

The kind of work a conservation officer does often involves very dangerous activities. If you can imagine a lone conservation officer, 20 or 30 miles away from the nearest town, walking into a group of hunters, all of whom have weapons, and telling them that they are hunting illegally, that they are doing something illegally or that he wants to check their equipment, that in itself can he a very threatening situation. It is the kind of work which should be recognized both in terms of the classification system within the civil service of Ontario and in terms of pay. Sadly, under this government that kind of work is not recognized and conservation officers are quite frustrated by it.

Second, if the government really believes in what it says about resource conservation, we could use more conservation officers. We simply do not have enough of them in our communities across northern Ontario, and those who are there are overworked, undersupported and underpaid.

GOVERNMENT’S RECORD

Mr McLean: My statement concerns this government’s second $1.3-billion tax grab in as many years, that forces the people of Ontario to pay more to do just about everything in this province. This dipping into the pocketbooks of just about every man, woman and child in Ontario comes at a time when we are hearing some pretty shocking revelations about favours accorded to friends of this government.

When we stop to think about the $1.3-billion tax grab, which saw higher personal income taxes, higher gasoline and fuel taxes, a new payroll tax, a new tire tax, the option to use lot levies to fund local development costs and increased land transfer taxes, one simply cannot blame the public for growing cynical and for bringing into question the ethics and judgment of elected officials and political appointees in the province of Ontario. The application of the $1.3-billion tax grab, coupled with the allegations of blatant political payments from a charitable foundation, leaves the public with the distinct impression that this government is robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Only by withdrawing the tax increases and new taxes contained in the budget and by introducing strict standards of conduct for government ministers and backbenchers can the Premier (Mr Peterson) restore public confidence and ensure that the critical issues facing Ontario will receive undivided attention.

MUSKOKA-GEORGIAN BAY TOURIST AREA

Mr Black: Sometimes media reports do tend to mislead the public and I would like to set the record straight in regard to my riding of Muskoka-Georgian Bay. Recent reports suggest there might be problems with natural pests and with transportation routes leading to Ontario’s vacation lands. I want to tell all members of this Legislature as well as the people of Ontario that those reports have been vastly exaggerated. In fact, through the efforts of the Minister of Transportation (Mr Fulton) and the very excellent staff who work for him, roads to Muskoka and Georgian Bay are open and traffic is moving well.

Through the efforts of the excellent staff of the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr Kerrio), members will be pleased to know that the epidemic of the tent caterpillar which was predicted for Muskoka-Georgian Bay has not materialized. Due to the very warm weather we have enjoyed in the past few days, the blackflies are just about at an end. So I say to all members of this Legislature and the people of Ontario that now is the time to return to Ontario’s premier vacation land.

Now is the time to join the people of Midland as they celebrate the 350th anniversary of Sainte-Marie among the Hurons and enjoy the crystal-clear waters of Georgian Bay and the lakes of Muskoka. Come to us and enjoy a beautiful summer in Ontario.

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

Mr Cousens: Having listened to the honourable member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay, I happen to feel he must be taking a route north other than Highway 400, because when they have it coming down to two lanes there is a backup for miles. Probably the honourable member is taking back roads and he does not realize just how bad the main roads are. The one thing he is right about is that it is a beautiful area to be in, but the province is making it more and more difficult for people to get up there.

The other day when I asked the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation to give us some tourism data, it did not seem to have any. Why do we not begin to start really promoting the province and building it, so that people can get around and enjoy it instead of blocking their way up north? Right now there are serious problems on Highway 400. I am convinced the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay is not using that highway, because otherwise he would not have made such a statement.

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

DEVELOPMENT OF GOVERNMENT LAND

Hon Mr Patten: It gives me particular pleasure to rise today to inform the honourable members of the House about an initiative using provincial lands on the former Lakeshore Psychiatric Hospital grounds in Etobicoke to address two key public concerns -- housing and the enhancement of public park land.

This proposal includes the development of more than 2,000 homes on a 60-acre parcel of land owned by my ministry and by the adjacent land owner, Humber College.

About half of these units would be aimed at low- and moderate-income earners. The mix of housing styles would include nonprofit and moderately priced rental housing, as well as moderately priced homes for people to buy. There will also be a market price component to ensure a broad range of housing opportunities.

This proposal will also create an additional 10 acres of park land within the development to complete and complement the adjacent 32 acres of park land this government transferred two years ago to the Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. The total park land in the area will now be 42 acres.

To encourage balanced community development, the proposal incorporates the preservation of historic buildings, the extension of Kipling Avenue south of Lakeshore Boulevard, the development of an office building and an expanded local office and retail space, and a new building to house community outreach programs of the ministries of Health and Community and Social Services, which currently occupy some of the historic structures on the hospital grounds.

The public has been consulted throughout the development of this proposal. My two colleagues the ministers of Housing (Ms Hošek) and Colleges and Universities (Mrs McLeod) met with the community on the former hospital grounds to unveil the plans for this balanced neighbourhood community at noontime today.

This proposal fulfils a commitment made by this government under the Housing First policy, which was to review surplus lands for their housing potential.

We will now be able to seek municipal approval to use these lands to provide a range of needed housing in Metropolitan Toronto while at the same preserving the architectural and natural heritage of the hospital site as a unique setting for Humber College’s new campus.

With this proposal, we will create a new, balanced neighbourhood that is linked to the unique environmental and historic elements of its surroundings.

RESPONSES

DEVELOPMENT OF GOVERNMENT LAND

Mr Breaugh: I want to respond briefly to the statement made by the Minister of Government Services (Mr Patten). I understand the Minister of Housing (Ms Hošek) was present at the site for part of the festivities. The member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore (Mrs Grier), unfortunately, has neither limousine nor driver to get her back here as quickly as they do, but I know she would want us to join in the --

Mr Reycraft: The subway goes faster than I do.

Mr Breaugh: I am very pleased that on the government side they want us to take the subway. We would, if we could, but there is no subway from Etobicoke-Lakeshore to here. They might look into that.

We do, however, think there is something of great significance that really should be marked. This is one of the first major pieces of government-owned property that is being proposed now with a fairly substantial housing component to it. All of us understand that this is sometimes a difficult process to try to negotiate with community groups, and often with competing interests, to try to put together a plan.

The government should be congratulated for at least doing that, for going through the motions in the proper way, in my view, of consulting with the local community; of trying to put together several elements, often a very difficult thing; of trying to work in a component of something that is very important to us today, that is, affordable housing; of utilizing an existing site without destroying the park land and historic buildings that are there, and of trying to respond to the needs of a local community.

If we have any hesitation it is probably about, I guess the polite way to say it is, the unknown role of the private sector. What will they do as this development proposal proceeds? We will monitor that with some care.

We understand that a project of this scope has not been undertaken in quite this way before. We think that the government has adopted a stance that is supportive of consulting, of trying to meet and deal honestly and openly with the arguments that are there about competing interests for a very valuable asset, land of this nature.

I am sure the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore and all members would welcome the addition of affordable housing on this scale in this community, where it is a serious problem. I think we are sensitive to the needs of the local community. We are trying to balance off park land, historic buildings, local needs and general needs in a community. That is not an easy task. We think the government has started off on the right foot. We will watch with great interest and great care to see if the delivery is anywhere near the promise.

Mr J. M. Johnson: I too would like to congratulate the minister on this initiative. It just shows that once in a while, when the government does something right, we are very pleased to give it credit.

I am very pleased that the minister has had public consultation with Humber College and with the municipal council. I encourage him to continue in this endeavour so that all interested parties have a say in the development of the proposal so there is satisfaction.

I also strongly urge him to give very serious consideration to having a full and open development process as well, so there will not be any problems relating to the awarding of contracts. As the member for Nepean (Mr Daigeler) mentioned earlier, at times we do have to consider the concerns of the citizens. If the process is open, if there is full input from all the parties involved, then the minister is to be congratulated.

I noticed in the minister’s statement that half the units would be aimed at low- and moderate-income earners. The mix will be nonprofit and moderately priced rental housing. I encourage the minister to consider more than half of these units. There is a need for more low- and moderate-priced housing rather than for expensive housing. He should try to work in that direction so the people who are in real financial need for homes do have the opportunity to be able to either rent or buy their homes.

My congratulations once more to the minister on behalf of my party on this initiative.

ORAL QUESTIONS

PATRICIA STARR

Mr B. Rae: I have a question for the Premier today. He will know, no doubt, from reading the paper today, of another allegation with respect to influence being exercised by Mrs Starr on the Ministry of Housing. It was partly during the previous administration, when his colleague the Minister of Skills Development (Mr Curling) was the Housing minister. I cannot ask him, so I will have to ask the Premier.

I wonder if the Premier can tell us how it could possibly have happened that a project which was announced, and appeared from all the signs to have preliminary approval, was in fact turned down at the very last minute, the last stage, by the ministry, and that another project which was being promoted by Mrs Starr went to the top of the list with respect to new development in Scarborough. Can he tell us how that happened?

Hon Mr Peterson: The Minister of Housing has all the details on that, l am told. I would refer it to her, if I may.

Hon Ms Hošek: I am advised by my staff that the previous Minister of Housing decided that an allocation at that time for this project, which is the Homeward Family Shelter, I understand, was premature because of the site, which had no shopping, no postal service and no transportation on it. I am also told by my staff that there is no connection between the decision to give the Jack Goodlad Senior Citizens Residence an allocation and the decision not to give one to the family shelter.

Mr B. Rae: The fact of the matter is that a Toronto Transit Commission line was in the works, a 50-store mall was being constructed across the road and the reasons which the ministry gave for the cancellation were entirely bogus. In fact, the site was not isolated, a mall was being proposed and a TTC line was equally going to be there.

I wonder if the minister can tell us why the former minister would have refused a project that was already announced by his ministry, allocated in a press release which went out on 22 January. Why would he turn around and say at the very last minute, “Sorry, no go”?

Hon Ms Hošek: The member opposite should know that there is a process of announcing nonprofit housing in which a preliminary allocation is given and then it has to go through a variety of other processes before that is made permanent. That is a norm, as he knows.

Mr B. Rae: And cleared by Patti Starr?

Hon Ms Hošek: I assume the member opposite would like the answer to his question, which I am trying to give him.

What my staff have said is that the previous minister decided, as it is his role to decide on final allocations, that, at that time, that allocation was premature because there was then no shopping, no postal service and no transportation on the site.

As the member opposite also knows, proposals of this sort are considered on their individual merits. What he should also know is that in this case, as in many others, when the decision was made not to go forward at that time, staff continued to work with the people who proposed this particular project to find a suitable site.

Mr B. Rae: Whenever I listen to the minister, particularly today, I am reminded that today is the last day of school. But the question that I have for the minister is this --

Hon Mr Elston: It’s time for you to find a new school.

Mr B. Rae: It takes a while.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr B. Rae: There is a very specific allegation contained today in the paper, which the minister will know, the allegation being: How was it that Patti Starr heard about the fact that this proposal had been turned down? Why was Mrs Starr phoning anybody on anybody else’s behalf with respect to this proposal? How could that have possibly happened? What was Mr Goetz-Gadon’s involvement in this whole sorry saga?

Those are the very particular problems that are at stake here. The integrity of the minister’s housing list and the views and feelings of literally hundreds of groups out there that are applying for housing are what are at stake. If they feel that whether they get to the top of the list depends on who they know, there is something --

The Speaker: Thank you. There were four questions actually asked.

Hon Ms Hošek: The member opposite has a number of times alluded to the fact that in one of the previous parts of my life I worked as a teacher. Let me say that I am proud of that work and the member opposite might want to wonder how his comments affect members of his own caucus who started out as teachers who may not appreciate that particular approach. But let me, on the last day of school, give the member opposite the answer to the question that he asked.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Ms Hosek: The work that we do in the Ministry of Housing with literally hundreds of nonprofit groups all across the province is extremely important to me, as the member opposite knows. We work with them to help them develop their proposals. The ministry works with them to make sure that as much nonprofit housing as we can manage to build in this province gets built. We work very successfully with nonprofit groups across the community, and l am very proud of the work that we do.

In this case, the minister, as was his role and his right, made a decision about a particular project. Let me just make it clear. He decided this on the basis of his reading of what was going on at that site and he did what he thought was right at the time.

PUBLIC INQUIRY

Mr B. Rae: I would like to ask a question now to the Premier. We have had some discussions in this House about what the terms of reference of the judicial inquiry or royal commission should be with respect to what is going on.

I wonder if the Premier could tell us whether he is prepared to have a royal commission which, instead of dealing simply with allegations involving Mr Ashworth and Mrs Starr and Tridel, would in fact be a royal commission that would look into the whole relationship between the development and construction industries and governments in Ontario, municipal and provincial as well as federal, so that we can have some senous recommendations on the electoral process, political contributions, land use planning, speculation and land ownership. and deal with the whole problem, not simply to solve the political problem which the Premier now has but to deal with the public problem which the whole province has.

Hon Mr Peterson: My honourable friend raises a number of policy questions, and I understand that. Let me say that the Attorney General (Mr Scott) is reflecting on those broad terms of interest. The member is aware of the suggestions made by certain people with respect to the nature of the inquiry, and I understand that.

But I think we could see an inquiry potentially going on for 10 or 20 years in that regard.

If we were to look into the development relationship of various people in Peterborough, London, Nepean or Fort William, I ask my friend how productive that is going to be in the long term. Perhaps we have to deal with the policy implications of that here in this House.

The judicial inquiry that we have called deals with a specific set of allegations and specific people. It is not my intention to limit that, because if there is any suggestion of wrongdoing anywhere, obviously the commissioner should have the power to follow that up. Allegations will be referred to him. But I think my friend would agree with me that it has to be in, shall we say, a manageable bite somehow or other. We do not want this thing to go on for the next five or 10 years. I am sure that is not my honourable friend’s suggestion.

Mr B. Rae: But we do want it to deal with issues. We want it to deal not simply with specific allegations of wrongdoing. Is the Premier saying he is not interested in finding out whether the concentration of land ownership and the accumulation of land in very few hands in areas of rapid growth is not a problem?

Is he saying that the influence that is exercised over municipal officials and elected municipal politicians is not a problem? Is he saying that the question of the relationship between this industry and governments, federal, provincial and municipal, is not a problem? I can tell the Premier that we disagree profoundly with a judicial inquiry that is framed to solve the Premier’s political problems instead of solving and dealing with the public problems of the province of Ontario.

Hon Mr Peterson: The inquiry is designed to deal with all of the facts surrounding a number of allegations. They will all be there for the member to see.

Now my honourable friend wants to make that wider and deal with a number of policymaking aspects, whether it is land speculation tax -- he is suggesting there are some improper relationships between the municipal politicians and/or developers, in what communities I do not know, and perhaps members of this House. He is making that suggestion.

Interjection.

Hon Mr Peterson: He is. Then there is the question of zoning and agricultural preservation and all the questions involved in providing housing for the people of this province.

I say to my honourable friend that there may be more creative ways we can use the mechanisms of this House to develop policy, and maybe we need committees to do that kind of thing. We have no objection to looking at our policies and trying to improve them, but I think, at the same time, what we have to do is get at the root of a number of specific allegations that have been made, and that is what we are trying to do. We are not trying to avoid anything. We are trying to solve some specific problems, not just some amorphous or imagined problems that do not have any specific application.

Mr B. Rae: If the Premier is saying that the concentration of ownership of land, speculation in land, is an amorphous problem that exists in my head and my head alone, then he is living in a different universe from everybody else in Ontario. That is a sad fact. These are all sad facts. He can either wake up to these facts and the political influence that this power is buying or he can close his eyes to that and pretend it is not happening.

The Speaker: Question?

Mr B. Rae: When it comes in his back door, he can say, “Oh, my goodness, what a surprise,” or he can do something about it with a proper royal commission. Will he appoint a royal commission that has real powers and is going to deal effectively with a broad public problem, or is he simply going to try to solve his own problems? That is the question.

Hon Mr Peterson: This royal commissioner will have real powers, but we are discussing, as my honourable friend said, the concentration of power, the concentration of land ownership, which he feels is a legitimate question for him to raise.

There are some who raise the question of the concentration of unions and their power. Others raise the question of the concentration of oil companies and their powers. Others would raise the question of the powers of certain other groups in our society. Those are all legitimate public policy questions that we should all debate and have ideas on at various given points in time.

If my honourable friend is saying we should have a royal commission on land ownership across the province -- who should own it, who should not -- that is a fair question and a fair public policy question to debate. But perhaps we should be solving that in terms of this House and not placing our policy development exclusively in the hands of some outsider who may not have any special knowledge.

I think if my friend has some specific ideas on corporate concentration of land ownership or oil companies, insurance companies or anything else, he should bring them forward and develop policies to change that.

PATRICIA STARR

Mr Brandt: My question is to the Premier. Yesterday, in response to a question I raised about the direction the Premier took with respect to DelZotto family members and asking them to resign from various government-appointed positions, he responded by indicating that this action was taken because the sense was to save embarrassment.

I wonder if the Premier could explain how the resignation of Marlene DelZotto and Angelo DelZotto, neither of whom has been mentioned in this assembly in connection with any allegations I am aware of -- except by the government, I might add -- could somehow save the Premier and his government embarrassment. I wonder if he could elaborate on his statement of yesterday.

Hon Mr Peterson: The allegation was that Tridel was involved in activity that is being investigated at the present time. It is a family company and those people are attached to the family company. That is the only reason. There are no specific allegations against any specific people, but Tridel and some of its agents presumably will be part of the investigation. It was not born out of any prejudgement of the situation, but rather a desire to be prudent.

Mr Brandt: I can understand the apprehensions about the connections between Tridel and Patti Starr but I would like to advise the Premier that my office did in fact check the major companies owned by the DelZotto family. Marlene DelZotto is not listed on any one of them as an officer or a director of any of those companies. Will the Premier confirm that Marlene DelZotto’s only crime was being the spouse of Elvio DelZotto and that that is why he asked her to resign from TVOntario?

Hon Mr Peterson: I would not suggest for a moment that she has committed any crime and would not use that word in that context.

Mr Brandt: If she has not committed a crime, has admitted to no impropriety whatever and if she was serving as a result of the Premier’s appointment to the board of TVOntario, I find it absolutely astonishing that this lady would be asked to resign prior to having any opportunity whatever to save her good name in this particular instance.

If at some future point some allegations come forward of which I am not aware, that is a different situation. But here we have the Premier taking action before the fact with a member of the family, simply because the name is DelZotto. Does the Premier think that is fair and appropriate under the circumstances?

Hon Mr Peterson: I have to say that my honourable friend, dripping with sanctimony as he stands in this House, is a little bit outrageous to look at. I say that in all seriousness when he and his colleagues stand in this House daily and throw charges in a most, in my opinion, irresponsible way regularly. Now to change his views on these matters is to me quite incredible.

I have told the member my view of the situation. It was viewed to be prudent, and we are not prejudging anyone’s guilt. We do not use the word “criminal,” as the member does in this House. He is the one who has made a number of allegations, he and the members opposite. We are going to track them all down. The answer is that the member has prejudged almost everything here.

POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS

Mr Brandt: To the Premier, for my second question: Yesterday, in response to a question regarding hospitals giving money to political parties or being involved in fund-raisers, the Premier said, “My own opinion is that transfer agencies should not be involved in political donations.”

Talking about changing one’s position or changing one’s response with respect to a particular issue. I wonder if the Premier can tell me when his conversion took place on the road to Damascus.

Hon Mr Peterson: Interestingly enough, I had heard about this, I guess, in connection with the Ottawa school board. The Minister of Health will help me out and tell me when she sent a directive out to the hospitals.

Hon Mrs Caplan: I spoke about this at the end of the year.

Hon Mr Peterson: The minister spoke about this at the end of the year when she found out about this happening, and she sent out a directive that hospitals should not be contributing. That was some time ago. Even though it is permissible under the law as my honourable friend knows -- I assume my honourable friend has those things in his own party or his own riding, and if he does not, he could check them, or if he does not want to do it himself, we could have someone else check it for him. I say to my honourable friend that it is permissible as far as I know, under the law, but the Minister of Health had already issued a directive in that regard some time ago.

Hon Mrs Caplan: I spoke to them.

Hon Mr Peterson: Sorry; she spoke to the hospital association about this matter.

Mr Brandt: Let me help the Premier who has a selective memory when it comes to some of these things. On 15 June 1987, the Premier not only endorsed a fund-raising dinner for the then Minister of Health, but this particular fund-raiser was directed at the same transfer agencies that he now indicates should not be contributing to political parties, and the Premier in fact attended that fund-raiser on 15 June 1987. What has happened since 15 June 1987?

The Premier should check out the date to make sure these allegations are in fact correct, because I know they are. I want to know why it was so appropriate back on 15 June 1987 to attend that fund-raiser sponsored by the former Minister of Health, and now the Premier says it is inappropriate for this kind of activity to be carried out. I want the Premier to tell me what the difference is.

Hon Mr Peterson: I think my honourable friend is getting carried away with his own rhetoric in this situation. He asked about the law. The law is quite clear. The minister sent out a directive in that regard. I do not recall specifically requesting money from institutions and we all collectively have to look at the law with respect to the future. I do not see any particular conflict. Sure, I have attended fund-raisers, as has the member. We raised money and it is all public and there for everybody to see. All of the donations are listed and there are no secrets about the situation. Now, if we want to change the law, let’s do it together.

Mr Brandt: Talking about taking a sanctimonious tone in this House, let me remind the Premier, and he can check Hansard with respect to these facts, that in 1985 we raised with him our concerns about the method of fund-raising his party was engaged in. We repeated those calls in 1986, 1987 and 1988.

In fact, in January of this year, his Minister of Energy (Mr Wong) was involved in a fund-raising activity with one of the major corporate players in that particular field who ultimately had to step down as chairman of the dinner because of at least a perceived conflict. I want to ask the Premier, what made it so right from 1985 through to 1989 that he is now taking the stance that this type of fund-raising activity is no longer appropriate? What has changed his mind?

Hon Mr Peterson: We have a law in this province that the member presumably has agreed to. He has raised money under it and he has been very comfortable about it. It is all there for everybody to see. It is all public. Presumably he raises money under that law as do we. If we do things that are wrong, obviously it has to be brought to our attention, just as when they do things wrong, I am sure he will check into it.

But there is nothing illegal, I can assure my honourable friend. It is all there in the open for everybody to see, for them and for us. Now, if the member has ideas on how to change the law, he should stand up and share them. Does he agree that, for example, we should change the law and not allow transfer agencies to contribute out of their budgets? That is an interesting question we should decide on together, but I do not remember him ever raising that question prior to a little while ago.

lnterjections.

The Speaker: Order. New question, the Leader of the Opposition.

PUBLIC INQUIRY

Mr B. Rae: I want to go back to the Premier. He announced this inquiry on Friday amid a great fanfare, trying to be seen to be dealing specifically with a political crisis that is the most serious he has faced since becoming the Premier. He announced the judicial inquiry. He did not announce the terms of reference for that inquiry. He did not announce who would be chairing that inquiry. He did not tell us exactly what it was going to be about.

I am putting forward a proposal for the Premier that he deal with a royal commission whose terms of reference would be specific, yet sufficiently broad to deal with the policy issues that are before the people of the province.

I want to ask the Premier if he can tell us why it is that in announcing the inquiry on Friday, he did not tell us what the terms of reference were going to be, and he has yet to name a judge who in fact will chair the inquiry.

Hon Mr Peterson: I am just going by memory here, but it seems to me that last week the member was on television screaming for a judicial inquiry, saying some very uncomplimentary things about the government and how we had to get to the bottom of this. Now he wants to turn over certain policy issues, as opposed to the allegations that he and others have made about the government.

What I want to do is get to the bottom of this. The member is right; the specific terms of reference, at this point, have not been drawn up. I said what they were in general. Obviously, they have to be cleared with the person who will be conducting the judicial inquiry to give him or her a full range of options and a comfort level. The Attorney General (Mr Scott) is now discussing those matters and will report back to the House -- he has to talk to the Chief Justice and others -- with the specific terms of reference.

I have told the member -- I said then and I have said in this House -- the reference will be, in general terms, to explore those relationships that are under some allegations at the present time and to turn up all the facts pertaining to those.

Mr B. Rae: The Premier has made allegations with respect to things I said last week that are totally incorrect. I have consistently said that what the Premier should do is take steps to clean his own house. He may object to my saying that. That has been the thrust of what I have said, and that he should not be using a judicial inquiry to ignore his responsibilities as the first minister of this province. That is what I have been saying consistently since this mess first started.

I would like to ask the Premier, can he explain the incredible delay? He announced an inquiry on Friday that has no terms of reference and he has not been able to find a judge who will take this on. Can he tell us why it has taken him this long to establish the terms of reference of an inquiry, when he himself knows that all that is involved here was an attempt on his part to solve a political problem on Friday instead of dealing with it himself. That is what is involved here.

Hon Mr Peterson: He cannot both want the inquiry and not want it. I just say to my honourable friend that there is no incredible delay, to the best of my knowledge. The leader of Her Majesty’s third party had some views with respect to the terms of reference. To the best of my knowledge, the Attorney General is meeting with him tomorrow to discuss those terms of reference, out of respect for him.

If the member has any views on the terms of reference, the Attorney General would be very happy to meet with him as well. It is out of courtesy for the leader of the third party that the Attorney General has held off the final determination. You do not get credit for politeness any more in this world.

PATRICIA STARR

Mr Pope: My question is for the Premier. For the last several weeks now, there have been allegations -- I call them allegations -- with respect to various ministries, Patti Starr. Tridel. The DelZotto family, questionable if not illegal political donations, political donations involving members of the government and transfer agents.

Not only are ministers of his government and other members of his Premier’s party and this Legislature involved, but also we now see that it is reaching to his closest political confidants, one of whom resigned last week. I think we are entitled to know, and I think the people of Ontario are entitled to know, at all relevant times, what was the Premier’s involvement and how much did he know about what was going on in his office?

Hon Mr Peterson: The honourable member has been away, I guess, for the last couple of weeks and has perhaps been reading the newspaper. It was a very acute

summary of the situation and I want to congratulate him for that.

Obviously, a number of allegations have been made. We want to have a full judicial inquiry into all these allegations and it will all be there for him to see and to attend upon, if he so desires. If he has anything to contribute, obviously his testimony would be welcome, if he or any of his colleagues have any views on this matter or any special knowledge, just as we will all be prepared to contribute any knowledge we have.

We are prepared to put all these matters in the hands of an independent judge, because we think that is the appropriate way to go in the circumstances and I think my honourable friend should support that kind of view, being a notable member of the bar, as he is.

Mr Pope: The Premier has not answered the question, and deliberately so. We are entitled and the people of this province are entitled to know what he knew and what his involvement was in all these matters that were emanating from his office, from his confidence and involving his ministers.

How much did he know? Either he knew and he is hiding behind this inquiry and is not going to tell this Legislature or the people of Ontario, or he did not know and he cannot manage his government. Which is it?

Hon Mr Peterson: If my honourable friend, who has an aptitude for generalities in this matter, has any specific questions on any subject, I would be delighted to answer them. I am here in this House. If he has any suggestions or questions on things I knew or did not know or any of the ministers did -- let me tell him something I know now because I just got a note. It says: “The PC Ontario fund regularly mailed to the CAOs and heads of council of all municipalities soliciting funds. I have seen and received letters personally at the town hall during my municipal days.”

That comes from one of our cabinet ministers who is familiar with being on the receiving end of his letters. I just say to my honourable friend that as this knowledge unfolds, we are happy to share it with him, that or anything else.

POLICIES ON ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES

Mr Dietsch: My question is for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. In the modern age of plastic purchasing, could the minister please explain to me why a customer may not purchase wine from a cottage winery store, but can go down the street to a hotel or restaurant and make a major purchase with a credit card in one of these establishments?

Hon Mr Wrye: This issue has been visited by the government on a number of occasions. I suspect my predecessors looked at it before me, perhaps as far back as when the third party was in government.

I think it has generally been the policy of government over a period of time that the purchase of alcoholic beverages ought to be paid for in cash rather than with credit cards where the purchase is forborne consumption. That is a view we think is consistent with the message of social responsibility this government has been putting out for a period of time. It is an issue we looked at again in the recent changes to liquor policy that I announced within the last two or three weeks and we reconfirmed that policy.

Mr Dietsch: With the additional pressures of world markets and free trade and General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade decisions on wineries and the need to be innovative in the Ontario marketplace, will the minister please consider modifications to this policy?

Hon Mr Wrye: I know that the issue is one the wineries have raised with the honourable member and with me and that they feel strongly about it. I can say to the honourable member that we have looked very carefully at the issue, as recently as during our consideration of reform to beverage alcohol policy.

It remains the view of the government that the tying of credit cards to the sale of alcoholic beverages for home consumption is not appropriate to the other theme of social responsibility, so I cannot give the honourable member, and through him the wineries in his riding, a commitment that we are going to he revisiting that in the next short while. We want to get on with having beverage alcohol sales in a modern society as well, but there are some other competing issues that we are addressing and this is one of them.

OTTAWA CENTRE NURSING HOME

Mr Reville: I have a question for the Minister of Health. She will know, and I am sure she shares the concern, about the fire that occurred at the Ottawa Centre Nursing Home on 18 June. Regrettably, there were three injuries and one fatality, that of an aged person who was both blind and mute.

It seems to me this was an accident waiting to happen. I checked into the inspection reports of this particular nursing home since 1983 and was able to count no less than 111 violations, many of them having to do with fire safety. I want to ask the minister how that could possibly happen.

Hon Mrs Caplan: As the member knows, whenever there is a fire, the fire marshal’s office investigates. The nursing homes branch regularly inspects facilities. As I understand, in this case careless smoking is suspected as the cause of the accident.

Mr Reville: The minister may or may not know that on 10 November a public institutions inspection panel went in there. Those are not her troops. They found the conditions, including fire safety, in this nursing home to be deplorable. They went back on 15 May to follow up to see what had happened in the intervening six months and they were refused admission. Five weeks later, we have a fatality. What is the minister going to do about that?

Hon Mrs Caplan: I think it is very important for the member to have his facts straight and to know that whenever a complaint is launched, the ministry inspections branch does go in. However, even without complaint, the ministry regularly reviews nursing homes.

I can tell him that this particular home was, to the best of my knowledge, last inspected last March. There was only one minor recommendation. I know this regrettable fire has been under investigation, and in fact it is my understanding careless smoking is the suspected cause.

PATRICIA STARR

Mr Harris: I have a question for the Premier concerning the

article in the Globe and Mail today involving his Minister of Skills Development, then Minister of Housing, the member for Scarborough North (Mr Curling). We heard from the current Minister of Housing (Ms Hošek) who says she has looked into it and is satisfied the minister did nothing untoward and acted in the best interests.

I am interested in the Premier’s judgement and his standards, which I believe are the issue, since this minister is appointed by and works for him.

Given the allegations and the revelations in the Globe’s story today, I would ask him if he is satisfied that everything that was done in this project was appropriate and if he can possibly explain or think of any logical reason Patti Starr was involved at all in this whole affair.

Hon Mr Peterson: I do not know the answer to that last question, but I rely on the advice from the ministry. We have scoured the files to see if there has been anything strange done, anything that was not routine or anything that was not under the regulations, and we are not aware of that.

I cannot stand in this House and absolutely assert that every single transaction of the government was absolutely perfect, according to the blue book or management rules. We try to have it that way. We try to run a government without fear or favour for anyone so that all are treated in a routine way, yet with dispatch. The minister has explained the details and I am satisfied to the best of my knowledge that there is nothing particularly out of order.

Mr Harris: I know the Premier would be aware of the sensitivity and the concerns that are out there about integrity in government and how we operate.

With the revelations today, given the fact of Patti Starr’s fund-raising efforts on behalf of the minister and given the fact that Gerald Starr, husband of Patti Starr, is a partner in at least one company with Harry Solomon, New-Port Sportswear Ltd., does it not concern the Premier at all that she was involved in apparently nothing that she had anything to do with, on behalf of the minister, and given the fact that as a result of that involvement the minister had changed the priority, the recommendations of the ministry and approved a project that a partner of Patti Starr’s husband was involved in and other companies that we know of, for a fact...

Hon Mr Peterson: I appreciate my honourable friend’s

interpretation of the facts. That is not the

interpretation of others, but let me just say that to me that is what the judicial inquiry is all about. He has a particular allegation in this regard. I think that an independent judge would look at that and make a judgement with respect to this transaction, and others, where the member thinks there is a problem or special influence exercised.

I think that my honourable friend would agree with me that is a fair and open and forthright way to handle the situation; exactly the way we are doing it.

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

Mr Tatham: I have a question to the Minister of Agriculture and Food. I have had several letters and phone calls from Oxford county farmers regarding drought assistance. The minister is quite aware of the promise of $850 million in drought assistance to Canadian farmers from the federal government. In view of recent press reports that the federal government is still seeking cost-sharing with the provinces, can the minister indicate whether there has been any recent discussion with the federal government on this issue and whether there will be any delays in payments to farmers?

Hon Mr Riddell: The honourable member is quite correct. The federal drought assistance program was a federal election promise to garner the farm vote. There was absolutely no consultation on this program or its costs with the provinces. I have stated, and I will continue to state, that we will not in any way cost-share this program. That is the message that I gave Mr Mayer, Minister of State (Grains and Oilseeds), when I met with him on 6 June. When he came to see me we discussed two matters, the crop insurance program and the federal drought assistance program.

He offered several options for cost-sharing both programs and I indicated to him at that time that I was not interested in cost-sharing the federal drought assistance program in any way, shape or form. The funds have now been made available by the federal government. There were no conditions attached when they made the promise in 1988 and therefore, I would hope that they will get on with the job and get those cheques out to the farmers without further delay.

Mr Tatham: Can the minister explain how these proposals from the federal government will affect our crop insurance program, particularly when both levels of government have reinforced their commitment to it and in light of the recent federal discussion paper on crop insurance?

Hon Mr Riddell: As I indicated, in his discussion, Mr Mayer would like the provinces to cost-share the national crop insurance program. At the present time the federal government pays 50 per cent of the premiums, the farmer pays 50 per cent and the provinces pay the administration cost.

What the federal government would like to do is to reduce its cost by 25 per cent, have the provinces pick up that cost with absolutely no benefits to the farmers whatsoever. I totally rejected that idea and said that I was not prepared to do anything with the crop insurance program by way of cost sharing premiums, unless I could see that there were benefits to the farmers by so doing.

PATRICIA STARR

Mr B. Rae: I am going to try again on the question of Ronto. I wonder if I could ask the Premier if he can tell us whether he has discussed personally with the Minister of Skills Development (Mr Curling) the reasons why the minister personally turned the project down in 1987.

Hon Mr Peterson: No.

Mr B. Rae: I think that we are entitled to know why he would not. Is he using this inquiry to avoid his responsibilities in terms of his responsibility for the ministry? There is another question I could ask the Premier. Has he discussed with the Minister of Skills Development how it is that Mrs Starr would have phoned the group that was trying to build these 250 units for battered women and for people in need, as if she was representing the Minister of Housing.

Can the Premier tell us, has he discussed with the former Minister of Housing how it would be that Mrs Starr would be putting herself forward as somebody who had some news to bear with respect to this project?

Hon Mr Peterson: Frankly, I say to my friend, there is a lot of behaviour that Mrs Starr has engaged in that I cannot explain, but if the member has any ideas on what should be investigated in that regard, the commissioner will look at them and will come up with an objective view on that whole matter. That is the object of the royal commission.

MARCO MUZZO

Mr Runciman: My question is for the Premier as well, with respect to his dealings with Marco Muzzo. Will the Premier tell us how many times he has met with Mr Muzzo since he became Premier? Can he tell us what was discussed at those meetings?

Hon Mr Peterson: I have seen him on two, three or four occasions in my life, probably. On two occasions, he came with respect to environmental ideas, as members know, we have looked at at those meetings. I do not recall ever having a, shall we say, private conversation in that regard. There was discussion about the garbage situation, as I discussed it with other groups. There may have been other social occasions when this happened, but I cannot tell my friend specifically.

Mr Runciman: Will the Premier tell us whether he has ever asked anyone in the Ontario government to do anything on behalf of Mr Muzzo or one of his companies? If so, what was it that he asked them to do?

Hon Mr Peterson: My honourable friend is on a big fishing expedition here. To the best of my knowledge, no. If the member ever asked me if I have done a special favour for him, the answer is no, nor for anybody else that I am aware of. I say to my honourable friend that, obviously, there are requests on government all of the time. There are requests on people like the member to do things and intervene for people and situations, but I can tell the member that I am not aware of my requesting anything personally for any company that Mr Muzzo is involved in. Number two, I am not aware of anything special that was given in that case that would not be treated in the normal course of events.

DUNNVILLE DAM

Mr Miller: I have a question for the Minister of Natural Resources. The Grand River Conservation Authority, with about $2 million in financial assistance from the Province of Ontario, is embarking on a project to build a lift lock on the Grand River at the town of Dunnville and to restore the Dunnville dam. These projects are very, very welcome ones to recreational boaters. I would ask the minister to bring the House up to date on the status of these projects and of the planned fishway.

Hon Mr Kerrio: I am very pleased to share with the member for Norfolk the initiative at Dunnville. It is one that is very exciting for many people in that area and in a very broad sense across the province. We are working with the conservation authority there to put some $2 million into the rebuilding of the dam and into putting a lock into the dam, so that we can bring boats up from the Lake Erie level to be able to traverse much more of the Grand River. We have the Grand River authority doing work to clean up the stream and do rehabilitation.

It is a very, very good project that we are undertaking. We are going to build a fish ladder in the complex to be able to move the fish up the Grand River. It is an area that needs this kind of rebuilding. I am very pleased that we, as a government, are taking this initiative and it is going to augur well for the people of the area and for many people across Ontario.

Hon Mr Kerrio: We are not only taking this initiative to be able to increase the ability to go up as far as Cayuga, but as the minister I am looking at areas for fish rehabilitation, in that lower river and up above the dam, after the fish ladder is put in. It was always a very major spawning ground for the eastern end of Lake Erie.

I think that when we take this initiative, we are going to see people putting more pressure on us to go up farther and we will work our way right up the Grand River. I think it is an initiative we can all be proud of and I am very pleased to be a part of it. I am sure I am going to get pressure from the member for Norfolk and those people in that area to continue on and I should then take the message to the Treasurer (Mr R. F. Nixon), and I hope we get his approval so that we go forward in the future. But our work is going to start in the spring of 1990 and I am very enthusiastic about it as is the member for Norfolk, my very good friend.

NORTHERN HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Hampton: My question is for the Minister of Health. In Sudbury, on 18 November 1988, the Minister of Health announced that the ministry would establish a northern health manpower committee to help the ministry attract and retain health professionals in the north. I can quote the minister. She said: “I feel this new approach will provide faster results to provide top quality health care to every geographical area in northern Ontario and to all the people who live there.” That announcement created quite a lot of hope in northern Ontario. I want to ask the minister: Has the committee met yet? Has it even been constituted yet?

Hon Mrs Caplan: I want to thank the member for the question because in fact our commitment to northern Ontario is clear. The establishment of the northern health manpower committee is a significant one. We made the commitment to consult widely from numerous northern organizations and communities. We have received those and I can say to him that I was delighted with the response and recommendations of individuals who have agreed to serve. In fact I have just very recently signed the letters and I am hoping to have the committee up and functioning now that we have received these recommendations and approved the formation of the committee.

Mr Hampton: Just to help the Minister of Health, I did not hear her say that it is constituted. When we called over to her office earlier this week we were told it is not constituted. The latest report from the underserviced area program is out. There are now 34 communities across northern Ontario that either do not have doctors or have too few. In Thunder Bay we have got one child psychiatrist for a population of 250,000 people. We have shortages of nurses, speech therapists and occupational therapists. She announced this committee eight months ago. It is not constituted yet and it has not met yet. How does the minister justify that?

Hon Mrs Caplan: I believe that in order for a committee to function well and in fact to be truly representative of the north, there should be wide consultation from the communities of the north to make recommendations. We have asked the district health councils, we have asked the associations to make representations, we have asked members in this House. I am hoping, when I am up north in a couple of weeks, to be able to announce the names of the members of the committee. We have been communicating with them to see if they will agree to serve.

I am delighted with the response and I can assure the member that this will be a significant initiative as we plan for health manpower needs of northern Ontario.

PATRICIA STARR

Mr Harris: I see the Premier (Mr Peterson) has left. I will ask a question of the Minister of Housing, who for some reason or other has been called upon to do the Premier’s investigation into this matter of the former Minister of Housing, the member for Scarborough North (Mr Curling). I wonder if the minister could tell us if she has had discussions with the former Housing minister to ascertain why Ms Starr was involved at all on behalf of the ministry in this project, or on behalf of the ministry with the project that was turned down?

Hon Ms Hošek: I have asked my staff to give me the information that we have and I have given it to this House. I assume that the member is asking a question about the Homeward Family Shelter project.

Mr Harris: l am asking you if you have talked to Mr Curling.

Hon Ms Hošek: I have discussed various things with the previous Minister of Housing. It is my responsibility as Minister of Housing to answer any questions the member may have about decisions that were made at the Ministry of Housing, and I am doing that to the best of my ability. I cannot vouch for what Ms Starr did or did not do. I can tell him what my ministry tells me was done in the time that we are talking about and I have answered the question to the best of my ability.

Mr Harris: The Premier has indicated today that he has no intention of investigating. I find that absolutely astounding. He also indicated that he did not talk to the former minister, nor does he plan to talk to the former Minister of Housing, which I find astounding as well. Perhaps it explains why the terms of reference are not done. We are going to have to wait, day after day, to see just how large this is going to be and if we are going to have a judge do the Premier’s job to investigate his own people.

The Premier did say he asked the minister to look into it. He did say he asked her to ascertain, I assume, whether there was anything wrong. I would ask her again, in determining that, did she talk to the former Minister of Housing about this project specifically and Mrs Starr’s involvement, and why, from his knowledge, was Mrs Starr involved at all?

Hon Ms Hošek: I will, of course, make any inquiries the member wishes that are raised in his question, but my role as Minister of Housing is to investigate what was done at the Ministry of Housing. I have done that. I have asked members of my staff to tell me what they know. This is what I am told, and I am reporting it to the House. It seems to me that is my responsibility, and I am trying to fulfil it to the best of my ability.

HORSE RACING

Mr Campbell: My question is for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. It concerns an industry that is a very important one in this province, and that is the whole horse racing fraternity, all the people who are involved in this industry. The minister is aware of the need expressed by this industry for amendments to regulations governing the operation of racetracks in this province. Can the minister inform the House when these changes might be made?

Hon Mr Wrye: I am going from memory, but Bill C-7. which is the federal enabling legislation, has passed the House of Commons, which has now risen. I will have to check, but at last report, the Senate was still considering the details of Bill C-7. I believe second reading had passed and the matter was in the Senate in committee; it may well have passed before the Commons adjourned for the summer.

The regulations are still in draft form, and only after we have these matters finalized am I going to formulate recommendations at my level to take to my cabinet colleagues as to whether Ontario ought to opt into the teletheatre proposal. As the honourable member knows, it is a federal enabling piece of legislation which individual provinces can opt into as they desire. We are going to want to take a look at the final proposal before we decide whether it is appropriate to opt in.

Mr Campbell: I appreciate the answer, because the only racetrack in northern Ontario is in my community. I am very much concerned that the viability of this operation be maintained as much as possible, of course, because it is a very important recreation and job creator in our community. I am wondering if the minister could let this House know how these regulations could allow the activity at Sudbury Downs to be a viable operation.

Hon Mr Wrye: The proposal from the federal government, the Department of Agriculture, has been such that only racetracks would be able to get involved in teletheatre betting. Certainly the owners of Sudbury Downs Raceway, the MacIsaac family, have had a fairly difficult time of it over the years. To be fair to them, they have not turned a profit in any year since the track opened in, I believe, 1974.

In the discussions which they have had with my ministry and with me, they view teletheatre betting as being an opportunity for them, providing that they are able to obtain the licensing for the north, to supplement the returns they are able to get at the track with some additional returns within these so-called teletheatre centres or entertainment centres, as I would call them.

The government and the Ontario Racing Commission are very sensitive to the concerns of Sudbury Downs. That is one of the reasons I will be taking recommendations to cabinet as soon as the matters are finalized federally.

HOSPITAL FINANCING

Mr Wildman: I have a question to the Minister of Health regarding a meeting that is taking place this afternoon between representatives of the board of directors of St Joseph’s General Hospital in Blind River and members of her staff.

In view of the fact that the Minister of Northern Development and Mines (Mr Fontaine) in 1985, and subsequently the previous Minister of Health, made a commitment to the people of Blind River that there would be funding for a new hospital and an extended care facility, and that matter was reconfirmed during the 1987 election campaign, the community has now raised a substantial amount of money and the board of directors has reached the point where it has finalized the drawings and is ready to go to tender, can the minister resolve the confusion over what is happening with this hospital and indicate when final approval will be forthcoming for tenders to be called?

Hon Mrs Caplan: The member raises a question which we discussed in this House regarding a number of projects which are in various stages of planning right across this province.

I will say to him today, as I have said previously to members from other parts of the province, that when we are satisfied that in fact the planning which has taken place will result in meeting the needs of the people of the community, of the region and of the province, we will then announce our intention to move forward. My commitment to good planning and my commitment to meeting the real and changing needs of our communities is clear and I think he knows that from my previous visits to other parts of his riding.

Mr Wildman: I am aware of the minister’s commitment to planning. Could she tell the House and make clear at what stage in the planning this project is and what stages it has to go through before final approval will be made? If she is going to visit our area in July, hopefully she will be able to make the announcement then.

Hon Mrs Caplan: I would say to the member, and in fact to all members of this House, that we have one opportunity -- only one opportunity -- to make sure before we build that we are meeting the needs of our communities, not only for today but into the future, and that opportunity is before we put the shovel in the ground. I see him nodding and I know that he agrees.

We are planning and building not only for today, we are planning for the next 10, 20, 25 years ahead, so we must have not only a vision but a good plan. We are focusing on services that will meet the needs. We know that many things have changed in technology and we want to be as flexible as we can be to make sure that we meet the real and changing needs of our communities.

I would say to the member that I have attended meetings with him in communities where we have talked about innovation and different approaches and that we have to take that opportunity, before we put the shovel in the ground, to talk to communities about alternatives to how we can meet those needs.

I know of his interest in this matter and I look forward to visiting parts of his riding this summer.

VISITOR

The Speaker: That completes the allotted time for oral questions and responses. Just before there is too much commotion, I would like to inform the members that we have a visitor in the lower west gallery, a former member, Phil Gillies.

PETITIONS

NATUROPATHY

Mr Keyes: I have a petition signed by 139 citizens of Kingston and The Islands, addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly, and it reads, in part:

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

For the purpose of presentation, I have affixed my signature to the petition.

M. Campbell: Je désire présenter à la Chambre une pétition concernant la Loi 8, qui m’a été remise par quelques citoyens. Je n’accepte pas la position extrême de cette pétition mais, tel que le demande le Règlement de la Chambre, j’y appose ma signature. Merci.

NATUROPATHY

Mr Beer: I have a petition signed by 110 citizens, which reads as follows:

“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:

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

“And

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

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

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION

Miss Roberts: I have a petition and it is to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

“Whereas the government of Ontario in its discussions with the Ontario Teachers’ Federation on amendments to the Teachers’ Superannuation Act has refused to allow an equal partnership between teachers and government in management of the pension fund, establishment of an acceptable contribution increase, benefit adjustments, equitable treatment of future surpluses and a satisfactory dispute resolution process,

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly to insist that the Treasurer of Ontario negotiate with the Ontario Teachers’ Federation towards an equitable settlement.”

It is signed by 64 teachers in my riding and I have affixed my name thereto, as set out by the rules.

WASTE DISPOSAL

Mrs Stoner: I have two petitions signed by a total of 63 residents of the Ajax-Pickering area. I would like to read them both.

“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:

“We request that Premier David Peterson and Minister of the Environment Jim Bradley guarantee that any proposal for a solid waste landfill in the region of Durham be subject to a full environmental assessment under the provisions of the Environmental Assessment Act; and further

“That the Minister of the Environment not utilize the less restrictive provisions of the Environmental Protection Act to convene a hearing before the Environmental Assessment Board with regard to said proposal and thereby bypass the provisions of the Environmental Assessment Act and a full environmental assessment.”

The other petition reads:

“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:

“To request that the Premier and government of Ontario withdraw immediately the P1 site located on provincially owned land in the town of Pickering as a proposed new mega dump site for Metropolitan Toronto; and

“To urge that Metro Toronto never again be permitted to locate garbage dumps anywhere in Durham region; and further

“To urge that whenever a site or sites are chosen either as contingency or long-term dump sites anywhere in the region of Durham or in the province of Ontario, the people always be granted their full and complete environmental rights and safeguards according to the Environmental Assessment Act processes.”

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION

Mr Fleet: I have a petition addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It is identical to the petition that was read by the member for Elgin regarding the interests of teachers and members of the Ontario Teachers’ Federation. It is signed by 13 individuals, all of whom I believe are teachers resident in Ontario and who are involved at a school in North York. I have signed it in accordance with the provisions of the standing orders.

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF PHARMACISTS

Mrs LeBourdais: I have a petition to the Honourable Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario with regard to the establishment of a commission to look into the operation of the Ontario College of Pharmacists. I have affixed my signature thereto.

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

Miss Martel: I have a petition addressed to the Honourable Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It reads as follows:

“We, the undersigned, petition the government of Ontario to reform the workers’ compensation system in Ontario so that people injured at work get decent pensions, rehabilitation and jobs when they are able.”

I have a total of 1,671 signatures on this petition. I agree with these people entirely, and this adds to the 1,400 names that I submitted early in March.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

Mr Sola from the standing committee on regulations and private bills presented the committee’s report and moved its adoption.

Your committee begs to report the following bills without amendment:

Bill Pr3,

An Act respecting Sarnia General Hospital;

Bill Pr7,

An Act respecting the Royal Botanical Gardens;

Bill Pr18,

An Act respecting Fort Erie Community Young Men’s Christian Association;

Bill Pr23,

An Act to revive Bruce Office Supply Limited;

Bill Pr24,

An Act respecting the City of Kingston and the townships of Kingston, Pittsburgh and Ernestown;

Bill Pr25,

An Act respecting the Association of Municipal Tax Collectors of Ontario;

Bill Pr26,

An Act to revive Angelato Service Centre Ltd;

Bill Pr27,

An Act to revive Innomed Inc.

Your committee further recommends that the fees and the actual cost of printing at all stages and in the annual statutes be remitted on Bill Pr18,

An Act respecting Fort Erie Community Young Men’s Christian Association.

Motion agreed to.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

Mr Neumann from the standing committee on social development presented the following report and moved its adoption.

Your committee begs to report the following bill as amended:

Bill 211,

An Act to revise the Rental Housing Protection Act, 1986.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for third reading.

MOTION

WITHDRAWAL OF BILL 13

Hon Mr Conway moved, on behalf of Mrs Grier, that the order of the House referring Bill 13,

An Act respecting Environmental Rights in Ontario, to the standing committee on resources development be discharged and the bill withdrawn.

Motion agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Hon Mr Conway: I am calling that order standing in the name of the leader of the third party wanting confidence in the government.

In calling the order, I might say, I do not want to take too much time, but I should just indicate that there is agreement among the House leaders and whips that there is a time-sharing agreement that will see the windups begin at around 4:50 this afternoon, with roughly 20 minutes allowed for each of the windup speakers and that the remaining time between now, three o’clock, and 4:50 be shared equally among the parties.

Mr Harris: In the absence of Mr Brandt, I would ask for consent to move the motion under standing order 70(a).

The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?

Agreed to.

STANDARDS OF CONDUCT / LIGNES DE CONDUITE

Mr Harris moved, on behalf of Mr Brandt, motion 1 under standing order 70(a):

That the government lacks the confidence of the House because of the failure of the Premier to establish and enforce ethical standards of conduct for members of his government, including ministers of the crown and senior appointed officials, because of the questionable relationship among members of the government, the Liberal Party of Ontario, political appointees and financial supporters, because of the allegations of favouritism in the awarding of contracts to friends of government, and because of the Premier’s failure to assume full responsibility for the actions of those whom he has appointed.

The Speaker: I would remind all members that according to the standing order, a vote will be taken at ten minutes to six, with a five-minute bell.

Mr Harris: I will not speak very long on this particular motion, since there are a number of people who, in the limited time available to us, want to speak in favour of the motion.

I rise, as well, not out of a sense of being pleased to have the opportunity to speak to the motion. I am not pleased to be speaking to this motion. I am not pleased that my party and my leader felt it necessary to move a motion of nonconfidence on such a serious matter as this. Having said that, I certainly understand and support the motion, and I support the necessity for us to move such a motion at this particular time.

Today, we were dealing with a matter that was raised in the Globe and Mail; a matter involving a former minister, Patti Starr, a housing project, funds that were raised, a project that was awarded to a business partner in another venture of Mrs Starr’s husband. When we asked the Premier (Mr Peterson) if he had even talked to the minister who was involved in this, he indicated, no, he had not.

I think we have reached a very sad stage of perhaps sensitization to scandal after scandal, impropriety after impropriety, day after day coming forward so that it is now accepted almost as routine. We say, “Well, it’s another one, yes.

I think that is sad. I think that is sad for all politicians. I think that is sad for those who are involved, who work on behalf of various individuals, regardless of party. I think it is very unfortunate for those who support political parties and very unfortunate, indeed, for civil servants who have been drawn into a number of these allegations.

I believe it is the Premier himself who must accept the responsibility. Those members who have read Mr Valpy’s

article today in the Globe and Mail will know it refers to these issues of fund-raising and courting favour. While at times I suppose some would argue it is a fine line whether businesses that have dealings with the government ought to be contributing funds to various parties or various ministers, indeed, funds are raised and businesses and individuals do contribute a substantial amount of money to the process to make the process work.

Since 1985, we have raised concerns where we felt the line had been stepped over. We raised issues like Ministers of Health specifically sending fund-raising requests to those involved in the Health ministry, to those involved either in working for or having contracts with specifically the Health ministry. The implication there is just too strong.

When the Minister of Tourism and Recreation (Mr O’Neil) mails fund-raising letters to tourism operators who have dealings with the ministry, apparently from lists that would be had by only the ministry office, we feel that goes too far. We have raised this time and time again, year after year, and it has not been a matter that this Premier has treated seriously.

We have seen examples more recently of what we feel are flagrant improprieties, technically perhaps not illegal, not issues that involve conflict of interest directly per se or that are covered by any legislation or any act, just common sense wrong. That is where the Premier has a responsibility to set those standards, to enforce those standards, to make sure that indeed those are the standards of conduct for those he has control over: ministers of the crown, parliamentary assistants, the political appointments that he makes and the political appointments from within the party.

We have raised this on a number of occasions over a period of years and the Premier has shirked that responsibility. He has refused to investigate, or if he has investigated, he has condoned activities that we think have gone too far.

I believe the Premier has made Ontario a laughingstock throughout Canada and I do not think there is anything to laugh about. I believe these are black days for parliamentary democracy. I believe this scandal gives a whole new meaning to Ontario’s tourism slogan. “Ontario -- Incredible!” This is not something that any of us ought to feel very good about, regardless of party and regardless of where we come from in this political process.

I want to indicate to the House that I do not feel very good about it. What can be done about it? The Premier must accept the responsibility, and not through legislation. One cannot legislate common sense, morality and decency. Those are qualities that the Premier must set for himself right from the beginning and that the Premier must set for those he has control over in his party and his cabinet and with whom he is involved.

I can understand ministers, parliamentary assistants, the Minister of Culture and Communications (Ms Oddie Munro) and even Mrs Starr and their not knowing where the line ought to be drawn, because there was no line drawn for them. The examples they had to follow were condoned or overlooked by the Premier himself, and that comes to the heart of this particular issue.

I suggest that my party, after the period of years that this has evolved and been allowed to go on, does not have confidence in this Premier or in this government to solve this problem. Given the track record, we do not have the confidence that this Premier even today, with all of the events around us, understands or appreciates the seriousness and knows that it is his responsibility as the head of this party, of this government and as Premier of the province. It is not to be sloughed off to a judge, to the Commission on Election Finances or to the Ontario Provincial Police.

It appears that probably criminal charges will be laid as a result of the investigations, that there have been violations of the Election Finances Act and that should be looked into. What we are concerned about in this chamber, though, are those matters for which the Premier himself is responsible.

Just today there was the revelation of facts brought forward in the Globe and Mail on the Minister of Skills Development (Mr Curling), formerly the Minister of Housing, and the Premier said, “No, I haven’t asked him.” I just find it astounding that with all of these events, today he is still acting no differently from the way he did four, three or two years ago or two months ago, one month ago or even last week.

I support the motion. I suggest to all those members who will be asked to vote on this motion that I do not believe I have seen anything by way of example that ought to give any member of this Legislature, regardless of party affiliation, any confidence that this Premier understands that it is he who is responsible and that it is he who must take responsibility for what has happened over this past period of time.

Hon Mr Sweeney: I am pleased to participate in this discussion, pleased in a different way than my honourable colleague who just spoke. My colleague will certainly not be surprised if I say that I do not concur with his conclusions and that I certainly do not support this motion.

I have not made it a practice of participating in many debates of this kind in the past four years but I particularly wanted to participate in this one because I believe that it speaks to the rationale of why many of us on all sides of this House and in all parties are here in this Legislature.

I think it speaks to the fact that we see each other as honourable members. Quite frankly. I do not think any of us would stay here for the number of years that many of us have -- for me, it has been 14 years; 14 good years, I want to say -- and I do not think I would have stayed for 14 years if it had been my perception that I was surrounded by dishonourable colleagues. But that has not been my perception; it has not been my experience.

I can say, with all openness and with the deepest belief, that I have never in those 14 years been associated with any single member in this House from any political party who personally benefited from his position here. I have never had that experience.

As a matter of fact, my experience has been just the opposite. Far and away the majority of men and women in this House have been those who have made personal and financial sacrifices to be here. That has been my consistent experience: of men and women who have left other occupations or other positions where they have earned more money; where in many cases they had more status and more prestige; where they had more opportunities for career growth.

God knows, I sat on the other side of this House for 10 years and I know what that means.

Mr Hampton: You will again.

Hon Mr Sweeney: That is possible.

Therefore, it has not been my experience that the tone and the tenor of this motion has been what has taken place in this House.

I just indicated a couple of minutes ago that I spent 10 years in opposition. I understand and support and respect the role of opposition members. I would like to think -- only others may judge this -- that I played an active role in that position for 10 years, and I never believed for a minute that it was a lesser role.

It was different from government members, but it was not a lesser role. It was part of the democratic process, and I truly believe that process is as strong as it is in this jurisdiction and in other jurisdictions in this country because of active, forceful and aggressive opposition members. I have no problem with that. I understand it and I support it. It was my own type of behaviour for 10 years.

But I want to tell the members that I am troubled by this particular motion. I am troubled by the four main points of this motion. First of all, I am troubled because it speaks, for the first time in my experience with respect to a confidence motion, about the personalities of this House; not by policy, not by program.

It is usually the practice here, and it is an understandable practice and a supportable practice, that opposition members can disagree and disagree honestly with the government with respect to policy or with respect to program. Having a want of a confidence motion on those kinds of bases is quite legitimate.

This one is different, however, because it speaks to the personalities in this House, and I want to suggest that in all of our experiences, when we start dealing with personalities, the atmosphere and the environment of this House takes on a different tone and a different tenor altogether. We tend to begin to reduce our respect for one another. We tend to reduce the efficiency and the effectiveness of this House, because I have discovered over 14 years that the one essential element that must exist if we are to serve the people of this province is that there is a level of respect for one another.

Disagreement, yes. Active and aggressive disagreement, yes. Because we represent 130 different ridings across this province, from north to south to east to west, from urban ridings to rural ridings to isolated northern ridings, with different kinds of aspirations from the people who live there. We represent many income groups; we represent many ethnic groups; we represent political groups; we represent religious groups, and they all have their points of view.

The purpose of this Legislature, the purpose of this House, is to give all those people, through us, their representatives, a voice: a voice to agree with policy and program or a voice to disagree with it and to suggest alternatives. That is what this place is for, and when we are dealing with policies and programs, we can do that. When we are dealing with personalities, that gets lost.

This motion speaks about the failure of the Premier to establish and enforce ethical standards. I totally disagree with that. I have worked with this Premier as leader of our party since 1982 and as Premier since 1985. That has not been my experience. I can say to the members as I say to my colleagues here that this is not the kind of leader this Premier is.

I have been in his presence with my cabinet colleagues and my caucus colleagues innumerable times when this Premier has drawn to our attention the absolutely essential basis for our conduct and our standards. He has shared that message and that point of view and that philosophy and that value of his own with us time after time after time.

There is no doubt in the minds of any of my cabinet colleagues or any of my caucus colleagues what are the ethical standards this Premier has for himself and the ethical standards that he expects of his caucus colleagues and his cabinet colleagues. That is clear, and that is not just by word, it is also by action.

This Premier brought in conflict-of-interest legislation that clearly spelled out what was expected of us. We all know from the many years that many of us have been present here that when you draft legislation you cannot cross every t and dot every i. That is not possible. There is always an element of judgement. We knew when we brought in that legislation, as in any other kind of legislation, you do the best you can under the circumstances that are available to you. You cover as many eventualities as you possibly can.

That is the kind of legislation we have got. I believe it is good legislation; and to follow that up, this Premier, with the consensus of all members of this House, appointed a respected jurist, the Honourable Gregory Evans, to head up that commission and to give advice to all of us if we had difficulties or if we had uncertainties.

This government, this Premier in particular, has opened up this government of Ontario in ways that it has never been open before. Yes, that is risky. Yes, you take a chance when you open things up. It is much easier to protect and to enclose and to restrict, where you keep a nice, tight, neat little package.

That is not what this Premier has done or what this government has done. We have opened up the process. We have the most open and honest tendering process for government supplies, for government construction and for government advertising that this government of Ontario has ever known.

As a matter of fact, I have had numerous people come to me and say: “John, at least now we have a chance to bid. We weren’t given a chance before. We know we’ll get a fair hearing. We know we won’t always win the bid, but we know we’ll get a fair hearing, whether it is in advertising, government supplies or construction. At least, we know that it is open and that we have a chance.”

With respect to appointments by this government, I really do believe that people recognize how much more open that has become. How many times members from all political parties -- or let me put it this way -- with different political affiliations have been considered and have been appointed. That is not a factor any longer in this government.

People from various ethnic organizations, religious backgrounds and different parts of this province, north, south, east or west, have been appointed to positions in this government. I know the number of times that we have had to look at those kinds of appointments around the cabinet table. I know the care that goes into considering the background of these people and their qualifications for doing jobs.

I am not suggesting that everyone is going to agree with it, but I am telling members that great care and great consideration is taken. I categorically do not support, and I would go so far as to say that I categorically deny, that first point, that this Premier has failed to establish and enforce ethical standards. That is not the case; that is not my experience. As a matter of fact, just the opposite is my experience.

We then go on in this motion to talk about questionable relationships. I would ask my colleagues to consider those words, “questionable relationships.” How open-ended and ill defined can you be when you make a statement like that? What does it mean? My God, I have relationships with 1,800 different agencies across this province. I have relationships with several hundreds of municipalities across this province. I have relationships with I do not know how many umbrella advocacy groups and lobby groups.

I am sure that many people in this House could question the kind of relationship I have with them. Is it a relationship I should have at all? Do I do it in the proper way? Are they satisfied with the kinds of answers they get from me? Are they satisfied with the kinds of judgements that I make, the kinds of decisions that I make? The answer is probably no. Does that make them wrong? I hope not.

I hope that we would not start basing our relationships on these kinds of questions. I hope that we would understand that we have to make choices. We have to make decisions. We have to make judgement calls. That is the nature of our business. There is no bible that tells us in every single case what to do or what not to do. We are not computers. We are not automatons. We are human beings trying to do the best job we possibly can.

I go on, and in this motion we talk about allegations of favouritism. If there is one thing that this whole process has been about, it has been about allegations, over and over again. I would ask my colleagues on all sides of the House to carefully consider the implication of allegations, to carefully consider the fact that we are all totally exposed if we buy this concept, this philosophy, this ideology that anyone, at any time, for any reason can simply throw out an allegation.

My honourable colleague from the third party who preceded me in the speaking list referred to an

article in the Globe and Mail today. He referred to a letter that was written to a columnist, which he quoted. I do not know whether members noticed or not, but there was no name in that letter. None of us knows whom it comes from. None of us knows what prompted that person. There was an allegation of where it came from and why it was written, but I ask members, my God, to put themselves in our positions, and I mean all 130 of us. Are we going to accept and open ourselves to that kind of activity, that anyone, any time, for any reason, can simply just make an allegation? How do we operate around here?

How do members defend themselves from that position? What kind of respect do we have for each other? What kind of co-ordination and co-operation is possible if that is the rule of the law around here?

Surely to God we still demand proof. Surely we do not accept such irresponsible statements when they are not backed up by reasonable proof. I am not saying absolute proof. I would say to members that this motion does not speak to that. It speaks to allegations; it does not speak to reasonable proof. I would suggest to members that this is not the way this House and this Legislature should operate.

The final point in this motion refers to the Premier’s failure to assume full responsibility for the actions of those he has appointed. Again, I categorically deny that. This Premier has continued to accept responsibility for this whole government. He has continued to accept responsibility for the actions of his ministers, but he has clearly indicated that he cannot stand in their shoes, that he cannot crawl inside their heads and their minds and act on their behalf.

I would ask my honourable colleagues to look at the kind of responsibility this Premier has assumed, to look at the kind of encouragement he has given to his ministers, to look at what we have done for the people of Ontario. I say to my colleagues that in the past four years, the people of the province have benefited significantly because of the activities of this government, of these ministers and of this Premier.

In my own ministry, when I first became minister, it was brought to my attention, and of course it was something I knew before, that thousands upon thousands of people in this province who were adopted, who were now adult and wanted to know something about their backgrounds were denied that opportunity. They were specifically and categorically denied that opportunity by the previous government. That was their philosophical position, their ideological position. I respected it; I totally disagreed with it. That is no longer the case in Ontario today.

We are constantly receiving grateful letters from people saying, “Thank you for giving me that opportunity to discover my brothers and my sisters whom I did not know, my mother or my father whom I did not know, a chance to know what my roots were, a chance to understand myself better.” That opportunity has been given by this government. It would not be available if this government were not in place.

We know the number of elderly and disabled people who want to stay in their own homes and their own communities. The previous government of this province had before it an opportunity to introduce, for four or five years, an integrated homemakers program. They refused to do so. This government did it. There are countless thousands of elderly and disabled people in this province who have the advantage of that opportunity who did not have it before.

For numbers of years. the native people in this province wanted to run their own children’s aid societies, to look after the needs of their own children. They were denied that opportunity. This government has introduced that opportunity. In Tikinagan, Payukotayno and Weechi-it-tewin, in northeastern and northwestern Ontario, native bands, almost 60 of them, now have the opportunity to run their own children’s aid societies, to be responsible for the welfare of their own children, to see to it that their families and their children receive the kind of support and help they believe they should have.

That is the kind of thing this government has done. That is the kind of thing this Premier has initiated in this government. That is the kind of thing I am proud of, to be a minister and a member of this government. That is why I categorically deny this motion and will not support this motion.

Mr Hampton: I am quite pleased to be able to take

part in this debate, because I think this is a very important debate, given the context of politics in Ontario today and the context of government in Ontario today.

I want to start just by commenting a bit on the speech by the previous speaker. No one denies that this government has accomplished some good things. Let’s face facts. Today, Ontario is at the richest stage ever in its history. When this government assumed office, the Premier said he was fortunate enough to become Premier of the province when there was a lot of money around, when the economy was buoyant, when there was a lot of industrial activity, when there was a lot of employment activity. If you cannot do something right, if you cannot do something good under those kinds of economic, political and social conditions, then you should resign and not be the government.

So let’s get things straight. We are not talking about whether the government can accomplish something or has accomplished something or has not. I think generally this government is given credit for doing some things right, for doing a lot of things wrong, yes, but for doing some things right. We must also be mindful that it has been fortunate enough to come to power at a time when economic, social and political conditions allowed that to happen.

That is not what this debate is about. That is not what this nonconfidence motion is about. Let me delineate very specifically what it is about.

We have had more than just allegations. When something goes on for six weeks repeatedly in the newspapers and the media of the province and no one makes a satisfactory reply, it becomes more than just a simple allegation. Something cannot go on that long. We have heard the Attorney General (Mr Scott) say he wants to revamp the libel and slander laws of the province, because that would allow newspapers to make more fair comment; it would allow us to exercise our freedom of speech. These cannot be mere allegations for six weeks. Newspapers, the media, are not that stupid. They understand libel and slander.

What we have had is pretty clear. I will quote from the Liberal newspaper, the Toronto Star, which habitually and traditionally endorses the Liberal Party. Last weekend’s edition says that nine cabinet ministers have received funds from a charitable institution. That charities are not supposed to contribute funds to political parties, political candidates, in any way. Six MPPs or their riding associations have received funds, and six organizers, fund-raisers, campaign managers, have also received funds.

It is bad enough that these funds come from a charitable institution, but some were over the limits. You are allowed $750 in an ordinary year and $1,500 in an election year. Somebody who has a simple calculator can figure that out. Some of the money, besides coming from a charity, was over the limits, yet it was accepted or there was an attempt to somehow not acknowledge that it had been received.

In other cases, we have money conveniently showing up four or five days after the election campaign for consulting contracts that the so-called consultant knew nothing about and admits he did not do any consulting work on. Or we have the mother of a cabinet minister being referred directly by the cabinet minister to do a housing study for $5,000. The organization that supposedly commissioned the housing study does not know about it, cannot find it, cannot find the results of it and does not know how it ever came into being.

That was the start. Also on the weekend, we had printed in the Globe and Mail a letter from the person who has so far been at the centre of this in terms of the fund-raising part of it, a letter from Patricia Starr to the then principal secretary of the Premier, commenting upon some of the fund-raising projects she was going to undertake for the party.

What astounded me was that you would think the person, first of all, would have the decency to keep her role as the administrator of the charitable fund separate from her role as political fund-raiser, that when she write letters to government officials, to the Premier’s officials, “This is how we are going to do the fund-raising,” she would at least have the decency to do it on some letterhead other than that of a charitable institution.

If it were the case that the person in question did not have any sense of that, then at least you would have thought that the government would have stepped in right there, that somebody in the Premier’s office would have stepped in and said:

“Look, please keep your charitable work separate from your political fund-raising work. Don’t let the two become intertwined.” Obviously, that was not done.

Let’s go on a little further, to Ontario Place. Under the jurisdiction and direction of Patti Starr, we then had money going to the spouse of another cabinet minister. Allegedly, one of the ministers stepped in to reduce the amount of the contract. But let us not forget that it is not only our duty as politicians and the government’s duty as government to see that things happen as they should; it is also the government’s job to see that things appear to everyone to happen as they should.

Let us, all members, face it, that is part of the problem, that so much of what has gone on looks really bad to any objective member of the public, looks improper, looks to be not the way we would want government and political affairs to be handled. It looks unsavoury.

We go on. Food contracts and other contracts at Ontario Place were not tendered, and further, there are fund-raising letters from the Liberal Party to hospital boards at a time when hospital boards across the province are saying to the Minister of Health (Mrs Caplan): “We’re short of money. We’re running deficits. We need more equipment. We need your assistance.” What is the response, not of the government, but of the Liberal Party? “You, as the hospital board, buy a ticket to our fund-raiser.” These things just do not present a very good picture to the public.

What about hospital and school boards? Taxpayers’ money goes to hospital boards to operate the health system and to school boards to operate the school system. Yet this taxpayers’ money, through Liberal fund-raising projects, winds up in the coffers of the Liberal Party. Somebody, whoever is in charge over there, a long time ago should have stepped in and said: “Look, this is not a very clean ship. This should not go on.”

But instead of that, what have we seen? We have seen attempt after attempt to justify some of this behaviour, to say it is really not that serious or that the conduct is okay and acceptable by the standards of the Premier.

So far we have not seen or heard any voice or note whatsoever of condemnation of what has happened in the case of the Minister of Culture and Communications or any note of condemnation saying that some of the affairs of the Minister of Housing (Ms Hošek) are improper or that the nontendering of contracts at Ontario Place was improper; none of those things.

I wish to say that contrary to what the previous speaker has said, it is not what the government has failed to do or has done in a given policy area that we are speaking about here today. It is purely and simply this government’s failure to adopt standards the public would find acceptable and believable and then act according to those standards. That is the issue. For that reason I am supporting this nonconfidence motion, and I suspect there are even people on the government side who feel very badly about this and do not like the unsavoury smell that is coming from this place as a result of this.

Mr Cousens: I do not think anyone enjoys having to come into the House at a time when there is so much to be done and have to stop for a nonconfidence vote that is not going to pass unless there is a change of heart from a large number of the Liberal backbenchers who are following along. None the less, there is an important procedure that has to be done here and that is to ensure that the public trust be maintained and fulfilled. Those of us who are invited to have that opportunity to serve the public have to make sure that our actions are above and beyond what we are in a position to review today.

I think that Sam Slick in Thomas Haliburton’s writing said, “Innocence is not suspicious, but guilt is always ready to turn informer.” What we are seeing here in the revelation of the events of the last four years that are now coming forward into the press and the media and this House is that the guilt is turning informer. We are becoming very much aware of what has been going on behind the scenes with this government.

Sam Slick also said, “I believe that in politics, as in other matters, honesty is the best policy.” When I was sitting and trying to see whether this issue was going to expand to become the affair it has become, I really did not believe that it would become such a quagmire of problems nor that it would become something so pervasive, touching upon so many people

It was probably crystalized best of all when a refrigerator and a paint job were involved. That, more than anything, got the Premier up and reacting and made him realize that something serious had happened around him. Until then, I have to say, he stonewalled and his government reacted in such a negative, unlistening way that it would have appeared the opposition and our party were really not saying anything of importance at all. It was not until it was in the Premier’s own office, and a refrigerator and a paint job were brought to his attention, that this became an issue.

The previous speaker was talking about allegations and innuendo. If he wants to call a refrigerator an allegation and a paint job an innuendo, maybe he has new

definitions for those. It is a serious matter. It is a matter that touches upon the integrity of government and the integrity of democracy. It touches upon every one of us in this House.

It is a serious matter when a cabinet minister, the Minister of Culture and Communications and member for Hamilton Centre, has certain involvements here. It is a serious matter when the member for St Andrew-St Patrick (Mr Kanter), as well, has been implicated.

It is a serious matter that the former Solicitor General has resigned. It was stonewalled up until a certain point, but it was as if nothing was going wrong or nothing –

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The afternoon started well without any interjections. If we may proceed without interjections, I would appreciate that.

Mr Cousens: There is no doubt that the former Solicitor General has resigned. It is not going to go to a public commission for further review, but there is little doubt that there has been a problem. We brought forward --

Mr Miller: Because she did a good deed.

The Deputy Speaker: Order please, the member for Norfolk.

Mr Cousens: We brought before this House an opportunity for the Premier to set in motion a set of standards of conduct for cabinet ministers, and the government ruled it out. We have a situation where the chief commissioner of the Ontario Human Rights Commission has shown a real failure in how to handle that office.

We presently have five investigations under way. We have the public trustee looking at the whole matter of a charity. We have the Provincial Auditor, who is required under the public accounts to do so, looking at it as well. We have the Commission on Election Finances looking at this. We have the police making an investigation and we have a judicial inquiry under way.

I have to say that I was listening to the Minister of Community and Social Services and member for Kitchener-Wilmot (Mr Sweeney), who is one very honourable member. He sanctimoniously and in such a kind, generous way believes in everything that is going on. He cannot just stand there and say that everything is crystal clean and white and pure when there are five investigations under way.

I have to say that there is something the matter and that is why we are having this motion of nonconfidence. It is a serious matter. It touches upon the integrity of this government and on the integrity of all of us who serve in this House. It is not just a matter that there are one or two or three incidents; it is what else is involved. I know people are looking at the papers every day now and saying, “What else am I going to find written there about a new revelation, a new development or a new situation that has come forward just in the four years since the David Peterson government took over?” One wonders.

Tomorrow in the committee on public accounts I will be bringing forward a motion which will again try to touch upon one of those areas which we believe is a problem to this government and a problem to government as a whole. When you start having this question of honesty and integrity you start to ask questions. Do not place too much trust in a person who boasts he is honest as the day is long, as you just might bump into him in the night. That is when you start to see what the person is really like. What has happened is that we have now seen this Liberal government in the full brightness of sunlight and realize that there are problems.

It has touched upon what we see as Toronto the Good and what we are seeing --

Mr Black: That’s a ridiculous statement.

Mr Cousens: I really take offence. I did not say a word when the member for Kitchener-Wilmot was speaking, and the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay keeps interrupting. If the other members of this House are going to continue to have their interruptions, let them have a chance to speak. But we are just talking about respect for other members in the House. We sat quietly while the member for Kitchener-Wilmot spoke and what I am getting around me are constant interruptions and interjections by Liberal backbenchers. Let them stand and make their statements. I am saying that Toronto the Good has a different image now.

We are picking up a different appearance. When people think of this city, who knows whether they will think of it as another city that does not have the reputation that we have been so proud of for so long a time? I do not want to mention those cities, but there is not one of us who does not know of cities that are held in low esteem because of the kinds of things that have gone on there -- the kind of corruption and the kind of erosion of values and principles that is common in other areas. That, in fact, has now been manifested in this city and in this province.

I am saying we want and we would believe in the kinds of things that the member for Kitchener-Wilmot was talking about, if we could believe that that were all true. We believe in good government and we believe in doing things that are right. People are drawing comparisons between the present Premier and the past Premier, the present government and the past government.

There is an overwhelming nature to the problem that we are dealing with. What it has to do with is the undermining of confidence, not only of the members of this House, but also of the people of Ontario. I suppose the popularity polls will be the next things we will start to see. The Premier and his government have been extremely high on those polls of popularity, but now when the facts unfold, people will begin to understand that it has been a false trust.

What we are seeing now is a government that is in a state of paralysis, with an inability to control the revelations that are coming out and that will continue to come out. The Premier said it could be 20 years if we had a public inquiry that went on and we would be happy. No, I would like to get it over with and get on with what is really good and right.

What we have to do is clean out what is wrong and get rid of what is not correct. We in this House have a responsibility to make sure that what is right is what is done. It is leaving an image of this House and of parliamentarians and politicians that is pervading the public that all politicians are corrupt. We have all had that conversation lately with people from our own constituencies who are concerned about what has gone wrong in this House. I have to say in that respect that it is a blemish upon all of us and upon everyone who is involved in something such as this.

What does this say about our parliamentary system? Unfortunately, question period ends up being a very unsuccessful way for us to try to get to the facts and the truth. In our House many questions are asked every day of the week when this House is sitting and on a very regular basis. There is no way in which either the Premier or other cabinet ministers who are asked questions are required to answer those questions. Therefore, what we get are flippant answers that do not touch upon the core of the questions that are asked. Question period has become a farce in this House by virtue of the answers that are received.

I have to say that the questions that have been asked by the opposition party and our party have made a significant and sincere effort to try to get to the bottom of these situations, without too much success. It has come outside the House where we start to find out what is going on. It happens on a Thursday night that we learn about Mr Ashworth having to resign.

What happens is that when this House has to respond to the -- I think it is foolish when you have to resort to the bells. It was unfortunate that the bells had to be used in order to make a point that we had to make when we were dealing with the situation regarding the former Solicitor General, the member for London South (Mrs E. J. Smith).

Now the government has come in with its majority and said, “We’re going to change the rules.” I will tell the members this much: We would not be having these kinds of problems in this House if it were a minority government. Had this government a minority, I can assure you, Mr Speaker, this confidence motion that is being brought before this House today would carry and it would be out of office.

Hon Mr Conway: The threat of an election would send you to Markham so fast you will never be heard of again.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr Cousens: I would be quite prepared to run an election right now, based on this issue and on any other issue that is going along in this province.

lnterjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Mr Cousens: It has to do with the integrity and failure of your government, and you, and other members of this House, who have lost the trust of other members. It has been a total breakdown, Sean, and you have to be sure of it. You are partly responsible for it, as are others.

Hon Mr Conway: I am just saying that minority government means you have to be partly responsible. In a minority government, you would be so responsible as to be --

Mr B. Rae: I was.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Conway: The