The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

SCHOOL TRANSFER

Mr Mancini: All members of the Legislative Assembly are aware that over the past months, negotiations imposed on the county with regard to the school transfer matter have been going on. It has been told to me this morning that the mediator who was sent down by the Minister of Education has hammered out an agreement whereby schools will be transferred from the public board to the Catholic board. I am distressed to find out that a single-community school will be transferred from the public board to the Catholic board. General Amherst District High School, one of the oldest institutions in our county, now will no longer be under the jurisdiction of the Essex County Board of Education if the mediator, the school board trustees and the minister have their way.

During Bill 30 hearings, every party in the Legislature -- all parties that sit here today -- made a solemn promise to the people of Ontario, and that promise was that we would protect single-community schools that were under the jurisdiction of the public school board. Justifiably, the students, the parents, the teachers and the entire community are very upset. We cannot and will not have social peace if we do not keep the solemn promises we make.

ONTARIO ROAD MAP

Mr B. Murdoch: I would like to bring to the attention of this House and the Minister of Transportation the fact that if one examines the new road map produced by his ministry, the population of Ontario seems to be shrinking rapidly. Whole communities have completely disappeared. Where have they gone? What has this government done with them?

The map of Ontario which serves as a guide to everyone in the province, as well as people who are visiting us and those looking for our hundreds of tourist attractions, used to be dotted with all of our small communities. This government obviously feels that Ontario was becoming too cluttered, so it has done away with more and more of these picturesque sites.

One example of this elimination is Proton Station in my riding of Grey. Proton Station straddles Artemesia and Proton townships. It has its own community centre, postal address and supermailbox. Its people lead full and useful lives. By omitting it from the map of Ontario and with no directional sign on Highway 10, its residents feel slighted and ignored.

I would ask that the ministry re-examine the policy of abandoning communities such as these and rediscover them. Will he ensure in future that Proton Station and other villages like it are reinstated on our map and are once again made to feel welcome in the province.

STRATFORD SHAKESPEAREAN FESTIVAL

Mrs Haslam: Friends, Romans, countrypersons, lend me your ears. All the world is a stage and we are but mere players.

Today marks the beginning of the 39th season of one of the foremost theatre companies in Canada, the Stratford Shakespearean Festival. The season officially opens 27 May in the Festival Theatre with one of the most famous tragedies -- if we do not count the Liberals' view of the last election -- William Shakespeare's Hamlet. Ticket prices start at $11 and I have placed a copy of our brochure on each member's desk to facilitate their ticket purchases.

Much ado about nothing, they say? Au contraire. With a total of 825 employees, 500 of whom are year-round Stratford residents, the festival is one of the largest employers in the riding of Perth. They generate an estimated $25 million in taxes and it is estimated that for all services and goods, the economic benefit to Stratford alone is $100 million. However, if the members would like to see Much Ado About Nothing, it opens on Wednesday 29 May.

We in Stratford are proud of our tradition of providing a rich and varied selection of classic and contemporary plays for the public. I invite the members to join Our Town any night, not just on the Twelfth Night, picnic on our Treasure Island, enjoy the opening of Carousel or attend the performance of School for Wives. As the members can see, our 1991 playbill has much to offer.

EARTH WEEK PROJECT

Mrs Caplan: I am pleased to share with members of this House the imaginative and thought-provoking work of grades 3 and 4 students at Crestview Elementary School in my riding. The students presented me with this "Leave Us a Home" mural, which is part of the class Earth Week project. It focuses on the environmental impact of our neglected planet and suggests proactive solutions to help save this earth.

The students began the project by researching the characteristics, habitat and chances of survival of the species of animals and birds shown in this mural. The collages of apartments, houses, the skyline of the city and the hustle and bustle of urban transportation strikingly illustrate the terrible congestion and how it suffocates our wildlife, green spaces, oceans and wetlands.

Lois Law, one of the teachers at Crestview, said the message was simple and clear, "Our urban existence is killing our natural surroundings -- leave us a home."

Not only are these students telling us we are responsible for what is wrong with our earth; they are taking responsibility themselves for what can be done to help save our fragile environment. In the third part of the Earth Week project, the children collected money and bought an acre of the endangered Amazon rain forest.

I am proud of the efforts of the students of Crestview Elementary School and I salute their teachers, Lois Law and J.D. Hetherington. They are to be commended for their creative proactive approach to learning.

1340

TERMINATION AGREEMENT

Mr Jordan: Today, I rise to voice my concerns over an agreement between a dismissed constituency assistant in Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings and the NDP member of that riding.

The people of eastern Ontario are extremely upset that last week an employee who had worked just three months was muzzled with a $12,000 to $18,000 settlement. This is outrageous and ridiculous. While many factories in eastern Ontario have closed their doors, forcing people out of work, and others are struggling to make ends meet, this government is negotiating secret deals. The Premier will not even release the content of the agreement so that the taxpayers can see what they are paying for.

Informed sources said the constituency assistant earned approximately $10,000 for her three months of work. After dismissal, she received another $4,000 for what the Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings MPP called a paid holiday and now, if members can believe it, the government has agreed to pay her $10,000 more.

This government should be more worried about children going to school hungry or skyrocketing unemployment rates than unreasonable settlements with disgruntled staff.

EVENTS IN BRANTFORD

Mr B. Ward: It is a great pleasure to bring to the attention of this House two events that occurred in Brantford that involved people from the opposite ends of the age scale.

The first event involved seniors in an organization in Brantford-Brant county called the Dancing Diamonds. It is a round dancing club that held its first diamond jubilee last week. Over 150 dancers came from Brantford and the surrounding area for a day of fun and dancing. Their enthusiasm is a fine example that life does not end when you retire or at the age of 60.

The other event involved 30 cubs from Brantford who earned their merit badges last night. These badges took two to four years to receive and involved five stages before they received them. Their parents are very proud of these young individuals.

I would like to wish both the Dancing Diamonds and the 30 cubs all of my best wishes for their future endeavours.

YOUTH EMPLOYMENT

Mr Phillips: I rise today to remind the House of an issue which impacts on each of us. It is an issue that I think needs our attention.

In my riding, as across the province, there is growing concern about the employment opportunities for our young people. In just the past 12 months, we have seen unemployment rise from under 10% among this group to over 16.5%. Among young males of this age group, the unemployment rate now is over 20%. There are 100,000 fewer jobs for these people than there were 12 months ago, and another 40,000 of these young people have actually dropped completely out of the workplace. If we included them, the unemployment rate would have gone from under 10% to over 20%.

We all know how challenging our younger years have been at the best of times, and now we have an environment in this country where there is political and economic uncertainty. Confidence and hope and optimism are fragile commodities at the best of times. They are easily shaken and easily broken.

Our young people are not a well-organized political force that will arrive on our front doorstep quickly, but none the less, they are an extremely important group. Our challenge, and I might say particularly the government's challenge, is to ensure that this generation of young people will not be forced to pay an unfair price for the mistakes of our older generations.

HUNTING IN ALGONQUIN PARK

Mr J. Wilson: My statement today is directed to the Minister of Tourism and Recreation and it concerns the impact upon tourism by the government's decision to allow natives hunting and fishing rights throughout Algonquin Park.

The Minister of Tourism and Recreation is on public record as saying that tourism is "more than just a hobby" for this government.

With that in mind, it is incumbent upon the Minister of Tourism and Recreation to do more than simply make his colleague the Minister of Natural Resources aware of the concerns of Algonquin's tourist operators. If the Minister of Tourism and Recreation is genuinely concerned about the plight of tourism in this province, he will not only bring forward the concerns of tourist operators, but also urge his government to negotiate native land claims that do not adversely impact upon the tourist traffic in Algonquin Park.

If the Minister of Tourism and Recreation views tourism as more than just a hobby, he should begin to take his portfolio seriously and refrain from making flippant remarks such as the one he made recently in Huntsville regarding Algonquin Park. I quote from the Huntsville Forester of 10 April: "We've gotten a lot of publicity for the park, even if some of it is bad," the minister is quoted as saying.

Let me assure the minister that all of the publicity has been bad and all this negative publicity lies at the feet of his government. It is time for him to go to bat for the tourism industry and begin the process of rebuilding Algonquin's troubled tourist trade.

HIGH SCHOOL CAPACITY

Mr Morrow: I would like to address an educational issue which is of major concern to the residents of Wentworth East. In the city of Stoney Creek there are two high schools below the Niagara Escarpment, namely, Saltfleet and Orchard Park. Since Stoney Creek is one of the fastest-growing areas in the province, these schools will soon be filled to capacity.

Currently there is a population of 14,000 in upper Stoney Creek and 9,000 in the neighbouring township of Glanbrook. This year there is a total of 1,284 students being bused either down the Niagara Escarpment to the Stoney Creek schools or to Ancaster High School in Wentworth county and Sherwood Secondary School in the city of Hamilton. I believe the number of students living in upper Stoney Creek and Glanbrook alone warrants a new high school in upper Stoney Creek.

The other factors that need to be considered are: (1) the fact that Stoney Creek is one of the fastest-growing urban areas in the province; (2) starting in September 1991, Sherwood Secondary School will no longer be accepting new students from upper Stoney Creek; and (3) transportation costs would be saved with the decrease in busing.

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY

Hon Mr Hampton: On Friday 26 April, I requested the Deputy Attorney General, Mary Hogan, to clarify for me details as she knew them regarding the notification of the Ministry of the Attorney General about a letter sent from the Solicitor General's constituency office to a justice of the peace. The following information is the clarification provided to me by Deputy Hogan and an outline of the procedures in place in the Ministry of the Attorney General.

On Friday 12 April 1991, Deputy Hogan received a telephone call from a member of the judiciary. The caller was a judge who contacted the deputy because Chief Judge Linden was out of town. The judge requested the advice of the deputy as to the correct procedure to deal with a telephone call the judge had received from a justice of the peace. The justice of the peace had told the judge he had received information from another justice of the peace regarding a letter allegedly from the Solicitor General. The judge was told this letter regarded a matter before the courts.

After consulting senior ministry officials to determine the appropriate procedure, Deputy Hogan then called the judge and asked that the judge obtain the documentation for the deputy or ask the justice of the peace to send it directly to the deputy for the purpose of an independent investigation.

On Tuesday 16 April, the deputy called the judge, stating that she had not received any information. The judge replied that he also had not received the information at that time but felt it was forthcoming. The deputy informed the judge that she would be leaving for a conference in the United States on Wednesday 17 April and was then going to be at a civil lawyers' conference on Niagara-on-the-Lake on 22 and 23 April.

Deputy Hogan called her office on Friday 19 April and Monday 22 April but on both occasions the information from the judge had not been received by the office.

My first knowledge of the issue of a letter from the constituency office of the Solicitor General to a justice of the peace came after the Premier's office was informed by the media on 22 April. Immediately upon my office receiving a copy of the letter from the Premier's office, it was passed on to the acting assistant deputy Attorney General, criminal law, who contacted the deputy to inform her. Since documentation had now come forth to substantiate the allegation, the deputy instructed that the Attorney General be briefed regarding the history of the matter and that he be advised that an independent police force, the RCMP, should be requested immediately to commence an investigation into the matter.

1350

Later that day, I spoke with the deputy by phone. She indicated to me that we might be dealing potentially with two letters, given her call from a judge. The deputy attempted to reach the judge on the same day to determine if the letter that was the subject of the media reports was the same letter the judge had called her about on 12 April. The judge informed Deputy Attorney General Hogan that the letter was seen for the first time that day and that it would be forwarded the next day by courier to the deputy with a covering letter. From the information each had at the time, they felt reasonably certain that the information the judge received related to the same incident that had been raised by the media that day.

The deputy did not receive the information from the judge until Wednesday 24 April. The letter was then handed over to the acting assistant deputy Attorney General, criminal law, for the purposes of the RCMP investigation. This was one and the same letter which the media had received on 22 April.

The process in place at the Ministry of the Attorney General was followed. When an allegation of wrongdoing is received by phone, the informant is requested to put the allegation in writing or meet with a ministry official before any action is taken.

The statement of the facts delivered to me from the Deputy Attorney General emphasized that proper procedures had been followed. As a former member of the judiciary, the deputy was acutely aware of the importance of having the facts and of the damage that can be done to people's lives and reputations when action is taken based on rumour or innuendo.

While this process is of long standing, I have asked the deputy to review whether any improvements to it are possible.

This is a complete accounting of the sequence of events regarding this issue as it relates to the Ministry of the Attorney General.

RESPONSES

MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY

Mr Nixon: We have listened to the Attorney General with great care. I appreciate the fact that he has sent a copy of his statement over, because the dates and the numbers of letters and the responsibility that has been passed among the officials of the Attorney General's department are complex and will require thorough review.

It becomes apparent, however, that 10 days before the Premier received the anonymous letter indicating that the Solicitor General's office had been tampering with the free actions of the judiciary, the Attorney General's office knew about it. The fact that the Deputy Attorney General did not want to do anything that might foster innuendo or rumour is commendable, except that in this case it was innuendo and rumour coming from a judge relating to the Solicitor General.

It is incredible in my mind that the Deputy Attorney General would not inform both the Attorney General and the Premier's office without delay. There will be occasion to pursue that, just to see in fact where the information went.

I am quite concerned as well that the Attorney General, in justifying the very, very slow action that he has now described, indicates that the procedure is as follows: "When an allegation of wrongdoing is received by phone, the informant is requested to put the allegation in writing or meet with...[an] official." Now it is interesting that the phone caller was able to get right through to the Solicitor General. I doubt if one of the crazies in the streets, if there are any, would have been able to contact the Deputy Attorney General or any of the officials who would have responded in that way.

I suppose the word "coverup" is barely parliamentary, but for 10 days the government of Ontario knew about this situation, perhaps thought that it would die a decent death until some internal review had a chance to review that matter. Then all of a sudden the letters appeared in the Sun, in the Star, on the CBC and in the Premier's office and elsewhere, so plan A went down the drain.

It seems to me quite clear that the Attorney General, in receiving the advice that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police should be called in to investigate that and perhaps some other things, had no course but to follow that. When he came into the House and said the only reason he did it was that he was afraid he might be pilloried by the opposition was simply an absurd sidebar to what is otherwise an extremely serious matter.

I would say to you, Mr Speaker, that just as the Solicitor General says he is not being investigated, I am sure now the Attorney General and his deputy will say they are not being investigated. But it is obvious that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police will be questioning -- I did not use the word "interrogating" -- both of those ministers and the deputy and their officials.

It seems to me it would be a very strange series of events if the RCMP, completing its investigation, which we all recognize as independent and professional, were to make that report to the Attorney General, who is the minister who ordered it in the first instance. There is no doubt that there will be paragraphs in that report dealing with the Attorney General himself, who seems to be out of touch with his deputy, and with his deputy herself, who seems to have a strange understanding of what her order of responsibility is. For that reason it seems apparent that the report should not go to the Solicitor General. The reasons are apparent. It should not go to the Attorney General for similar reasons, since he and his staff will be part of that review and that report.

I think it is obvious that the head of the government -- I hope he is going to be in here later so that we might pursue the matter with him -- should order that the police report be made available to an independent investigator. I think this is the only way that fairness will be done and can be seen to be done.

I would like to point out that since the reference to the RCMP is not for wrongdoing by individuals -- in spite of the fact that it is our view that ministerial responsibility is the issue, and not the issue of what individuals did what -- but since it is an investigation of an event rather than ministers or deputies, that report, made to an independent investigator, should be made public. We do not want to find a week from now or two weeks from now that the House is spending a lot of its time in question period trying to make such a report public.

I know that the ministers and all people here know that where individuals are concerned, they should be protected wherever possible. But this is a situation involving ministerial responsibility and an investigation of an event. So at the first opportunity I am going to put to the Attorney General and the government to follow the course of action that I have suggested.

Mr Harnick: What is the public's perception of this matter now? We have seen an incident, and the statement attests to the fact that if the media had not been provided with a copy of the letter in question, this Legislature would still not know anything about this matter whatsoever. The media are the only persons who possibly could tip us off, because we waited 10 days and in 10 days there was not a single mention of this.

In 10 days, the Deputy Attorney General, instead of taking steps immediately to go out and get these letters, decided to go to a conference, I believe, in San Diego. She came back and she went to another conference. During this whole 10-day period, the Deputy Attorney General had not even informed the Attorney General of this province of what was going on. The Attorney General was completely in the dark, and I ask, who was minding the store at that ministry? Who is running that ministry? The Deputy Attorney General certainly has not shown much confidence in the Attorney General.

The next aspect of this is, what is the judiciary to expect when an issue such as this arises and the judiciary reports it and for 10 days it does not hear a thing? Why did the Deputy Attorney General not go to the judge with whom she was already communicating and say: "Get me that document. I will come over and pick it up"? It is because she was in San Diego and the Attorney General did not know anything about it.

There was nothing about this even reported to the RCMP for 10 or 11 or 12 days. What was going on in those 10 or 11 or 12 days? Who was looking after this? Certainly the system of justice and the perception that people have about that system of justice had to be badly shattered by this incident, and to date we still do not know the answers. We still do not have an admission of any responsibility by any person on the government side. Not a single person acknowledges any responsibility for what has gone on. I hope the RCMP are more successful in getting answers than we were after one week of examining every person possibly involved; everyone refused to take responsibility.

1400

ORAL QUESTIONS

MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY

Mr Nixon: I regret the Premier is apparently not attending question period today. There will be an opportunity to pursue this further, of course, and because of his absence I will direct the question to the Attorney General for some additional clarification in his statement.

First, I want his assurance that the first time he heard of the situation, in which a judge had called the deputy complaining that he had been informed by another judge that a justice of the peace had told that second judge that he had received a letter from the Solicitor General's office interfering with a matter before the courts, he knew nothing of that until the Monday on which the matter became the subject for questions in this House.

Hon Mr Hampton: The first time I learned of any letter or any allegation concerning any letter was Monday afternoon after leaving question period.

Mr Nixon: The Attorney General's deputy, although she is his principal adviser is, as everyone knows, appointed by the Premier and has a shared responsibility to the Attorney General and to the head of the government. Not everybody is aware of that relationship, but it is one that works very well. Ministers understand it and deputies understand it.

Can he, on behalf of his deputy minister, tell the House when the Deputy Attorney General first brought this matter to the attention of the Premier or any official in the Premier's office?

Hon Mr Hampton: As I indicated in my statement, there was some difficulty in tracking down the alleged letter, and there was some difficulty in finding out exactly what the contents were in the alleged letter. As a result, no information was communicated regarding the alleged letter to me until Monday afternoon.

Mr Nixon: I was referring to the Premier's office. The Attorney General had already answered the first question, which he had reiterated. I am interested in knowing when there was any communication with the Premier's office, and that is something that will have to be pursued, if not by me, by the RCMP. The Attorney General is aware of that, of course.

The third supplementary -- I have to keep track, Mr Speaker; I know that you follow this closely -- is, can the minister tell the House if his deputy contacted anyone in the Solicitor General's office?

Interjection.

Mr Nixon: What are you talking about?

If the ministers and mentally backbench frontbenchers are not aware of the importance of this matter, then I really think they themselves should be under review. I think it is quite serious that the members opposite are aware that two of their colleagues have done what amounts to a matter that should call for their resignation.

Can the Attorney General assure us that his deputy, and no official of the Attorney General's office, phoned the Solicitor General or any official in that office to tell them of this matter and seek any informal information during the 10-day delay?

Hon Mr Hampton: I am advised that the Deputy Attorney General, when she received a phone call regarding an alleged letter, conferred with senior advisers in the criminal law division of the Ministry of the Attorney General. They are the only people she conferred with for the purposes of discussing with them what was the appropriate procedure for following up on a telephone call, which was vague at best, as to what the contents of the letter might be.

Mr Scott: I know that everybody wants to take this seriously, because a serious matter it is. What has happened so far is we have now heard that for 10 days the staff of the Attorney General's department knew that a judge had complained about interference by the Solicitor General.

The Attorney General -- it is in the statement -- was not informed. More surprisingly, the Premier's office was not informed and there will be those in this House naïve enough to believe that if the judge had not slipped it to a reporter, we would never have heard about it. Now that, by definition, is a coverup. I want to ask the Attorney General if there is any other explanation he can give for a 10-day delay -- almost two weeks -- except for the fact that they were waiting for confirmation from the judge of his telephone call. Is there any other credible explanation that is to be offered?

Hon Mr Hampton: It appears that I need to correct the member for St George-St David. He appears to want to take facts which have been stated and elaborate on them somewhat. I will return to the statement. The judge who called the Deputy Attorney General stated that he had received an inquiry from a justice of the peace. The justice of the peace had told the judge he had received information from another justice of the peace regarding a letter allegedly from the Solicitor General. All right? The judge was told this letter regarded a matter before the courts.

When this matter was checked into, upon returned phone calls to the judge in question, he indicated to the Deputy Attorney General that all he had was secondhand information. He cautioned that he did not know if the alleged letter had any important information in it at all. He did not know if it dealt with a matter that was before the court. In fact, he was very cautious indeed in saying that this may be nothing more than a tempest in a teapot. That is why it was very important to obtain the letter or have the justice of the peace meet with ministry officials to explain what the substance of the letter was.

Mr Scott: This explanation simply is not going to wash here or before any dispassionate member of the public. This is not a piece of idle gossip that wanders into the ministry; this is a judge of Ontario phoning that one of his colleagues has received a letter from the Solicitor General about a case before the court. You do not have to check it out; you have to listen to it, inform the Attorney General, inform the Premier. You could even call the Solicitor General and ask what is happening. The one thing you cannot do is sit on it for 10 days hoping that the judge will forget about it. The judge did not forget about it; it went to the press and the public became aware of it.

I want to ask the Attorney General if he is satisfied with the procedures in his department. If not, what steps he is going to take to improve them?

Hon Mr Hampton: In answer to the member's long diatribe, I want to point out to him again that several efforts were made by the Deputy Attorney General to contact the judge in question. When those contacts by telephone were made, the judge in question informed the Deputy Attorney General that he did not yet have the alleged letter.

I also want to point out to the member that when the Deputy Attorney General reached the judge in question on 22 April, the judge informed her that the letter he had received on 22 April, not before, from observing the contents, was the same letter that was being spoken about by the media on that very day. There was no effort on the part of the Deputy Attorney General or anyone in the ministry to delay this. The simple fact of the matter is that the judge in question could not get his hands on the letter he had referred to.

I want to say again to the member for St George-St David, he is in a unique position in this because the procedure that I am following within the Ministry of the Attorney General with respect to these kinds of allegations are the same procedures that he followed when he was the minister.

1410

Mr Scott: To be frank, we never had the problem of the office of the --

Interjections.

Mr Scott: We never had an allegation that the office of the Solicitor General tampered with a case before the courts.

Interjections.

The Speaker: We are going to be calm, right, and allow the member for St George-St David to place his final supplementary.

Mr Scott: In this factual context which the Attorney General's statement gives rise to, a judge phones the Deputy Attorney General; that is admitted. The judge says, "A colleague of mine, another judge, has received a letter, allegedly from the Solicitor General, about a case before the courts." What that leads to is some kind of telephone tag and for 10 days -- though we are addressing a matter potentially as serious as can be imagined about the separation between the executive and the judiciary -- essentially nothing happens; for 10 days.

Now that we have had an explanation from the Attorney General, I simply ask his simple confirmation of this: Will he confirm that the matters at stake in this case, and the treatment of his office and his ministry of them, are also being investigated by the pending RCMP investigation? I want the confirmation that what happened in this 10 days is being investigated by the RCMP as well.

Hon Mr Hampton: In my answer I feel again compelled to correct the member for St George-St David on his misapprehension of the facts. I again quote the statement. The fact of the matter is the Deputy Attorney General received a phone call from a judge. The judge said, "I have received a call from a justice of the peace who tells me that another justice of the peace has received a letter allegedly from the constituency office of the Solicitor General."

Upon further inquiry, the judge who made the call indicated that this may be a tempest in a teapot. He had no knowledge of what might or might not be in the letter. He had no knowledge if there was anything even serious in the letter. He did not have the letter.

Finally, I want to inform the member for St George-St David that the RCMP have been handed all of the facts with respect to this matter. I expect that the RCMP will follow up and will investigate the alleged two letters and will be able to provide a full report on the matter.

Mr Harnick: My question is to the Attorney General. It is a very simple question. The Deputy Attorney General knew about this on 12 April. The Attorney General was never informed about anything to do with this matter until 22 April. Why not? What was going on in the Attorney General's ministry that they did not want to tell him? Why was he not available to be involved in this from the beginning?

Hon Mr Hampton: As I have already indicated, we receive at the Ministry of the Attorney General many allegations: allegations against crown attorneys, allegations against judges, allegations against municipal politicians, allegations against federal politicians. There is a procedure in place to deal with those matters. The procedure is this: When an allegation is received by telephone, ministry officials request the allegation in writing so that it can be checked out or they request the individual to meet with ministry personnel so that it can be checked out. In this particular case, the information that was desired, the information that we wanted to look at, could not be obtained.

Mr Harnick: I am going to try again. I did not ask him about municipal politicians. All I want to know is why he did not know anything about this for 10 days. That is the extent of the whole question. Why did the Attorney General not know what was going on for 10 days? Why did nobody in his ministry tell him anything about this for 10 days? Why was the Attorney General totally left in the dark for 10 days? I do not know how much simpler I can put it.

Hon Mr Hampton: There is a procedure and a policy in place for the investigation of allegations. We do not make special exceptions when politicians might be the subject of the allegations. The ministry officials, from the top down, followed that procedure in this case, as they have in every other case. They did the appropriate thing.

Mr Harnick: I am going to try again, because I cannot believe that it is the procedure of the Attorney General's ministry, when something like this happens, to hide it from the minister. He cannot expect the people of Ontario to believe that. It is inconceivable.

I want to know what he has done to ask people in his ministry why he was left in the dark for 10 days while this investigation was starting at the level of his Deputy Attorney General. Why was he left in the dark for 10 days and what has he done about it since then? Surely the Attorney General in this province has to be informed about what is going on in his ministry. Surely when he comes to work he has a desk and a chair to sit at. They do not put in him the closet and tell him to stay there until 6 o'clock. What was he doing?

Hon Mr Hampton: The same answer. When allegations are received, officials in the criminal law division make every effort to find out the full basis of information about those allegations. They invite the informant to provide the information in writing or they invite the informant to come forward and meet with ministry officials. When that information is received and analysed, I am then told about it.

Otherwise, you can have the situation where every time an allegation comes forward, it has to come to the Attorney General, and I may not be in the position at that time to determine if the allegation is a substantiated one, if it is an allegation that is worthy of investigation, if it is an allegation that has any substance to it at all. What happened here was a following of procedure by officials in the Ministry of the Attorney General to determine if the allegation had any substance.

Mr Sterling: I have a question of the Attorney General. No one has suggested that the incidents leading to this investigation had any criminal intent. I want to ask him why he called in the RCMP to undertake a criminal investigation.

Hon Mr Hampton: As I explained in the House last week, when an allegation came forward, as it did in this case, involving the constituency office of the Solicitor General, it was felt that municipal police forces would not be in an appropriate position to conduct an investigation and the OPP would not be in a position to conduct an investigation, for obvious reasons. Therefore, it was felt that an outside police force should be asked to conduct the investigation to provide all of the facts, which everyone in this House wants very much to see.

1420

Mr Sterling: I do not expect that the RCMP investigation will recommend that the Attorney General lay criminal charges against any individual because, as I say, I do not think anybody has made that kind of suggestion here. Given that there is very small chance that any criminal charges would be laid, can the Attorney General tell me, first of all, when he expects this investigation to be completed?

Hon Mr Hampton: It is hoped the investigation will be completed some time this week.

Mr Sterling: As I said in my previous supplementary, given that we do not expect, as a result of that, any criminal charges will be laid, will the Attorney General assure this assembly this afternoon that he will make the full results of that investigation public so that each and every member of this Legislature will find out not only what happened with regard to the letters that were written allegedly by the Solicitor General's staff but also what happened in his office and what happened in the Attorney General's office? Will he allow the standing committee on administration of justice or a committee of this Legislature to review the results of that investigation and make recommendations on how he can clean up his office and how the Solicitor General can clean up his office?

Hon Mr Hampton: I resent some of the implications of the member's question. I will repeat again, for his benefit and for other members, exactly what has taken place here. When the telephone call was made by the judge to the Deputy Attorney General, the telephone call was in the nature of a call asking for advice. The judge cautioned again that he was not sure that the letter even existed.

I want to point out again that the appropriate procedures for dealing with these kinds of allegations were followed in this case. I want to say again, in answer to the member, that if the senior advisers in the Ministry of the Attorney General, who are quite aware of this case, advise that it is proper to disclose the report, I will disclose the report.

In terms of the member's desire to bring this before a legislative committee, he is as aware as I am of the procedure to be followed if he wants to bring this before a legislative committee.

Mr Sorbara: So far, we know that two letters were sent from the office of the Solicitor General to justices of the peace asking that an inappropriate intervention be made in the matter of a parking violation, a quasi-criminal offence.

So far, we know that almost two weeks ago, on Friday 12 April, the Deputy Attorney General of the province was aware of allegations involving the Solicitor General. We know that at that time a judge in the province of Ontario was aware of the allegations against the Solicitor General. We know that a justice of the peace was aware of the allegations against the province's Solicitor General. We know as well that two senior officials in the Ministry of the Attorney General were aware of these allegations.

Obviously, the person who wrote the letter in the Solicitor General's office was aware of the letters and the more senior person who authorized the writing of the letters was aware of it, and yet we have the Solicitor General saying --

The Speaker: And the question?

Mr Sorbara: -- that he was not aware, the Attorney General saying that he was not aware and the Premier saying that he was not aware. My question is this, to the Solicitor General. I just want to read to him guideline 24 of the conflict-of-interest guidelines of the Premier.

The Speaker: No, we need a question.

Mr Sorbara: It says, "Where a minister's constituency office undertakes activities in which members normally engage on behalf of constituents, ministers shall take all reasonable steps to ensure that their office as minister is not used to further the interests of the constituent," that is, take reasonable steps to ensure that tickets are not the subject of letters from the Attorney General.

The Speaker: Will the member place his question, please.

Mr Sorbara: What direction did the Solicitor General get from the Premier in respect of this guideline and what specific steps did the Solicitor General take in respect of his constituency office to ensure that this guideline of the Premier of Ontario was complied with in this situation?

Hon Mr Farnan: As I explained on innumerable occasions last week, both in writing and orally, I have communicated very clearly that there had to be an arm's-length difference between my office and the judiciary. I have re-emphasized that, it has been in writing, it has been oral, and I am prepared to accept the investigation that the RCMP conducts. I have faith in the RCMP that it will examine all of the facts, and indeed we will hear from it later this week.

Mr Sorbara: Apparently the Solicitor General, when he uses the term "arm's length," means that he writes the letter to the justice of the peace saying "Dear Sir." This is not arm's length.

The Premier's guideline says that the minister must take "all reasonable steps," and I want to ask the Solicitor General, first, whether he received any directions from the Premier and, second, whether he feels that the instructions that he gave his staff comply in this instance with the requirement to take all reasonable steps. Did he get any direction from the Premier describing what a reasonable step might be, and does he feel that the steps he took were sufficient? Yes or no?

Hon Mr Farnan: When one has some information and he communicates it both verbally and in writing, I would suggest to the member that these are reasonable steps.

Mr Harnick: My question is of the Attorney General. It is quite clear that he was in the dark about this for 10 days, the opposition was in the dark about this for 10 days, his backbenchers are still in the dark about this. It only came to light because the media brought it to the Premier's attention and the media publicized it, and there is no coincidence to that.

Why did this Legislature have to hear this from the media, when the Deputy Attorney General knew about it 10 days before? Why was it the media that let the public and this Legislative Assembly know what was going on?

Hon Mr Hampton: I want the member to appreciate that what we were dealing with here was a totally unsubstantiated allegation, and even the judge who made the phone call indicated that in the phone call. He indicated we may be dealing with something here that was not worthy of even looking at a second time. Given that is the factual context, the member for the Conservative Party would have us launch an investigation into almost any political figure based upon a totally unsubstantiated allegation, where even the informer says this may not be a substantiated allegation.

Mr Harnick: The Attorney General has told us that the allegation was unsubstantiated, yet it came from a judge. He told us that he has to be very careful about routine complaints, but again I remind him that it came from a judge, so it was hardly routine.

We have had to pull teeth here to get any information. Every time he makes a statement or the Solicitor General makes a statement, we find out a little bit more. In light of the actions in both his office and the Solicitor General's office with their belated admissions that come out every few days when they have to try to come up with a statement to make them look good, will the Attorney General undertake to provide this Legislature with a complete copy of the report of the RCMP investigation, and will he provide that report to the standing committee on administration of justice for review by that committee? Will he undertake to do those two things?

1430

Hon Mr Hampton: Again, I take offence at the way in which the member has tried to portray this matter and I repeat that the telephone call that was received from a member of the judiciary, a judge, was a telephone call requesting from the Deputy Attorney General advice and direction as to how to deal with information that he had heard about, but that he was not in any position to substantiate and that he had not seen. That is how this matter arrived. To then allege that someone has been kept in the dark is, to me, totally inappropriate and behaviour which should not take place in this House;

Let me say in answer as well that I have said already that when the RCMP report is completed I will take the advice of senior criminal law advisers in the Ministry of the Attorney General as to whether it is appropriate to make that report public. If the member wishes to bring this matter before the justice committee, there are procedures which any member of the House may follow and may institute in terms of bringing a matter before a legislative committee. I suggest he do that.

APPRENTICESHIP TRAINING

Mr Mills: My question changes direction and deals with the problems of the people of Ontario. My question is for the Minister of Colleges and Universities.

Interjections.

The Speaker: We are slipping back into that parliamentary axiom number one, that there will always be questions which people do not like and responses which people do not like. It would be perhaps better if we moved on and gave the member for Durham East an opportunity to place his question.

Mr Mills: As the minister well knows, these are hard times for the people across Ontario and there are a lot of people losing their jobs. In Durham East we are losing jobs to free trade and the recession, and many workers have been laid off. Doubly hard hit are the apprentices, who not only lose their jobs but lose the chance to complete their apprenticeships. The results are devastating. Many apprentices have no job prospects and do not know what to do to support their families or where they can turn for help. What is the minister doing to assist the apprentices who are laid off or facing layoff?

Hon Mr Allen: One of the devastating impacts of the last recession, in the early 1980s, was indeed upon apprentices who were laid off in large numbers and who were very difficult to trace and to help. We have therefore, within these last two months, put in place a laid-off- apprenticeship initiative, costing some $6 million, to assist something in the order of 2,000 apprentices.

We have put in place additional staff in order to conduct an active search for those apprentices, because they often disappear from view very quickly. We have, for example, allowed for accelerated in-school training periods for those apprentices so that they can wait out layoff, if necessary. We have also arranged for co-operative employer arrangements to substitute for the original employer. We also are working upon simulated workplace arrangements so they may continue their training.

I want to tell the member, who I know is concerned about his apprentices in Durham, that the way to access this program is to consult with the local Ministry of Skills Development office and that Durham College has a regional office that would help in that regard.

Mr Mills: My supplementary is to thank the minister for a succinct answer that is helping the people I represent in a meaningful way.

MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY

Mr Elston: I have a question for the Attorney General. While he has been very evasive and unwilling to answer the questions so far put to him, I wish to put to him again another question which he has failed to answer. With everybody on this list believing that the letters had come from the Solicitor General's office, the JP being concerned enough about it that he contacted a judge and a judge has then subsequently contacted the deputy for instructions, can the Attorney General now tell us when it was that his deputy contacted the Office of the Premier or the Cabinet Office to inform them of this very serious allegation against the chief police officer in the province?

Hon Mr Hampton: To reply again to the member's question, and to set the facts straight, the telephone call that was received by the Deputy Attorney General was from a judge who stated to her that he had heard from a justice of the peace that another justice of the peace had received a letter. He was in no position to tell what was in the letter. He was in no position to state if there was any serious matter surrounding the letter. He merely wanted to know what the procedure was for reporting that.

The process that is put in place is that before these matters are reported, even to me or to anyone else in the government, the information must be provided so that it can be determined if there is a serious allegation or not. That information, unfortunately, was not forthcoming, despite repeated phone calls by the Deputy Attorney General to obtain that information, which simply did not come forth.

Mr Elston: I have another question for the Attorney General relating to the same matter, which he seems to be intent upon avoiding. There is something unreal about the way in which this information is coming out. If it had not been for the media, we would not have found out about this much. If it had not been, I contend, for the RCMP investigation, we would have had no information from this Attorney General today.

I am asking the Attorney General to return to the question which was asked of him now more than half an hour ago and which he refuses to answer: When was the Cabinet Office and/or the Premier's office informed of these letters by the deputy, which amounted to a very serious allegation about misconduct against the Solicitor General's office?

Hon Mr Hampton: The Premier's office was informed when a copy of the alleged letter was received. The first copy of the alleged letter was received on Monday afternoon. That is when the Premier's office was notified and that is when I was notified, when an actual copy of the alleged letter was received for everyone to see.

Mr Harnick: My question is for the Attorney General. Even though no one in his ministry wants to talk to him and keep him informed, he is the Attorney General. The senior law officers are under his direction. He makes the decisions in his ministry. Will he undertake to this Legislature that he will provide us with a copy of the RCMP report? It is his decision to make. His senior ministers do not come into this Legislature at question period every day. The Attorney General is the one who is here. He is the one who makes the decision -- much to his own surprise, I am sure. Will he undertake to provide that document to us when the RCMP complete their investigation?

Hon Mr Hampton: I have already stated that if senior criminal law advisers in the Ministry of the Attorney General indicate to me that it is appropriate, I will make the report public.

1440

Mr Harnick: This whole incident is shrouded in secrecy. I do not know what the Attorney General has to hide, but it seems to me that if the RCMP is doing a report that none of us are going to see, why bother? Why does he just stand here and stonewall anyway? Why bother having an RCMP report if he is not going to show it to anybody? Furthermore, the Attorney General knows that unless he refers this matter to the standing committee on administration of justice, it will never get there in a timely way. It will get there after every other piece of legislation is dealt with and this is no longer an issue.

Again, I ask the Attorney General, what is he hiding? Why is he stonewalling? What did he and the Solicitor General do that was wrong that he has to hide this and try to cover it up?

Hon Mr Hampton: In response to the member's question, I merely want to say this: Why would anyone ask for an investigation by an independent police force the day after he finds the contents of the alleged letter, why would anyone call for an investigation if he were interested in hiding anything or covering anything up?

The allegation that has been made is completely absurd. The day ministry officials received a copy of the letter, that very day, I was informed, the Premier was informed, and the next day the RCMP, a completely independent police force, was called in to investigate.

As for the member's other questions, I have already answered them several times. He knows the procedure for bringing something before a legislative committee. He can do that. Senior criminal law advisers will advise me whether or not it is appropriate to disclose the contents of the RCMP report, and I am satisfied with their advice.

DRIVER EXAMINATIONS FOR SENIORS

Mr Hansen: The question I have is for the Minister of Transportation. A number of senior citizens in my riding have raised concerns with me about the ministry's requirement that when an individual turns 80 years of age he must retest in order to maintain his driver's licence. This is a very unnerving experience in many cases. Is there anything the minister can do to cut down on the problems experienced by seniors in going through this process?

Hon Mr Philip: My senior examiners do give senior drivers preferential treatment whenever possible, in terms of scheduling their driving tests. In addition, recently our driver examiners have taken a special course and some educational programs to help them to address the concerns and the issues of seniors very specifically when they are dealing with them.

Mr Hansen: Many of the seniors who have raised these concerns with me live in rural areas, for example, Grimsby, Vineland, Smithville, in small towns. They restrict their driving to the immediate area, since we do not have any local transportation there, and are not comfortable with having to travel into a city like downtown Hamilton to take their driver's test. Is it possible for the minister to assist them by making provisions for their driver's test to be done closer to home?

Hon Mr Philip: The Ministry of Transportation does have a program of running the tests in rural areas, in small towns. Indeed, such a program could be made available to the member's constituents. If there are seniors' groups in his area that would like to come forward, I would be happy to meet with them and look at the availability of that program.

MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY

Mr Nixon: The Attorney General has not been at all certain as to whether the RCMP report due later this week will be made public. He indicated that he would follow the advice of his staff in this matter. We have already indicated that we are less than pleased with the advice that he is receiving from his staff, particularly since they may very well be interrogated and under investigation as part of this incident.

The Attorney General is shaking his head because he does not like the word "interrogated." Presumably police ask questions and it is usually called interrogation. "Investigation" is that they are trying to get all of the facts of this stuff together.

Now just suppose that report indicates that the Attorney General is not well served and does not run an efficient office and that perhaps his deputy minister, being new and having come from the judicial side herself, did not respond effectively under these circumstances. Suppose the report indicates that the Solicitor General should have the responsibility of a minister. Suppose it indicates that he is not well served. Do you suppose, Mr Speaker, that the Attorney General is going to make that public?

Will the Attorney General not give his ministerial commitment that the matter will be laid before this Legislature? It does not deal with individuals being interrogated. He said so himself. It is an investigation of the whole matter and, as such, it should be made public. Does he not agree?

Interjections.

The Speaker: I am sure all of us are quite calm and relaxed now. "Calm" is the operative word today, and the Attorney General has a brief response.

Hon Mr Hampton: I want to indicate again to the Leader of the Opposition that when the RCMP report is received, I will follow the advice of senior advisers in the criminal law division and the Ministry of the Attorney General, who are very experienced in dealing with investigations of this type, who are very knowledgeable. I will follow their advice as to the appropriateness of whether or not it ought to be released.

Mr Scott: You're running the show.

Mr Harnick: You're a lawyer. You can make decisions. You're the Attorney General.

Mr Nixon: I want to reinforce the interjections and say to the Attorney General that he is supposed to make those decisions. He has indicated that he will accept advice, but as I indicated in my question, would he not agree that it is quite possible that the report might be somewhat critical of the deputy minister herself and the other law officers of the crown? Would he not then consider recommending to the head of the government that there should be an independent investigator, perhaps a retired judge, God help us, whose name has not been associated with the NDP in any way, or anybody else, and that that person receive an order in council giving him that responsibility?

Ms Gigantes: Let's have a royal commission.

Mr Nixon: Mr Speaker, I will speak to you over the shrill interjection of the returned former minister and put to you, sir, that that is a reasonable way for that to proceed. The former Minister of Health is undoubtedly unaware, as she is about so many factual matters, that the police report on a former Solicitor General was tabled in this House. It is a course of action that would be very appropriate. If not tabled in this House, it must surely be given to an independent investigator. Would the minister not agree?

Hon Mr Hampton: I find the suggestions made by the Leader of the Opposition interesting. I will consider them.

I merely want to point out to him again that the senior criminal law advisers in the Ministry of the Attorney General are not people I hired. Some of them are people his government hired. Some of them are people that that government hired. I want to point out, if the Leader of the Opposition is saying that he does not trust their judgement, that judgement was good enough when they were the government.

In terms of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, I have no problem with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. I am sure they will do a very full investigation, I am sure that they will come up with all of the information and I am sure that the Leader of the Opposition can have confidence in that himself.

1450

Mr Harnick: My question is to the Solicitor General.

Interjections.

The Speaker: I was just recalling how in the standing orders it mentions that for both questions posed and responses provided, they should not be provocative, they should be factual. We are ready to move on to the member for Willowdale.

Mr Harnick: My question is for the Solicitor General. The Solicitor General last week told us that he had given his staff certain instructions regarding answering routine correspondence and he indicated that they were to conduct themselves in an arm's-length manner. I would like to know from the Solicitor General what the definition of arm's length is.

Hon Mr Farnan: I have reiterated from the moment that all of this issue was brought up that I have consistently taken it as a principle for myself and for my staff that there must be arm's length between my office and the judiciary. This matter is now before the RCMP investigation. I have absolute confidence in that investigation and I await their results.

Mr Harnick: If the Solicitor General has been consistent in advising his staff and instructing his staff to be at arm's length with the judiciary, how is it that three people in his office all said that it was proper to send those letters?

Hon Mr Farnan: The member is making judgements that I would prefer to leave to the RCMP. I have absolute and total confidence in any findings of the RCMP and I am prepared to accept the findings of that investigation.

WASTE MANAGEMENT

Ms M. Ward: I would like to ask a question of the Minister of the Environment regarding her ministry's 3R program. Last November she made a statement in the House about a three-part waste management strategy. The first part of that strategy called for a reordering of the 3Rs of waste management: reduction first, then reuse and then recycling.

In my riding of Don Mills there is widespread support for the blue box recycling program that is run by Metro Toronto. How will programs like the blue box system fit into the minister's new 3R strategy?

Hon Mrs Grier: I am glad to respond to that, because I think all members of this House know how very successful the blue box program has been.

The difficulty was that the blue box program concentrated entirely on recycling, and the hierarchy of the 3Rs is, as I know everyone knows, reduce, reuse and then recycle.

The other difficulty was that blue boxes have hitherto been confined to single-family home owners, and quite frankly the single-family home owners have been doing more than their share in dealing with our waste management crisis.

So I am very glad to tell the member that as part of the waste reduction action plan for my ministry, blue box will be expanded, not only to all regions of the province but to apartment dwellers, and will be built upon as we move towards the institutional and commercial reduction and reuse as well.

Ms M. Ward: The minister has created an office of waste reduction. What will be the role of this office?

Hon Mrs Grier: The waste reduction office is an office within my ministry whose role is to be both an advocate and an outreach agency dealing with municipalities, dealing with organizations and community groups and making sure that the reduction and reuse and recycling across the province is within a policy framework and is consistent across the province.

There are some very fine pilot projects and work being done in some areas that can be expanded and built upon in other areas, and the waste reduction office will be doing that and will be working very closely with the waste reduction advisory committee, which is a multistakeholder committee appointed by my predecessor, the member for St Catharines, as an advisory group to me and to the waste reduction office.

MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY

Mr Curling: My question is to the Solicitor General. Considering that the actions of the staff of the Solicitor General are under investigation -- at least, three members of his staff are under investigation -- and considering too that we have learned today further that some members of the staff of the Attorney General will also be under investigation by the RCMP, I would like to ask: Does the Solicitor General not feel, now that all the justice system of Ontario is under investigation, both areas of the Solicitor General's department and also the Attorney General's, that justice will be better served if he steps down?

Hon Mr Farnan: I have always believed in a principle of justice that if somebody does something wrong, he should be punished. I have done nothing wrong, I am prepared for the investigation to examine the facts and I will accept the results of that investigation.

Mr Curling: This is not a precedent-setting situation. Other ministers have stepped down while investigations have been going on. Police officers have stepped down while investigations have been going on. Staff has stepped down while investigations have been going on and been conducted.

I would like to ask the Solicitor General if any members of his staff have stepped down. Have any of these three women -- I gather they were women -- or staff members who have been cited as having written these letters stepped down or will they step down, and if they intend to step down if he asks them to step down, why should they take the fall?

Hon Mr Farnan: I very clearly believe in waiting for the course of justice to take its course. The investigation is under way by no less than the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Has the opposition not got belief and faith in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police?

The Speaker: New question, the member for Willowdale.

Interjections.

The Speaker: The member for Willowdale.

Mr Harnick: My question is for the Attorney General. He is prepared to accept the RCMP report, and the Solicitor General, in response to my question earlier, stated that he is prepared to accept the RCMP's investigatory report. Why will the Attorney General not make it public? If he is prepared to accept it and he is going to see it and the Solicitor General is going to see it, why will he not undertake to make it public to the people of Ontario and to this Legislative Assembly?

Hon Mr Hampton: I have indicated already on three occasions today in the Legislature that when the RCMP report is completed and it is reviewed by senior officials in the criminal law division of the Ministry of the Attorney General, and if they advise me that it is appropriate to release it to the public, I will release it to the public.

Mr Harnick: If there are no criminal charges that will be forthcoming out of the investigation and out of the report of the RCMP, will he undertake to make that report public?

Hon Mr Hampton: The same answer to the same question.

The Speaker: New question, the member for York Centre.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Sorry. To the member, I moved too quickly. The member for Perth.

1500

PESTICIDES

Mrs Haslam: I would like to get back to an agricultural issue for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. I know that some of the holistic farmers are concerned about their position, and I wondered if he would like to make a comment on that area.

Hon Mr Buchanan: I believe the member is referring to organic farming and the cutback in the use of pesticides and chemicals. I would like the member to know and members of the House to know that the ministry is putting more resources into cutting back on the use of chemicals and the use of pesticides on the farm and throughout the countryside. In fact, it is receiving increased importance in terms of the time of the staff and increased importance in terms of the amount of money that we are spending on that particular program.

VISITOR

The Speaker: Before proceeding, members here this afternoon may wish to welcome to our midst the former member for Don Mills, Murad Velshi, seated in the east members' gallery.

QUESTION PERIOD

Mr Sorbara: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I bring to your attention standing order 22(b), which, if I might read it to you, says: "When two or more members rise to speak, the Speaker shall call upon the member who, in the Speaker's opinion, rose first in his or her place; no debate is permitted on the Speaker's decision."

Mr Speaker, I just noted that at the last minute of question period I was first on my feet to ask the final question. You did recognize me and I cannot quite understand why you would then ask me to defer to my friend the member for Perth.

The Speaker: To the member for York Centre, I appreciate your raising the matter. The rule to which you refer applies to debate; it does not apply to question period. During question period, we must follow a rotation. I would be pleased to draw it to the member's attention at a later time.

I must in passing mention that today we have exceeded our previous high of 15. We had 16 questions during question period today, obviously due to the co-operation of all members.

PETITION

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr Mills: My petition is to the Honourable Lieutenant Governor, and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, from a number of my constituents, and it refers to the right of accident victims to sue in a court of law for automobile injuries.

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

GOVERNMENT SPENDING CONTROL ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR LE CONTRÔLE DES DÉPENSES PUBLIQUES

Mr Carr, on behalf of Mr Stockwell, moved first reading of Bill 80, An Act respecting Government Expenditures.

M. Carr, au nom de M. Stockwell, propose la première lecture du projet de loi 80, Loi concernant les dépenses publiques.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptée.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon Miss Martel: I would ask for the unanimous consent of the House to suspend the proceedings until 4 pm.

Agreed to.

The House recessed at 1506.

1602

ORDERS OF THE DAY

BUDGET SPEECH

Mr Laughren moved government notice of motion number 17, that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government.

Hon Mr Laughren: I am pleased to present the 1991 budget of the first social democratic government in Ontario.

I am conscious of the tremendous responsibility I have to the public and the great trust that has been placed in me by Premier Rae and this government.

This budget has not been an easy one to prepare. We took office in the midst of a recession that is proving to be the most severe Ontario has experienced in the last 50 years. This recession is unlike economic cycles of the past. It is more serious because of the economic restructuring that is altering many traditional assumptions about the nature of growth and competition.

In the last few months, I have listened to individuals and organizations from across the province. The message has been driven home for me that the world is changing and Ontario is having to change with it. L'Ontario doit avoir une nouvelle vision économique orientée vers le 21^e siècle. Ontario must have a new economic vision to help us move forward into the next century.

We believe that government can and should be active in supporting positive economic change and in ensuring that the costs of adjustment are shared fairly. In this budget, we are putting in place the foundation of a new economic strategy, a strategy which has sustainable prosperity as its central goal and fairness as its guiding principle.

A prosperous and sustainable economy provides secure, well-paid jobs at high levels of employment. It is an economy where the quality, not just the quantity, of economic growth is important. Economic growth must be both environmentally and socially sustainable and all Ontarians must share fairly in prosperity.

Our economic strategy is based on social partnerships. Ontario's ability to increase productivity, adopt advanced technologies and managerial practices, enhance workers' skills and invest in emerging businesses depends on developing new working relationships.

Government has a leadership role to play in creating the conditions which allow labour, business and communities to work out co-operative responses to economic change.

To support our economic strategy, we are committed to managing the public sector in ways that help meet our social and economic priorities through effective fiscal management.

The Ontario economy has been in recession for a year. Job losses to date have already surpassed the levels in every recession since the Second World War. Since last spring, employment in Ontario has declined by about 0.25 million jobs.

This recession has reflected serious structural changes as well as cyclical forces. In 1990, 65% of major layoffs were due to permanent closures, compared to only 24% in the recession of 1982. Business bankruptcies were up 73% in 1990, compared to 24% in 1982.

A modest recovery is expected to begin later this year, with the resumption of growth in consumer spending and housing activity. However, we forecast that real output will decline by 3.3% in 1991 and the unemployment rate will average 10%. Interest rates have started to fall recently, but the decline has been too little, too late. The continuation of a relatively restrictive federal interest rate policy and a high dollar will slow the pace of recovery.

Over the next three years, we are forecasting that real growth in Ontario will average 3.7% annually. Inflation is forecast to remain below 4% throughout this period. The unemployment rate, however, is only expected to decline to 7.8% by 1994. The jobless outlook is unacceptable to this government and we are committed to pursuing policies to fight unemployment.

In 1991-92, provincial expenditures are projected to be $52.8 billion, an increase of 13.4% over last year. Revenues are expected to be $43 billion, which is actually $435 million less than last year. The deficit in our combined capital and operating accounts in this fiscal year is estimated to be $9.7 billion, up from $3 billion last year.

The government is convinced that allowing the deficit to rise to this level this year is not only justifiable, it is the most responsible choice we could make, given the economic and fiscal conditions we inherited as a new government.

The recession is causing tremendous hardship for people and families in communities across the province. Ontario has been the hardest hit of any province during this downturn.

We have not received help from our national government. On the contrary, the government of Canada has worsened the recession with its monetary policies and has unilaterally cut back on its commitments to fund such vital programs as social assistance, health and post-secondary education. As a result of measures introduced in 1990 and further extended this year, these federal transfers to Ontario in 1991-92 are projected to be $1.6 billion below previous commitments.

The federal government has not only abandoned previous funding commitments, it has abdicated its responsibility to promote economic growth during hard times. This government has not done that.

Je pense qu'il est important que les gens comprennent que nous avons dû choisir cette année entre la lutte contre le déficit et la lutte contre la récession. Nous avons choisi la lutte contre la récession et nous en sommes fiers.

1610

I think it is important for people to understand that we had a choice to make this year -- to fight the deficit or fight the recession. We are proud to be fighting the recession.

This budget picks up the slack in federal funding for social, health and educational programs. Social assistance costs alone this year are expected to increase by 40% to $4.9 billion in this fiscal year.

To reduce the deficit, we could have increased personal income taxes for ordinary working people or raised corporate income taxes across the board. We have not done that because we believe such moves would worsen the recession. And by not imposing the provincial sales tax on the GST, we are leaving $470 million in the pockets of consumers in 1991.

This budget provides direct employment to thousands of people through the $700-million anti-recession program announced last December. It also provides direct support to people who have lost their jobs. My colleague the Minister of Labour has introduced legislation to establish the employee wage protection program. The government will commit $175 million in 1991-92 to pay claims retroactive to 1 October 1990. The minister has also announced a $32.5-million labour adjustment initiative to help workers re-enter the job market and improve their skills.

This is the most aggressive effort in all of Canada to fight the recession.

We are responding to the need for action in areas such as worker protection, pay equity, social assistance reform, affordable housing and the environment. At the same time, we have made some difficult decisions on program reallocations this year to ensure that these initiatives, which are essential for building equitable and sustainable prosperity, are funded.

We have increased provincial capital spending to $4.3 billion to support employment and to provide necessary investment in schools, roads and other public facilities that will be enduring assets in Ontario communities.

We believe government has a responsibility to support employment and economic growth in times of recession. As the economy begins to recover, we are committed to balancing the operating account, and this budget presents a fiscal plan to set us on that course.

This year, we are determined to alleviate some of the distressing human costs of recession and to prepare Ontario for recovery. By running a deficit in 1991-92 that is $6.7 billion higher than last year, we are providing stimulus to the economy and creating 70,000 jobs.

Increasing globalization of corporations, the emergence of trading blocs like the European Community and the spread of new technologies are changing our economy and way of life.

On the plant floor and in the office, the way we work is changing, causing demand for new skills and new approaches to industrial relations. Our workforce and our businesses will need to be flexible and adaptable in the years ahead. Management, labour and government must direct their efforts towards changes that will encourage productivity growth based on high-wage, high-value-added products and services.

Pour jouir d'une prospérité durable, il faut un système économique et social équitable.

Sustainable prosperity depends upon having a fair social and economic system. A dynamic economy requires workers, managers and investors who have the confidence and ability to promote needed changes.

Sustainable prosperity can only be achieved if everybody believes that they will be full participants in economic and social change and will benefit from it. People who are paid fairly, who have a sense of economic security and who feel they are respected partners in the process of change are better able to make a contribution to that process.

Governments have an important role to play in creating an environment of social and economic confidence. For example, our health care system ensures that no one is forced into bankruptcy because of an illness in the family; our social assistance system provides a safety net for people who are unable to work or find a job. We must provide that same sense of confidence and security in our economy.

Ontario has a sound and diversified economic base, with a highly educated, motivated workforce and a well-developed infrastructure. In 1989, the latest year for which data are available, the province had a higher absolute level of output per capita than any of the major industrialized nations. But we cannot be complacent.

I am keenly aware of the competitive challenges facing firms and workers in today's changing economic circumstances. The Canada-US free trade agreement accentuates the pressures for change and imposes limits on our ability to pursue national economic strategies. With this budget, I am tabling a discussion paper on Ontario's economy in the 1990s which explores the issues of productivity and competitiveness.

Over the coming year we will be moving on a number of fronts to secure and create well-paid jobs.

We will explore ways to increase access to the financial capital needed for future investment in jobs. We want to channel the capital resources of Ontario to finance restructuring and promote regional development.

We will make a major commitment to maintain and improve the infrastructure of Ontario with increased capital spending. Sound infrastructure creates a healthy climate for jobs and prosperity.

We will pursue new approaches to education and training that will encourage workplace flexibility. Ontario's jobs depend on a constant renewal of skills and access to training.

We will take further action to reduce economic disparities and make sure that the costs of economic adjustment are not borne by those least able to shoulder the burden.

I do not have instant answers for all our economic challenges. In a period of rapid change, prefabricated solutions based on old assumptions usually end up responding to yesterday's problems, not tomorrow's opportunities.

We know what our society can achieve when all of us work together. Government alone cannot create sustainable prosperity, but it can start providing the framework and stimulate the strategic investment, both public and private, that will be needed to achieve it. We will work to create the conditions where labour, business and members of the community will come together to find the solutions that work best for Ontario.

To move towards an economy in which workers and businesses are skilled and flexible in effecting change will require new approaches to training, industrial relations and income security. We believe that workers will accept and support economic change if they can be sure that their statutory rights will be protected and that they will have opportunities for training that will enable them to share the benefits of new economic circumstances. The success of an active labour market strategy will depend upon the direct participation of labour, business and government in new partnerships.

As part of our labour reform agenda, the government is committed to reviewing, in co-operation with labour, business and other governments, a range of workplace issues. These include future increases to the minimum wage, pension reform, amendments to the Pay Equity Act and the Ontario Labour Relations Act and reform of the Employment Standards Act, including improved notice of layoffs and severance pay provisions.

Education in all its dimensions must be at the centre of our efforts to achieve sustainable prosperity. From the shop floor to the boardroom, learning is the key to success in finding new technological and organizational solutions. Innovation, made possible through education, will generate greater productivity. Our standard of living depends on it.

Currently, Ontario spends almost $10 billion a year on a broad range of public education services. This government intends to build on the strengths of the education system by pursuing a vision of lifelong learning whereby a factory or home worker, high school dropout or business executive can continue to learn throughout their lives and be recognized for those achievements. It is time to break down unnecessary barriers between different educational institutions and between our educators and the workplace. By building partnerships, in the context of long-term planning, we can begin to make this happen.

As a first step, the government is moving ahead with important reforms to our system of colleges of applied arts and technology. We will commit $3 million this year to begin implementation of three of the key recommendations of the recent Vision 2000 report on a renewed mandate for the college system.

First, a College Standards and Accreditation Council will be formed to ensure that college programs are of a consistently high quality across the province. Second, we will be moving forward on a system for fairly evaluating prior learning and experience as credit towards a post-secondary credential. Third, the Minister of Colleges and Universities will be undertaking a feasibility study to examine innovative ways for colleges and universities to co-operate in offering new credentials for advanced training. The minister will be announcing further details.

1620

In addition, we are negotiating a new agreement on training with the federal government. Under the previous agreement, Ontario, with nearly 40% of Canada's labour force, received only about 24% of federal training dollars. This is not acceptable. The federal government must recognize the challenges facing Ontario workers as a result of the dislocation caused by high interest rates, an overvalued dollar, the free trade agreement and the absence of a national industrial strategy. A significant new federal investment in training is essential.

One of the fundamental premises of sustainable prosperity is environmental integrity. A clean and healthy environment is essential to the standard of living we want to preserve and enhance. We have learned the hard way that we are inhabitants of an ecologically fragile planet. We have learned that economic growth is ultimately unsustainable if it neglects the environment and the wise management of our resources.

We must all learn to live by the environmental 3Rs -- reduce, reuse and recycle. This year, the government is providing an additional $28 million to municipalities to help them establish enhanced programs to meet the provincial targets for waste diversion of at least 25% by 1992 and 50% by the year 2000. We are more than doubling provincial support for municipal 3Rs programs over last year.

The government is also establishing a three-year, $10-million program to assess abandoned mine hazards and to undertake remedial work on known high-risk sites. Regulations soon to be established under the Mining Act will give the province authority to enforce stricter protection and rehabilitation standards for current and future mines.

Using energy wisely is critical to our future prosperity. The government is giving priority to energy efficiency and conservation to protect the environment and to reduce the province's reliance on nuclear power. That is why we have directed Ontario Hydro to increase its conservation efforts partly by diverting $240 million it had planned to spend on future nuclear studies. Hydro's spending on demand management and conservation programs will increase from $102 million in 1990 to $232 million in 1991 and to an estimated $320 million in 1992. Hydro will spend more than $3 billion on energy conservation efforts in the 1990s.

The Ministry of Energy will also be launching a series of new and expanded energy efficiency initiatives that will address many forms of energy use. The ministry's activities in this area will be increased by almost 75% in 1991-92 through the allocation of an additional $10 million in funding.

To promote greater fuel conservation, we are increasing the rates of tax on gasoline and diesel fuel immediately, by 1.7 cents a litre and by an additional 1.7 cents on 1 January 1992. These measures will raise an estimated $250 million this fiscal year. We wish to be sensitive to the recession, which is why these increases are in two stages. But the message is clear: We want to encourage the efficient use of energy.

To reinforce the environmental message, I am announcing changes to the gas guzzler tax rates as of 1 July 1991. The current tax rates will be doubled and a greater number of fuel-inefficient vehicles, including sport utility vehicles, will now be included. These changes to the gas guzzler tax strengthen the message that fuel efficiency and environmental impact should be important considerations when purchasing a new vehicle. An additional $30 million will be generated this fiscal year.

Public capital expenditures contribute directly to building healthy, livable communities. Public capital projects make Ontario communities more productive and attractive to private sector investment.

The $4.3 billion for capital expenditures in 1991-92 includes transfer payments to help meet the capital needs of hospitals, school boards, universities, colleges and municipalities, as well as direct expenditures by the government on buildings, roads, public transit, bridges and water and sewer systems.

Provincial capital spending will play an important role in providing the infrastructure needed for both cyclical recovery and long-term structural change and will support 50,000 jobs in 1991-92.

As part of our emphasis on investing in sustainable prosperity, we are proceeding with the massive Let's Move transit program for the greater Toronto area and providing funding for the Toronto Transit Commission to improve system reliability and to purchase new subway cars.

Initial funding of more than $48 million is being provided for these initiatives in 1991-92. About $11 million of this funding will be used for environmental assessments to ensure that our transit strategy proceeds on an environmentally sound basis. The Let's Move program will involve public and private sector funding of more than $5 billion over the next 10 to 15 years.

Increasing investment in the development and application of new technologies is integral to achieving sustainable prosperity. Product and process innovations are key elements of success in both domestic and international markets, and thus in securing high-value-added, high-wage employment.

Ontario's traditional emphasis has been on tax-based incentives for research and development. Currently, the combined federal-provincial incentives available to companies which operate in Ontario are more generous than those of other major industrial countries.

Even with favourable tax treatment, research and development in Ontario is well below the levels found in most other industrial economies. We must initiate a broader range of policies, from joint venture and sector-specific co-operation to research incentives and new forms of worker involvement. Technological change depends on introducing the partnerships which support a culture of innovation. It requires the hands-on participation of all economic players.

Ontario's technology fund will provide $131 million for research, development and technology diffusion in 1991-92. That includes $81 million for programs to support leading-edge research in such areas as robotics, telecommunications and biotechnology, and $50 million for the R&D superallowance to provide tax incentives for private sector research and development.

As suggested by the standing committee on finance and economic affairs, we will be addressing the critical shortage of investment capital for new high-technology firms. The annual funding for the Innovation Ontario Corp will be increased significantly to almost $21 million. The ceiling for individual investments by Innovation Ontario will be raised to $1 million from $350,000, enabling the corporation to invest in the continuing growth of high-technology firms.

There are some small and medium-sized manufacturing firms in Ontario which are fundamentally viable but which are having financial difficulties because of the recession and high interest rates. These are firms which provide quality jobs with solid future prospects. They have long-run strategic value to our economy.

To assist such firms, the government has initiated a manufacturing recovery program. Viable small and medium-sized manufacturing firms applying in 1991-92 will be eligible to participate. We will provide up to $57 million in financial assistance, mainly in the form of loans and loan guarantees. My colleague the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology will be announcing details in the coming weeks.

There are few who would question that our farming community has been suffering. The hardships imposed by the recession are compounding the difficulties that were already being experienced as a result of structural adjustment, unstable commodity prices and high interest rates.

The future viability of our agricultural community is vital to the sustainable prosperity of Ontario. Farming is one of our core industries which must be maintained. It is also the mainstay of much of rural Ontario. When farmers are hurting financially, towns and villages across the province feel the burden too.

The Minister of Agriculture and Food has announced two programs to assist farmers. We have committed almost $40 million in 1991-92 to the gross revenue insurance program, an income stabilization program for grain, oilseed and horticulture producers. In addition, the farm interest assistance program will provide $50 million in interest rate relief this year for interest costs incurred by farmers during 1990.

Many people overlook the economic impact of our cultural industry. Culture is appreciated for its artistic value and for its capacity to help us understand ourselves. We should also recognize that it is an important and growing industry, employing more than 75,000 people in Ontario.

1630

My colleague the Minister of Culture and Communications has announced $15.4 million for renewal of the Ontario film investment program and other film initiatives in 1991-92. In addition, this budget provides a further $7.5 million to the Ontario Arts Council for the support of artists and arts organizations, and an additional $5.4 million for a publishing strategy and support for community radio, which will particularly benefit aboriginal peoples and francophones. The minister will be providing further details.

Many northern communities, particularly single-industry towns, are under extreme pressure from long-term structural challenges. The north has the highest unemployment rate of any region in the province. In recognition of the difficult economic conditions in the north, 30% of the anti-recession program has been allocated to northern Ontario. We have also responded to the special needs of northern communities by supporting local diversification initiatives, relocating provincial jobs and giving priority consideration under existing provincial programs to local projects.

The government recognizes the importance of the mining industry to the future prosperity of the north. We anticipate the signing of a new $30-million, five-year, federal-provincial minerals development agreement to enhance mining development and research.

A long-standing source of concern in the north is the high price of gasoline. There is a significant differential between gasoline prices in northern and southern Ontario. Delivery costs are higher to the north and the northern market is not as competitive, due in part to lower population densities and fewer gasoline stations. In recognition of this differential, the motor vehicle registration fee for residents of northern Ontario will be eliminated effective 1 May 1991. This will save northern motorists $15 million this year.

Residents of northern Ontario often have to travel a considerable distance to receive medical treatment or to see a specialist. The Ontario government will provide $3.4 million over current spending to improve the northern health travel grant program. The government is reducing the minimum distance to 100 kilometres from 250 kilometres for travel within northern Ontario or to Manitoba. In addition, the travel grant program will now include the district of Parry Sound and all of the district of Nipissing.

This government believes that all our citizens must share in the benefits of economic growth and social progress. The investment that we as taxpayers make in social equity contributes to a healthy society and a strong economy. In this budget, we are starting to reduce social deficits caused by inequity, poverty and lack of access in our society. There is a real connection between our social infrastructure and our economy. Our social programs help give people the confidence to meet the challenge of economic change and participate fully in our economy.

The social assistance system is an essential part of this province's social safety net. Tens of thousands of people who have lost their jobs in the past year are relying on social assistance for the basics of life: food and shelter. This system is of vital support to the stability and security of our economy. It is also an investment in Ontario's future -- approximately 40% of those who depend on social assistance are children.

We will commit $215 million on a full-year basis to reform of the social assistance system.

Reform of the system has been a major issue since the Transitions report of the Social Assistance Review Committee was released in 1988. The Advisory Group on New Social Assistance Legislation, an independent working group reporting to the Minister of Community and Social Services, said in its recent report, Back on Track, that the momentum for reform had been lost since initial changes to the system were made in 1989.

This government is committed to putting the reform process back on track. This $215 million reform package, which will be described in more detail by the minister, is designed to provide benefits for those who are in greatest need, to help people get into the labour force, to increase fairness and accessibility and to assist municipalities with their funding responsibilities.

This is a major commitment, particularly in a year in which social assistance costs are expected to reach $4.9 billion, up from $2.5 billion just two years ago.

This government is committed to greater equity in the tax system. To provide advice on how to make the system fairer, we have established the Fair Tax Commission. This is the first major review of Ontario's tax system in 25 years. As members are aware, the commission will be examining a number of specific tax issues that are high on the government's agenda. Two issues in particular require immediate attention.

I have asked the commission to accelerate its consultations on a corporate minimum tax for Ontario. I realize that this is a complex subject; however, it is my intention to move in this area to ensure that corporations reporting profits but paying little or no income tax pay their fair share.

I have also asked for early advice on an Ontario land speculation tax. I believe that appropriate action should be taken soon before speculation can again become a problem in a recovering housing market.

But the work of making our tax system fairer has already started. Today I am announcing the largest enrichment in the history of the Ontario tax reduction program. This program benefits people at the low end of the income scale. Effective for the 1991 tax year, the $200 supplements now provided for each dependent child or dependant with a disability will be raised to $350. This means that a single parent with two dependent children and who is earning $22,500 will no longer pay any Ontario personal income tax.

This $50 million tax cut brings to 700,000 the number of low-income taxpayers whose Ontario income tax will now be reduced or eliminated for the 1991 tax year.

In addition, I am proposing an increase in the personal income surtax rate. This is intended to make the tax system more progressive by ensuring that those at the upper end of the income scale pay a greater share. Effective 1 July 1991, the surtax rate will increase from 10% to 14% of Ontario income tax in excess of $10,000. The surtax only affects taxpayers with incomes of $84,000 or higher. This action will add $60 million to revenues in 1991-92.

Affordable housing is a key priority of this government. Housing is the main non-discretionary expense for families on low and moderate incomes. We are committed to increasing the supply of affordable housing to respond to the need and to contribute to the vitality of our communities.

The government intends to go forward with an unprecedented level of provincially supported housing activity in this fiscal year. By refining programs, speeding up approvals and reallocating units, we will have close to 35,000 units of co-operative and non-profit housing under development. We expect people will be moving into about 13,000 of these units this year. This activity will inject some $1.3 billion into the construction industry in 1991-92, with associated employment of about 20,000 jobs.

In addition, we are announcing the provision of another 10,000 non-profit units, which will cost the province approximately $150 million in annual operating subsidies when completed. My colleague the Minister of Housing will be announcing further details. For 1991-92 the Ministry of Housing will be allocated more than $764 million to meet its operating expenditures, representing an increase of more than 39% in its funding.

1640

For many women, home is not a safe haven. We are committing an additional $12 million for new beds and enhanced services in emergency shelters and other improvements to services for women who are victims of domestic violence.

Violence against women is a major social problem which we must work resolutely to eliminate. In this budget, the government significantly expands its commitment to address the issues of wife assault and sexual assault. Funding for these two programs will increase by more than 33% over last year.

Additional funds to eliminate wife assault will focus not only on emergency shelters for women and their children, but on counselling and prevention programs, services for racial minorities and women with disabilities and on development of local responses to aboriginal family violence.

Increased expenditures of more than $8 million will significantly expand and enhance services to women and children who are victims of sexual assault. This new funding will extend services for rural, francophone, disabled, immigrant and racial minority women.

We cannot have an economy which flourishes at the expense of certain parts of the workforce. It is unfair and unacceptable to undervalue certain occupations and sectors based on systemic discrimination. The Minister of Labour has announced amendments to the Pay Equity Act which will allow an additional 420,000 women to benefit from pay equity.

This government will make available $100 million to assist our major transfer partners, including municipalities, school boards, hospitals and universities and colleges, with the cost of pay equity adjustments due in 1991-92. This funding is above and beyond what is normally provided for day-to-day operations. A further $25 million will be provided in 1991-92 to assist other transfer agencies in meeting their pay equity obligations. In addition to the $125 million, the Minister of Community and Social Services previously announced an initial step towards pay equity for child care workers by providing $30 million to improve salaries.

The government's financial commitment to pay equity is not limited to this fiscal year. We will contribute almost $1 billion annually at maturity towards pay equity adjustments in the broad public sector.

Employment equity involves a comprehensive process to ensure equitable representation and to reduce systemic barriers to the recruitment, retention and promotion of underrepresented groups of people. The groups designated in the Ontario public service program are aboriginal peoples, persons with disabilities, francophones, racial minorities and women. These groups represent 60% of Ontario's population and more than half the labour force. We must make the most of the potential of all our citizens to help us meet social and economic challenges.

This government intends to be a model employer and to lead both the broad public sector and the private sector in achieving employment equity. We have committed $24 million in 1991-92 to employment equity initiatives in the Ontario public service. This is more than double previous funding levels. The government has also appointed a commissioner to conduct consultations on proposed employment equity legislation.

The government of Ontario is taking tangible steps towards equity for aboriginal peoples. We will commit more than $48 million in 1991-92 towards an improved quality of life that is long overdue for the aboriginal peoples of this land. Part of this funding will be used to help lay the groundwork for self-government and resolution of long-standing land claims through support for research and negotiations.

Also included in this year's funding are $20 million in expenditures on community infrastructure to improve living conditions in aboriginal communities through support for water and sewer systems, housing and electrical power. Social service improvements for first nations communities will include $5 million in capital funding this year to create 400 new spaces for child care on reserves. Other funding for aboriginal peoples will be used for economic development programs and education initiatives at all levels.

First nations will also benefit from funds allocated for social assistance reform which will respond to the proposals put forward by these communities.

The government is acutely aware that we are responsible for the effective fiscal management of the broad Ontario public sector. We must ensure that the people of Ontario are getting the highest-quality services for their tax dollars. This government is convinced that the only way we will achieve effective fiscal management is through a comprehensive review and evaluation of existing programs with the participation of the people who use the services and the people who provide them. We must respond to the social and economic needs of this province by making what the public sector does and how it does it more efficient and more effective.

I indicated at the outset of this statement that we have made a concerted effort in this budget to ensure that the government does what it can to fight the recession and to prepare the economy for recovery. As the economy recovers, however, I believe it is essential to reduce the deficit significantly. Today I am putting forward a three-year fiscal plan that shows the consolidated deficit declining from $9.7 billion this year to $7.8 billion in 1994-95.

The clear fiscal targets set out in this plan are expected to reduce the deficit as a proportion of gross domestic product and total revenue. We anticipate that by 1995 the deficit will fall from 3.4% to 2.2% of gross domestic product and from 22.6% to 13.7% of revenue.

Our fiscal plan is also intended to stabilize the important debt-servicing portion of our budget. As total debt rises, our fiscal plan shows servicing costs moving from 11.6 cents per revenue dollar to a steady 12.3 cents. Contrast this with the situation of the federal government, where about 34 cents of every revenue dollar now go to service the national debt. This government will not let Ontario slip into that kind of fiscal trap.

The deficit is not an issue that is simply of concern to the bond markets and rating agencies. It is a concern of ordinary working people in Ontario, because they do not want an ever-increasing share of their hard-earned tax dollars going to pay the interest on a huge public debt. By 1994-95 we plan to bring the operating portion of the deficit down from $5.4 billion to $3 billion. Looking beyond the medium-term forecast, we plan to eliminate the operating deficit within a further three years. After the last recession it took from 1982 to 1987 to balance the operating budget during a period of strong and rapid growth. Although the outlook for economic growth is more modest in the years ahead, we still expect to meet our objectives of balancing the operating budget by 1997.

The task ahead would be much simpler if the federal government had not begun a deliberate campaign in the 1980s to dismantle its commitments to social programs. These cumulative federal reductions in the established programs financing and payments under the Canada assistance plan will cost Ontario some $3.6 billion in 1991-92 alone, enough to wipe out almost two thirds of our operating deficit. What is more, the federal government has announced its intentions to continue to restrict its contribution to essential social programs for a further three years, with serious consequences for the wellbeing of our nation.

The fiscal plan will not be easy to implement, but it is realistic. I want to emphasize that it will allow the government to move forward with its priorities.

The budget control system we inherited from previous administrations simply cannot do the job in the circumstances we face. We found there was no effective mechanism for examining the structure of entire programs. We are therefore establishing a Treasury Board, which I will chair, with clear responsibility for expenditure management. Critical to its functioning will be the development of budget planning that looks beyond a single year and the introduction of an expenditure review and evaluation process that integrates the policy priorities of the government into allocation decisions.

1650

The task of evaluating programs and reallocating government spending will entail redesigning programs and taking new approaches to service delivery. For example, my colleague the Minister of Education has been reviewing the planning for educational facilities as part of a change in direction towards community-based multi-use schools. The $300 million in school capital funding that I am announcing today for 1994-95 will incorporate this new approach.

We will also be asking the people who work in the public service to help us meet the targets of our fiscal plan. Working in partnership, we will find the best ways to make services more responsive to needs and to reduce costs.

We have not followed the lead of some other governments which have reduced public service jobs at a time of high unemployment and have imposed arbitrary wage limits. Instead, we intend to work co-operatively with the public service unions to meet our targets in ways that support new workplace co-operation and innovation.

It is important that we look for new ways to involve members of the Legislature and the general public, as well as our employees, in contributing to the solutions needed to address these challenges. The province funds a range of services, like health care, education and many social services, which are basic to our way of life. It is important that the public, which uses these services and pays for them through their taxes, participates in the process of identifying where we can improve effectiveness.

We are committed to major changes in the budget process in this province. Bringing the process into the 1990s is a major challenge and, given its scale, I fully expect changes to continue throughout the mandate of this government. As a first step, I intend to ask for the views of the standing committee on finance and economic affairs on ways to open up the budget process to involve more public participation.

One of the most crucial areas requiring effective management is our health care system. This is a priority for two major reasons: because publicly funded health care is so essential to our way of life, and because the costs of our health care system are threatening to overwhelm all other government expenditures.

We must maintain the quality of health services while reducing the rate of expenditure growth in the system. Health care costs currently account for approximately one third of total provincial spending. Health expenditures have increased by an average of more than 12% per year for the past 10 years.

This government is committed to managing health care expenditures more effectively while maintaining or improving standards of care and upholding the principles of medicare, including universality and accessibility. We believe the best way to accomplish this is in partnership with health care providers. We are therefore encouraged by the tentative agreement that has been reached through negotiations with the Ontario Medical Association.

If this landmark agreement is ratified by members of the OMA next month, we will be embarking on a new era in our health care system. It will involve a constructive and co-operative relationship between the government and the Ontario Medical Association. It will introduce a management system that emphasizes quality and cost-effectiveness. This system will manage payments to physicians and will not limit patient access to health services. It will allow us to plan better for the future and to allocate resources where they are most needed.

I cannot prejudge the results of the upcoming ratification vote. I can only say that the government hopes to join with physicians in managing our quality health care system in the interests of all the people of Ontario.

The Minister of Health will be providing further information to members of the House once the ratification vote has been held.

Today I can inform the House of two aspects of the government's overall strategy to manage our health care system more effectively. These are not part of the tentative agreement. They affect out-of-country health services and the Ontario drug benefit plan.

OHIP payments for out-of-country health services, primarily in the United States, have increased dramatically from $100 million in 1988-89 to $225 million in 1990-91, a 125% increase in only three years. The province is enacting a series of modifications to the current OHIP policy to ensure that payments for out-of-country health services reflect the cost of services in Ontario. We will also establish service registries and information systems to identify available services within the province so that fewer people will have to use outside services.

Measures to manage the Ontario drug benefit plan more effectively are being pursued as well. Expenditures in this area have increased by an average of 19% over the past 10 years. The government intends to implement tighter controls on reimbursement for drugs, establish more comprehensive guidelines for prescribing drugs and require more objective evaluations in order for a new drug to gain coverage.

The Minister of Health will be announcing details of these measures soon. These actions are part of our continuing efforts to manage our $17-billion health care system better.

Capital expenditures represent another important area where improved public sector fiscal management is needed. Governments often reduce capital spending as a short-term restraint measure. Such cuts are at the expense of our capacity to respond to, and lead, social and economic change.

In order to recognize the importance of capital and to focus on the strategic planning of capital expenditures, Ontario is establishing a capital fund and an operating fund. Starting in the 1991-92 fiscal year, there will be separate budgets for capital and operating expenditures. We will continue to show the consolidated deficit or surplus position of the province.

Tax policy has a critical role to play in effective fiscal management. Central to the role of tax policy is ensuring that tax expenditures are cost-effective. The Fair Tax Commission has a major responsibility to provide advice in this area.

In this budget, I am proceeding with three measures that will tighten up the tax base and contribute to better tax expenditure management.

First, I am announcing the capping of the three-year mining tax exemption to target the incentive more effectively. The exemption will be limited to the first $10 million of profits from qualifying mines earned from 30 April 1991.

Second, because of its structure, the small business deduction in Ontario's corporate income tax system is currently available to corporations regardless of their size or profitability. I will therefore be introducing measures, to be effective 1 January 1992, to focus the benefits on small Canadian-controlled private corporations.

Third, the Ontario motorist protection plan, introduced by the previous government, created an inequity by exempting insurance companies from the tax on certain auto insurance premiums. As of midnight tonight, this inequity will be removed by eliminating the exemption.

Together, these tax changes will generate $70 million this fiscal year.

I am also concerned about the potential for non-resident companies to shift income outside the country. Income earned in Canada should be subject to Canadian income tax. I have asked the federal Minister of Finance to examine, in consultation with the provinces, the rules regarding thin capitalization and transfer pricing.

Responsible management also requires some changes to tax rates.

First, the capital tax on banks and loan and trust companies will increase from 0.8% to 1%, effective midnight tonight. This is still the lowest provincial rate on banks and loan and trust companies in the country.

Second, as of midnight tonight the tax per cigarette will be increased by 1.67 cents to 6.5 cents, with an equivalent increase on cut tobacco. It has been estimated that each year tobacco-induced diseases cause 13,000 premature deaths in Ontario. My colleague the Minister of Health will be announcing details of the provincial tobacco control strategy. This tobacco tax increase will play a key role in this strategy, particularly in discouraging young people from smoking. It is expected that this tax increase, when combined with the federal three-cent increase, will result in a decline of tobacco consumption by Ontario smokers of close to 15%.

Finally, levies on all alcohol products will increase by five cents per litre effective 27 May 1991.

The total revenue impact of these tax rate changes is estimated at $280 million this fiscal year.

1700

This budget sets out our vision of the future of this province. I want to add a few words about our vision of the future of this country.

As the Premier has said many times, we have a long history together as Canadians, a history that binds us in many real and intangible ways. Today, every province in Canada is facing serious economic and social challenges. We are stronger if we face them together.

Our vision of sustainable prosperity for Ontario embraces a renewed and revitalized Confederation. We believe there is an important role for national leadership to secure the Canadian economic union.

Nous devons parvenir à un consensus pour l'avenir du pays. Le Canada doit pouvoir oeuvrer dans l'intérêt de toutes les parties du pays et de tous les segments de la société. L'Ontario est prêt à jouer un rôle constructif et positif dans cette entreprise.

We must find a new consensus for the future. Canada must be made to work in the interests of all parts of the country and all parts of society. Ontario is prepared to play a constructive and positive role in this endeavour.

The budget I am tabling in the Legislature this afternoon is one which puts a strategic focus on sustainable prosperity and fairness.

This budget contributes to recovery at a time of serious recession. We will not cut back on the delivery of basic services to the people of Ontario when so many families are hurting.

We are creating some 70,000 jobs through our investment in the economy. We are helping unemployed workers re-enter the workforce. We are expanding our commitments to technology and innovation with renewed emphasis on training.

We are providing tax relief for the working poor. We are making a substantial commitment to reforming our social assistance system. We are significantly expanding government commitments to affordable housing. We are making a major contribution to a healthy environment.

We are providing assistance for farmers. We are addressing the special needs of aboriginal peoples and the north. We are improving and expanding pay equity for women and employment equity initiatives.

We are committed to managing the deficit through effective fiscal management based on an open process that involves participation by the people who use public services and those who provide them.

We are putting forward a multi-year fiscal plan. We are proposing a new management system in health care, in partnership with health care providers.

We are committed to developing other partnerships with labour, business and communities so that we may work together to meet the challenges of social and economic change.

We made a choice in this budget to fight the recession, not this year's deficit, because we believe that is the priority for the people of Ontario. We will not sacrifice the essential services that Ontarians need. We are dedicated to maintaining quality health care and education. We will invest in the future and in jobs to help strengthen our province. We are laying the foundation for a sound recovery and working towards a more productive, equitable and sustainable economy.

Mr Bradley: I move the adjournment of the debate.

The Speaker: The member for St Catharines moves the adjournment of the debate. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? No?

Hon Miss Martel: If I might, I would ask for the unanimous consent of the House to revert to introduction of bills.

The Speaker: We really should adjourn the debate first before any other procedure, so I would like to call that again.

On motion by Mr Bradley, the debate was adjourned.

Hon Miss Martel: I would ask for the unanimous consent of the House to revert to introduction of bills.

Agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ONTARIO LOAN ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR LES EMPRUNTS DE L'ONTARIO

Mr Laughren has moved first reading of Bill 81, An Act to authorize borrowing on the credit of the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

M. Laughren propose la première lecture du projet de loi 81, Loi autorisant les emprunts garantis par le Trésor.

1711

The House divided on Mr Laughren's motion, which was agreed to on the following vote:

La motion de M. Laughren, mise aux voix, est adoptée :

Ayes/Pour-71

Abel, Akande, Allen, Bisson, Boyd, Buchanan, Carter, Charlton, Christopherson, Churley, Cooke, Cooper, Coppen, Dadamo, Drainville, Duignan, Farnan, Ferguson, Frankford, Gigantes, Grier, Haeck, Hampton, Hansen, Harrington, Haslam, Hayes, Hope, Huget, Jamison, Johnson, Klopp, Kormos, Lankin, Laughren, Lessard, Mackenzie, MacKinnon, Malkowski, Mammoliti, Marchese, Martel, Martin, Mathyssen, Mills, Morrow, Murdock, S., North, O'Connor, Owens, Perruzza, Philip, E., Pilkey, Pouliot, Rae, Rizzo, Silipo, Sutherland, Ward, B., Ward, M., Wark-Martyn, Waters, Wessenger, White, Wildman, Wilson, F., Wilson, G., Winninger, Wiseman, Wood, Ziemba.

Nays/Contre-47

Arnott, Bradley, Brown, Callahan, Caplan, Carr, Cleary, Conway, Cordiano, Cousens, Cunningham, Curling, Daigeler, Elston, Eves, Fawcett, Grandmaître, Harnick, Harris, Jackson, Jordan, Kwinter, Mahoney, Marland, McGuinty, McLeod, Miclash, Morin, Murdoch, B., Nixon, Offer, O'Neil, H., O'Neill, Y., Phillips, G., Poirier, Poole, Ramsay, Ruprecht, Scott, Sterling, Stockwell, Sullivan, Tilson, Turnbull, Villeneuve, Wilson, J., Witmer.

TREASURY BOARD ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR LE CONSEIL DU TRÉSOR

Mr Laughren moved first reading of Bill 82, An Act to establish the Treasury Board.

M. Laughren propose la première lecture du projet de loi 82, Loi créant le Conseil du Trésor.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptée.

INCOME TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 MODIFIANT LA LOI DE L'IMPÔT SUR LE REVENU

Ms Wark-Martyn moved first reading of Bill 83, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act.

M^me Wark-Martyn propose la première lecture du projet de loi 83, Loi portant modification de la Loi de l'impôt sur le revenu.

1720

The House divided on Ms Wark-Martyn's motion, which was agreed to on the following vote:

La motion de M^me Wark-Martyn, mise aux voix, est adoptée :

Ayes/Pour-71

Abel, Akande, Allen, Bisson, Boyd, Buchanan, Carter, Charlton, Christopherson, Churley, Cooke, Cooper, Coppen, Drainville, Duignan, Farnan, Ferguson, Fletcher, Frankford, Gigantes, Grier, Haeck, Hampton, Hansen, Harrington, Haslam, Hayes, Hope, Huget, Jamison, Johnson, Klopp, Kormos, Lankin, Laughren, Lessard, Mackenzie, MacKinnon, Malkowski, Mammoliti, Marchese, Martel, Martin, Mathyssen, Mills, Morrow, Murdock, S., North, O'Connor, Owens, Perruzza, Philip, E., Pilkey, Pouliot, Rae, Rizzo, Silipo, Sutherland, Ward, B., Ward, M., Wark-Martyn, Waters, Wessenger, White, Wildman, Wilson, F., Wilson, G., Winninger, Wiseman, Wood, Ziemba.

Nays/Contre-45

Arnott, Bradley, Brown, Callahan, Caplan, Carr, Cleary, Conway, Cordiano, Cousens, Cunningham, Curling, Elston, Eves, Grandmaître, Harnick, Harris, Jackson, Jordan, Kwinter, Mahoney, Marland, McGuinty, McLeod, Miclash, Morin, Murdoch, B., Nixon, O'Neil, H., O'Neill, Y., Phillips, G., Poirier, Poole, Ruprecht, Scott, Sola, Sorbara, Sterling, Stockwell, Sullivan, Tilson, Turnbull, Villeneuve, Wilson, J., Witmer.

TOBACCO TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 MODIFIANT LA LOI DE LA TAXE SUR LE TABAC

Ms Wark-Martyn moved first reading of Bill 84, An Act to amend the Tobacco Tax Act.

M^me Wark-Martyn propose la première lecture du projet de loi 84, Loi portant modification de la Loi de la taxe sur le tabac.

1735

The House divided on Ms Wark-Martyn's motion, which was agreed to on the following vote:

La motion de M^me Wark-Martyn, mise aux voix, est adoptée :

Ayes/Pour-70

Abel, Akande, Allen, Bisson, Boyd, Carter, Charlton, Christopherson, Churley, Cooke, Cooper, Coppen, Dadamo, Drainville, Duignan, Farnan, Ferguson, Fletcher, Frankford, Gigantes, Grier, Haeck, Hampton, Hansen, Harrington, Haslam, Hayes, Hope, Huget, Johnson, Klopp, Kormos, Lankin, Laughren, Lessard, Mackenzie, MacKinnon, Malkowski, Mammoliti, Marchese, Martel, Martin, Mathyssen, Mills, Morrow, Murdock, S., North, O'Connor, Owens, Perruzza, Philip, E., Pilkey, Pouliot, Rae, Rizzo, Silipo, Sutherland, Ward, B., Ward, M., Wark-Martyn, Waters, Wessenger, White, Wildman, Wilson, F., Wilson, G., Winninger, Wiseman, Wood, Ziemba.

Nays/Contre-43

Arnott, Bradley, Brown, Callahan, Carr, Chiarelli, Cleary, Conway, Cordiano, Cousens, Cunningham, Curling, Daigeler, Elston, Eves, Fawcett, Grandmaître, Harnick, Harris, Jordan, Kwinter, Mahoney, Marland, McGuinty, McLeod, Miclash, Morin, Murdoch, B., Nixon, O'Neil, H., O'Neill, Y., Phillips, G., Poirier, Poole, Ruprecht, Scott, Sola, Stockwell, Sullivan, Tilson, Turnbull, Villeneuve, Wilson, J.

FUEL TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 MODIFIANT LA LOI DE LA TAXE SUR LES CARBURANTS

Ms Wark-Martyn moved first reading of Bill 85, An Act to amend the Fuel Tax Act, 1981.

M^me Wark-Martyn propose la première lecture du projet de loi 85, Loi portant modification de la Loi de 1981 de la taxe sur les carburants.

1745

The House divided on Ms Wark-Martyn's motion, which was agreed to on the following vote:

La motion de M^me Wark-Martyn, mise aux voix, est adoptée :

Ayes/Pour-71

Abel, Akande, Allen, Bisson, Boyd, Buchanan, Carter, Charlton, Christopherson, Churley, Cooke, Cooper, Coppen, Dadamo, Drainville, Duignan, Farnan, Fletcher, Frankford, Gigantes, Grier, Haeck, Hampton, Hansen, Harrington, Haslam, Hayes, Hope, Huget, Jamison, Johnson, Klopp, Kormos, Lankin, Laughren, Lessard, Mackenzie, MacKinnon, Malkowski, Mammoliti, Marchese, Martel, Martin, Mathyssen, Mills, Morrow, Murdock, S., North, O'Connor, Owens, Perruzza, Philip, E., Pilkey, Pouliot, Rae, Rizzo, Silipo, Sutherland, Ward, B., Ward, M., Wark-Martyn, Waters, Wessenger, White, Wildman, Wilson, F., Wilson, G., Winninger, Wiseman, Wood, Ziemba.

Nays/Contre-43

Arnott, Bradley, Brown, Callahan, Caplan, Carr, Chiarelli, Conway, Cousens, Cunningham, Curling, Daigeler, Elston, Eves, Fawcett, Grandmaître, Harnick, Harris, Jordan, Kwinter, Mahoney, Marland, McGuinty, McLeod, Miclash, Morin, Murdoch, B., Nixon, O'Neil, H., O'Neill, Y., Phillips, G., Poirier, Poole, Ruprecht, Scott, Sola, Stockwell, Sullivan, Tilson, Turnbull, Villeneuve, Wilson, J., Witmer.

GASOLINE TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 MODIFIANT LA LOI DE LA TAXE SUR L'ESSENCE

Ms Wark-Martyn moved first reading of Bill 86, An Act to amend the Gasoline Tax Act.

M^me Wark-Martyn propose la première lecture du projet de loi 86, Loi portant modification de la Loi de la taxe sur l'essence.

1757

The House divided on Ms Wark-Martyn's motion, which was agreed to on the following vote:

La motion de M^me Wark-Martyn, mise aux voix, est adoptée :

Ayes/Pour-72

Abel, Akande, Allen, Bisson, Boyd, Buchanan, Carter, Charlton, Christopherson, Churley, Cooke, Cooper, Coppen, Dadamo, Drainville, Duignan, Farnan, Ferguson, Fletcher, Frankford, Gigantes, Grier, Haeck, Hampton, Hansen, Harrington, Haslam, Hayes, Hope, Huget, Jamison, Johnson, Klopp, Kormos, Lankin, Laughren, Lessard, Mackenzie, MacKinnon, Malkowski, Mammoliti, Marchese, Martel, Martin, Mathyssen, Mills, Morrow, Murdock, S., North, O'Connor, Owens, Perruzza, Philip, E., Pilkey, Pouliot, Rae, Rizzo, Silipo, Sutherland, Ward, B., Ward, M., Wark-Martyn, Waters, Wessenger, White, Wildman, Wilson, F., Wilson, G., Winninger, Wiseman, Wood, Ziemba.

Nays/Contre-42

Arnott, Bradley, Brown, Callahan, Caplan, Carr, Chiarelli, Conway, Cousens, Cunningham, Curling, Daigeler, Elston, Eves, Fawcett, Grandmaître, Harnick, Harris, Jordan, Kwinter, Mahoney, Marland, McGuinty, McLeod, Miclash, Morin, Murdoch, B., Nixon, O'Neil, H., O'Neill, Y., Phillips, G., Poirier, Poole, Scott, Sola, Sterling, Stockwell, Sullivan, Tilson, Villeneuve, Wilson, J., Witmer.

The House adjourned at 1802.