Journal des débats 1985-nov-08 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr. Gregory: I would like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that this coming Monday, November 11, is Remembrance Day. This year, as much as any other, we have reason to pause and remember the sacrifice of the men and women of our armed forces who fought for the ideals of liberty and freedom and to preserve peace in the world.

We have inherited from them a very great trust. Because of their dedication, we have the opportunity to make the most of our potential to build thriving, caring communities and the freedom to speak out on the issues that move us.

This year marks the 60th anniversary of the Royal Canadian Legion. The legion has not only spoken out forcefully for the needs of veterans, but it is an active member of the community, working for the benefit of our young people and the elderly through many projects. If ever we need an example of the devotion of our veterans and our armed services personnel in encouraging the best from the Canadian character, we need only look to the legion.

All Canadians owe our veterans much. I ask your permission, Mr. Speaker, to request the House to join with me and my caucus in observing a minute's silence in remembrance of their efforts.

Hon. Mr. Scott: I join the member for Mississauga East in asking the House to recognize once again, as we do annually, the important contribution that men and women made to freedom and democracy in this country in two major world wars. Their contribution is unknown to people of the next generation, who read of it only in history books; to people of my age and older, it is a real contribution that is recognized in the actual names of relations, friends and members of our community who fell and made those great sacrifices.

As well, I am sure all members of the government are delighted to join with the member for Mississauga East in congratulating the Royal Canadian Legion on its anniversary.

Mr. Breaugh: We would like to join in this brief commemoration for a number of people who have made the ultimate sacrifice. This weekend will be unusual for many of our veterans because it will be a happy and sad occasion. Many of us will attend dinners where people who fought in two great wars and the Korean conflict join together to remember the good times and the horror of war. They will do so with some mixed feelings.

There will be some celebration in meeting people they have not seen for some time and of reviewing old stories of what happens when people are caught in this kind of terrible conflict. Then on Monday many of us will gather at memorials and cenotaphs around the province and a moment of great sadness will tall on the province. People will remember, however briefly, what that conflict was all about and what kind of price people had to pay.

I want to mention in passing that many of us are interested and somewhat concerned that younger people, a whole generation, have had the chance to grow up in this country without really knowing the horrors of war. For most of them, no one from their family has suffered all the consequences of what is a war. We know the members of the legion are very much engaged in trying to bring that message to our young people. This House would do itself an honour in honouring this request for a moment's silence this morning.

We believe it is an important occasion that should be remembered, one that should not be forgotten. No matter how long we go on in a spirit of peace and co-operation, there is always the haunting memory that we have failed, that there have been wars and that the horror of war is still with us in this world. We will remember that in joy and sorrow over the weekend and on Monday morning at the cenotaphs.

The House observed one minute's silence.

POLISH INDEPENDENCE DAY

Hon. Mr. Ruprecht: In the gallery this morning are distinguished representatives of the Canadian Polish Congress who will participate in the Independence Day signing ceremony: George Burski, president of the Toronto district, Stan Sadowski, vice-president, and Mrs. Hanna Blajer, executive vice-president.

November 11 is of special significance to all of us who honour those who laid down their lives for us so that we can aspire to the ideals of freedom and democracy. For many Canadians, especially those of Polish heritage, that day has added significance. Polish Canadians will celebrate Independence Day.

For us, November 11 means freedom for a nation from the yoke of oppressors. It means the right of self-determination where a whole people can participate in structuring its own future. Polish Canadians who still seek these ideals for the land of their fathers will celebrate Independence Day, and the Premier (Mr. Peterson) and this government will mark this event with a special Independence Day proclamation, which reads:

"Whereas the province of Ontario and, indeed, all of Canada have developed and grown through the courage and industry of people of many nationalities who have come to this land in search of freedom and opportunity;

"Whereas we are especially grateful for the many important contributions that our citizens of Polish ancestry have continued to make to our province and country since they first arrived here in the 1830s;

"Whereas a free, reunited and independent Polish state was re-established 67 years ago on November 11, 1918;

"Whereas it is imperative for Canadians to remember that the price of our precious freedom is eternal vigilance, and

"Whereas the observance of the anniversary fosters within us a deeper appreciation of freedom, liberty and democratic ideals:

"Therefore, as Premier of the province of Ontario, I am pleased to recognize November 11, 1985, as Polish Independence Day and commend its observance to the people of our province."

It is signed by the Honourable David Peterson, Premier of Ontario.

10:10 a.m.

Mr. Shymko: I join my colleague the member for Parkdale (Mr. Ruprecht) in his remarks by congratulating the Premier for continuing the tradition of former Premier William Davis and the former Premier, the member for Muskoka (Mr. F. S. Miller), in the resolution that was unanimously passed on November 15, 1984, in the last parliament, which I had the privilege of introducing as a private member, because of the significance we see today of that resolution.

November 11, when peace was heralded throughout the world, was for many people the beginning of a struggle for independence. On that same day, the Polish nation declared independence. For three years they fought and for 20 years they cherished that independence until the onslaught of the allied invasion of two of the most hideous partners in crimes against humanity, namely, Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany, in 1939, which heralded the holocaust of the Second World War.

As a result of that, we are reminded by this anniversary that peace cannot be based on the principle that might is right. Peace cannot be established on the principle that to the victor go all the spoils, that the winner takes all. This happened in 1945 when some of these war criminals against humanity were tried in Nuremberg, but others continue to reign on the principle of the law of force and not the force of law we understand today.

We are reminded by this anniversary of Polish independence that peace cannot be based on oppression and slavery. Our hope for genuine peace must be based on the principles of justice, freedom and liberty for mankind and for nations.

With your permission, Mr. Speaker, in greeting Mr. Burski, the president, Mrs. Blajer, the executive vice-president, and Mr. Sadowski, the vice-president, I would like to say a few words in Polish.

[Translation]

On the occasion of the commemoration of the 67th anniversary of the independence of Poland on November 11, Poles and similarly oppressed people who continue today to suffer tragedy in eastern Europe hold the painful memory of how quickly independence and freedom can be set aside by the use of force, how quickly a nation can be ravaged and crushed by overwhelming repression.

As Polish Canadians, you are to be congratulated for your faithful observance of Polish independence. By doing this, you not only keep alive the spirit of a free Poland but you also strengthen the resolve of all Canadians to assure the nation we cherish will continue free and united around the ideals of human dignity, justice, tolerance and liberty for all men and all nations.

Long live a free and independent Poland.

[End of translation]

May we share with all men the hope that some day the Polish people will indeed be free and join the family of nations as an independent state.

Mr. Rae: The member for High Park-Swansea (Mr. Shymko) sets a high standard that I am afraid I will not be able to reach.

I do want to acknowledge the presence in the House of my good friend of many years, Senator Haidasz, and members of the Polish community and to say how pleased I am on behalf of our party to say a few words on this occasion.

The cause of Polish independence goes back not 50 or 100 years but many centuries. The Polish nation has struggled perhaps more clearly and with greater valour, greater valiance, than many other nations in the world to express itself, to have borders that are recognized by other countries, to have parliamentary and democratic institutions that reflect the fullness and richness of its national life.

I believe it is one of the great tragedies of this century and indeed of modern history that no nation has found it more difficult to have its borders, its national life and its institutions respected by the powers that have existed at one time to its south, to its east and to its west.

It is fair to say that there are literally millions of Canadians who have strong ties through family, history and culture to the Polish community. We in our party are very proud of those members of the Polish community who have maintained the social democratic tradition in their own country and who have brought that tradition with them to this country.

It is with a great sense of pride that on behalf of my party I join with the member for Parkdale, the member for High Park-Swansea and with members of all parties in expressing our solidarity, our solidarnosc, with the Polish people in their struggle for independence and democracy, a struggle which continues to this day.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

DRINKING AND DRIVING

Hon. Mr. Scott: I would like to announce major initiatives the government will be taking to further address the problem of drinking and driving.

This issue has properly received a great deal of attention in recent months. Although deaths and injuries related to drinking and driving have decreased gradually over the years, alcohol still plays a contributory role in 50 per cent of all fatal traffic accidents and 30 per cent of all personal injury accidents. In 1984, more than 550 persons were killed and 27,000 persons were injured in Ontario accidents where alcohol was a factor. It is estimated that these accidents cost the people of the province more than $200 million.

As distressing as these statistics are, they pale beside the suffering they represent for thousands of families. We owe it to those victims and to those who could become victims in the future to make certain that no avenue is unexplored in our efforts to reduce drinking and driving.

Major gains have been made in the last few years in heightening public concern on this issue. Local drinking-driving countermeasures committees have been established in many communities across Ontario. Citizens' associations, businesses, police forces, nonprofit organizations, the media and many other groups have devoted their energies to reducing the needless tragedy.

My ministry has participated in this task both at the community level and through province-wide programs. Staff in the drinking-driving countermeasures office have visited communities in every region to support and encourage local activities. The ministry has developed a wide range of materials and public education campaigns to reinforce those community efforts. These have included a dramatic film which tells the story of drinking and driving from the victim's point of view and a major window decal campaign for automobiles in co-operation with youth-oriented radio stations.

All of these efforts together have begun to achieve the type of results that can give us hope. Between 1981 and 1984, alcohol involvement in fatally injured drivers declined by approximately 10 per cent. Even more significant, a study carried out for the ministry this year showed a dramatic reduction in alcohol-related driver fatalities during the past two winter holiday seasons -- from a 10-year average of just over 30 deaths to a figure close to 12.

These figures give us every reason to intensify our efforts. I feel strongly that we must clearly signal to those who might drink and drive that they risk losing the privilege of driving for substantial periods of time.

Today I am announcing the government's intention to establish a one-year automatic suspension for a first drinking-driving conviction and a two-year suspension for a second conviction. These suspensions are four times as long as those currently provided for in the law. In addition, the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Fulton) will be announcing several important initiatives related to chronic offenders, driver licensing and the offence of driving while prohibited or suspended.

10:20 a.m.

Members will no doubt be aware of the recent decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal which substantially increased the jail term in a drinking and driving related offence. Of particular interest to members are the remarks of Chief Justice MacKinnon, in which he stated:

"In my view, the sentences for the so-called lesser offences in this field should be increased. The variations in the penalties imposed for drinking and driving are great, and increasing sentences for offences at the `lower end' would emphasize that it is the conduct of the accused, not just the consequences, that is the criminality punished."

Mr. Justice MacKinnon also says, "The sentence should be such as to make it very much less attractive for the drinker to get behind the wheel after drinking."

A directive has already gone out from the ministry to all crown attorneys apprising them of these comments. The directive states:

"It is important that we heed this very important signal from the Court of Appeal and make submissions to the provincial courts for substantially increased penalties for `routine' impaired drivers. Not only should we strive for substantially increased fine levels, but we should also seek incarceration in a significant number of first offences."

I am confident these measures we are taking provide a strong incentive for persons to reevaluate their driving habits and the risks they may be taking with their own lives and those of others. These measures will reinforce the concept that a driving licence is a privilege which should not be abused. They will also enhance the impact of police enforcement activities and strengthen the resolve of all the individuals and organizations working so hard to reduce drinking and driving.

As important as these initiatives are, I want to emphasize that they are only part of the program we expect to mount in the coming months. While legal sanctions are important, they need to be supported by continuous educational and awareness activities if they are to have the maximum impact. I will be announcing further measures in this area shortly.

I am sure all honourable members will support these efforts to reduce the tragedy. I also feel they will want to join with me in acknowledging the debt we owe to private persons and organizations who have spoken out in the past and who have persisted until they have been heard in every corner of the province and country. In that connection, I would like to note particularly the presence in the members' gallery of John Bates of PRIDE, People to Reduce Impaired Driving Everywhere, who has made a significant contribution.

I am confident the ongoing commitment being made to this issue will be seen in the future as a significant social achievement in this decade.

Hon. Mr. Fulton: Further to the Attorney General's remarks, I would like to inform the honourable members of my ministry's efforts to support his fight against drinking and driving.

Members will recall that I recently stood before this House to outline our plans for implementing a program that will put photographs on Ontario drivers' licences. One of the key aims of this initiative is to make it easier to apprehend suspended drivers who continue to drive with someone else's licence.

Now we are prepared to go even further. We are prepared to impose longer suspensions on drivers convicted of driving while prohibited or suspended for criminal offences, particularly those related to alcohol use.

We propose to create a one-year suspension for a first conviction under the recently introduced Criminal Code offence of driving while prohibited or suspended. A second or subsequent conviction on the same charge would carry a two-year suspension.

These new suspensions reflect the fact that Criminal Code offences amount to the most serious threat against the safety of other motorists. Not surprisingly, nearly 95 per cent of those convictions involve alcohol.

Last year alone, close to 50,000 Criminal Code suspensions were ordered in Ontario. Of those, approximately one third were repeat offenders. These are drivers who should not be on the road, at least until they have had adequate time to consider the seriousness of their offences. The longer suspensions will also give them an opportunity to seek treatment, while at the same time removing a potential source of danger from our highways.

We are also prepared to deal seriously with the chronic drinking driver. We propose to develop a new program aimed at drivers whose history suggests a problem with alcohol or any other pattern of behaviour which poses a serious risk to others on the road. These drivers will be subject to suspension for an indefinite period. Reinstatement would be conditional on several factors, including medical evidence that the individual had overcome his or her problem.

Both the initiatives I have just described are designed to get convicted lawbreakers off the road, but it is also essential that we expand our efforts to educate new drivers about the dangers of drinking and driving.

We intend, as a first step, to increase substantially the information on this subject in the Ontario driver's handbook and the written driver's examination, thereby reinforcing the message that alcohol and motor vehicles are a deadly combination. We will be working with the Attorney General's office to develop other means of ensuring that new drivers and those seeking reinstatement following a suspension are fully aware of the human consequences of impaired driving.

These are a few of the actions we are prepared to take to counter the hazard posed by drinking drivers. I am confident they will be a strong first step in this government's commitment to make our roads safer for all our citizens.

ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT LEGISLATION

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Later today I will introduce for first reading An Act to amend the Assessment Act.

The members will be familiar with the purpose of this bill since it has been introduced each year since 1970. As the act stands, if the amendment is not passed, the Ministry of Revenue will be obliged to impose full market value assessment in all municipalities in 1986. In the past, it has been a source of considerable frustration to members because they had no option but to approve it in the absence of more substantive reforms to municipal assessment systems.

On the positive side, the bill will allow us to continue with the market-value-based reassessment program, which has been successfully implemented in 449 municipalities to date. Approximately 25 more municipalities have requested tax impact studies so they can consider the consequences of implementation of the section 63 reassessment program in their municipalities for 1986 taxation. In addition, another 19 municipalities previously reassessed under this program have requested an update to their market value base.

This government is also committed to resolving certain matters affecting assessment, and it is my belief that the procedures can be improved and simplified. In this connection, I want to make two points today which may be of interest to the members.

First, when I assumed my position as Minister of Revenue, I asked my parliamentary assistant, the member for Waterloo North (Mr. Epp), to undertake a review of the assessment program with a view to identifying practical ways in which long-standing questions could be resolved to the satisfaction of municipalities and local taxpayers. I am pleased to table his report for consideration by the members and all interested parties. Copies will be delivered directly to all members as well as to all municipalities and many other interested parties.

David Goyette took a leading role in the consultation, development and writing of this report, and we are grateful to him for his service.

Since the report deals with many issues for which the members will require time for consideration, I shall return to this matter when the estimates of the Ministry of Revenue are considered in this House. I understand they are scheduled to begin on Monday, November 18.

Second, on July 10, 1985, I made a statement in the Legislature with respect to the Ontario Municipal Board decision of June 26 concerning the assessment of 48 Russell Street in the city of Toronto. At that time, I stated that a review of the broad ramifications of this decision would be undertaken and that, based on that review, I would decide whether to proceed with the application for leave to appeal.

The report and recommendations of the member for Waterloo North deal extensively with the assessment of renovations and improvements. I am confident this report, and the discussion and amendments to the Assessment Act that will result from it, will resolve many of the issues that are under consideration in the decision on 48 Russell Street.

10:30 a.m.

I am convinced that the position taken by my ministry before the Ontario Municipal Board was correct with regard to the provisions of the existing legislation. In the light of the changes that will occur with respect to the assessment of renovations and improvements of this report, and with the co-operation of right-thinking members of the House, I do not consider it appropriate to require the individual ratepayer in this case to assume the additional burden of legal costs that he must incur if the test case on the interpretation of the existing legislation at 48 Russell Street is to proceed. I am therefore instructing counsel to withdraw the application for leave to appeal.

ORAL QUESTIONS

REMOVAL OF WINES

Mr. Andrewes: My question is to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations with respect to his statement yesterday on wines.

The minister implied in his statement that testing of products sold by the Liquor Control Board of Ontario could be completed over the weekend. In a subsequent press interview, the chairman of the LCBO suggested testing could go on much longer than that.

For the sake of consumers and many people in this province who are employed in the grape and wine industry, can the minister say what steps he will take to press the LCBO to have these tests completed by Tuesday morning, before the stores open, so any doubt about the safety of those products can be erased?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The testing that will go on this weekend will be directed to those targeted suspect products. In the LCBO we have 2,500 products, many of which have no history of having this substance. The testing will go on immediately. I was in communication with the chairman of the LCBO; he is investigating the securing of very sophisticated equipment, and it will be done with the greatest dispatch possible.

Mr. Andrewes: At that press conference, the minister also said the judicial inquiry, upon completion, will suggest what the inquiry determines to be a safe level for ethyl carbamate. Since ethyl carbamate is found in other, nonalcoholic substances, will the minister tell us whether he will be initiating tests on food products other than those products sold by LCBO stores? Will those results be made public as soon as they are available?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: My officials have been in communication with the Minister of National Health and Welfare in Ottawa; that is in his jurisdiction. He made a statement today that his department will be looking into all food products that are suspect and will be conducting tests.

Mr. Andrewes: On the Canadian Broadcasting Corp. program Metro Morning, the minister suggested today that it appeared neither the deputy minister nor the minister of the day was aware of the problem. It appears that the information was cooped up within the LCBO and that even the chairman of the LCBO was not aware of this information. Can the minister confirm those statements for us in the House today?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: All I can report to the honourable member is what I knew after 10 a.m. on Wednesday. What happened prior to that will be the subject of the judicial inquiry.

ACCESS TO MINISTERS

Mr. Grossman: I have a question of the Premier on the one subject he is not consistently good, friendly and casual about: Liberal fund-raising. We have discussed fund-raising in this Legislature before. It was the Premier himself who often pointed out, and I quote almost directly -- the Minister of Education (Mr. Conway) should let the Premier listen; I will wait until the minister has finished talking to him.

It was the Premier himself -- the Minister of Education should be a ventriloquist.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member said, "My question is," and I am sure we are getting to that.

Mr. Grossman: When he was Leader of the Opposition, the Premier often reminded everyone in this House that it is often the perception that counts in matters such as fund-raising. Those are his own words. I ask him to comment on the clear blurring between his role as leader of the Ontario Liberal Party and his responsibility as Premier. Does he not agree that when a Liberal fund-raising letter goes out, enclosing a memo from the Premier of Ontario to the president of the Ontario Liberal Party --

Some hon. members: Question.

Mr. Grossman: My friends should not get nervous. Does the Premier not agree that this is clear evidence in letters that go out raising money that he is intentionally blurring the distinction between those two responsibilities?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I welcome the honourable member back to the House. I know he is back to try to shore up his flagging campaign, and we all wish him well from this side of the House.

That having been said, I do not agree with the member that there is that kind of blurring. Perhaps he is referring to some of his own conduct; for example, promising to reveal the donations to his leadership campaign the last time but then refusing to make those figures public. Perhaps he is referring to the fact that I am told the leader of his party has $300,000 that has not been declared or that no one knows who is contributing.

If the member feels that way, why does he not come to this House and tell us who contributed to this leadership campaign and his last one? Maybe he can help us out.

Mr. Grossman: I will undertake this morning to release that entire list to this House the next time I am here, sitting over there, on condition --

An hon. member: When will that be?

Mr. Grossman: I will tell my friend when that will be. I will release that list the very day the Premier agrees to release the list of everyone who got a copy of a memo from the Premier of Ontario, asking them to donate money to the Liberal Economic Advisory Forum.

Mr. Foulds: It is the same group.

Mr. Grossman: I will wait until the other coach finishes.

Mr. Breaugh: They belong to the 500 Club.

Mr. Grossman: This is like Claire Alexander and John Brophy; they keep changing the assistant coach here.

Mr. Speaker: By way of supplementary, please.

Mr. Grossman: Is he willing to release the list of everyone who got a copy of a memo from the Premier of Ontario on the day I release the list of those who have donated to my campaign?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I have no idea how many got copies, but obviously hundreds were on that list --

Mr. Grossman: Will the Premier release the list?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am not going to give him our mailing list, but let me say what I will do --

Mr. Grossman: The answer is no.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: No. Information concerning every single penny this party raised will be shared and open to scrutiny. My friend will find that a lot of people who used to support him are now coming to us since we have such a fine government. They are impressed with the kind of government we are running; it is open and accountable. They do not come to us for favours.

Many of them come to me. It is interesting; someone came to me the other day and said after some conversation with the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon): "I really like that Treasurer you have. We come to him, and he does not ask for anything. He puts it straight on the table. We really like the kind of approach to government you people have." That is indicated in the support that is forthcoming, and I am delighted to have that support, from a wide cross-section right across our country.

Perhaps the member has specific ideas on election expenses reform. I know he has had troubles in the past. He has been one of the highest spenders, he and Gordon Walker. We know the member has been embarrassed about that in the past. However, if the member has ideas on how we can reform the Election Finances Reform Act, I will be delighted to participate in that because the Treasurer is working on that.

Mr. Martel: What about the Attorney General? He was no piker at $115,000.

Mr. Davis: How is the Attorney General spending it?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

10:40 a.m.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I think the member personally has a tough time standing up in this House when he violated his own rules about letting it go public --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Rae: I hope those two do publish their lists because then it will become clear it is the same people on both lists. That will be of great interest to the entire public.

I would like to ask the Premier about this disaster called LEAF that he has launched, which all of us would agree is a terrible political mistake and leaves a terrible impression about how government intends to act and to raise money.

Will the Premier not now simply announce that LEAF is being disbanded, that there is going to be no exclusive economic forum which depends on whether people contribute to the Liberal Party, and that the Treasurer will not be having special meetings with people who are there simply because they have given $1,000 to the Liberal Party? Will he not simply disband that group, admit it was a mistake and kiss that mistake goodbye? There is nothing wrong with admitting a mistake; we have all made them. Some of us have made them more often than others. Why does he not do that here today?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The honourable member knows a number of fund-raising techniques are employed by various parties. I stand before him confidently when I say there is no suggestion that anyone has any special influence with this government.

However, let me respond with respect to the perception. The member will be aware his party raised the cynicism of some by sending out a "taxation notice" to everybody in the province. An important letter arrives saying "taxation notice," and when one opens it, it is the New Democratic Party asking for funds. One had the impression the Department of National Revenue would descend wholesale on anyone who did not contribute to the NDP.

The member may have the view that created a misperception in the public. Perhaps we have to put the best minds of this House together to avoid that kind of perception. If he has ideas, I would be delighted if he would participate. We do need election expenses reform to avoid that kind of perception. However, I can assure the member nothing like that exists in this government.

Mr. Grossman: The Premier can give all the long, blurring speeches he wishes, but the question we are driving at is a blurring of the distinction between the Premier's office and Liberal fund-raising. His response to the leader of the NDP criticized the NDP for raising funds for political purposes. They made it clear it was for their party. His response to us talked about moneys raised for our leadership campaign by people raising money on our leadership stationery.

The point of the questions this morning, which I want to come back to, is the blurring of the distinction that comes when one uses a letterhead from the Premier of Ontario, not from Don Smith, and when the memorandum from the Premier to the Ontario Liberal Party does not say, "I want to raise money, Don," but says, "I want to hear what key Ontario business leaders have to say." It does not say, "Don, let us raise money by inviting people to meet us if they pay some money." It says, "I want to hear what key Ontario business leaders have to say." That was the whole point of the memo.

Mr. Speaker: Is the question, "Do you agree?"

Mr. Grossman: My question to the Premier is very clear: Does he not now agree that it would be appropriate to stand up like a man in this House and say that those words and this memo were inappropriately found in Don Smith's memo to his mailing list?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: In this party, we do like to hear what business has to say. Interestingly, yesterday morning the Treasurer, the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) and I met with the Ontario Business Advisory Council. There were 75 senior executives of businesses in this province and they were very helpful to us in giving us their advice. We all had an interesting breakfast yesterday and they very much enjoyed the straightforward, thoughtful Treasurer we now have in this province.

With respect to the member's question, he should have been here a couple of months ago when this was first raised. We did say if there was an untoward suggestion in that, the second letter completely cleared up any misperceptions someone with a devious mind like the member's might read into a suggestion like that.

I guess it depends on the approach one has. With a wholesome approach, a person would not have the kind of cynicism the member has manifested in this case. The people who support us do not suspect anything backhand, but this may be different from his perception of the kind of role they have.

Mr. Gregory: They expect nothing and that is what they are going to get.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: When the member has the kind of accusations that have been made against his campaign, about bartering off federal appointments in order to support him, those are the kinds of things that do create cynicism. I think he may want to look at his own house before he starts casting aspersions.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

ST. CLAIR RIVER

Mr. Rae: My question is to the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley). It concerns the St. Clair River cleanup. I am referring to the cleanup not only of the river basin but also to the cleanup in his ministry.

I would like to ask the minister to explain how his Sarnia staff, in discussing the situation with my researcher on Tuesday, made the categorical statement that they could not understand all the fuss about the possibility of liquid waste leaking from the deep wells because there had never been hazardous waste go into the deep wells. The only evidence was of brine.

How could they have conceivably made that statement when I have here an October 1983 study for Environment Canada which starts with the clear statement that, "The use of deep-injection wells for the disposal of liquid industrial waste was common in southwestern Ontario from 1958 to 1975"? There were 16 wells used. Over 2.3 billion gallons of liquid industrial waste was disposed of during the 17-year period.

How could they have made that statement on Tuesday and how can the minister sit in this House, day after day, saying he has the situation in hand when the people in charge of the situation in Sarnia are spreading this kind of misinformation with respect to what is going on down in that area?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I will tell the leader of the third party that I am in charge of this situation, not anyone else. I am the person who must ultimately answer in the House. I am the person who will give the direction from the top as to what will be going on. Ministry officials who are in my office are making decisions in this regard and assisting. I cannot verify or not verify what the leader of the third party has to say about what anyone in the field happened to say, but he will not get an answer from me in this House that indeed that is the case.

I am well aware of what is in those wells. I have expressed in this House very clearly my concern about the possibility that the pressure wells might be finding fissures under the river and that substances might be coming up under the river. I have always included that as one of the possibilities. So I say to the member I am fully aware of that.

If that information is provided to him, I cannot verify it, but I can tell the member in the House that the materials in there, and I could list them for some time but the Speaker likely would not let me, are wastes that would concern anyone. The member and I both know what those materials are.

10:50 a.m.

Mr. Rae: The minister is responsible in this House for his ministry. I say to him there is not just one cleanup that has to take place; there are two. There is a cleanup at the bottom of the river, a cleanup of the wells in the cavern, and there is a cleanup of the ministry itself. I hope the minister understands that because it is becoming very clear to the rest of Ontario that is part of the problem and it is a part the minister has to solve. That is his responsibility and his responsibility to this House.

A criminal investigation has been under way for a year. It is an ongoing investigation which I understand is still under way as of this day. Would the minister explain how the public can have confidence in the statements and judgement calls that are being made every day by his ministry staff when those same people are under constant surveillance and investigation by the Ontario Provincial Police?

In the name of the administration of the Environmental Protection Act and of protecting people whose health and welfare depends on their confidence in the ministry and in government, why have those people not at least been moved from the Sarnia office to some other location while that investigation is under way?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Both as an individual in this House and as a minister, I am not prepared to declare someone guilty when at this time no charges have been laid. It would seem to me that moving any individual out of any office, especially when there is a discussion of OPP investigations, would clearly indicate I was passing judgement very quickly and being the judge and jury in this case.

I assure the member, as I have in the past, that I as the minister am giving the overall direction in this case. Top ministry officials, including the relevant assistant deputy ministers, are involved in the operations that are going on down there. The London office is involved, as well as the head office in the area; there are a number of people involved. I am aware of what is going on and I am giving direction.

I know the member is not always going to be pleased with the answers he may receive from individuals. I am not always pleased with the answers, but I assure the member that this minister is fully aware of what is going on, is giving the appropriate direction and taking the action which will result in a cleanup of this area. As I have already indicated to the member, we are expanding our efforts in that office and making the necessary changes on an ongoing basis.

Mr. Brandt: I am pleased to hear the minister say he is in charge; we now have identified for the first time who is the Alexander Haig in the Liberal Party and I am pleased to hear that.

The leader of the third party has raised some concerns with respect to the staff in the Sarnia area. Also, for the last number of days he has been developing a level of panic that the minister should be concerned about with respect to this whole issue.

Yesterday, in the federal House, as the minister will know, his federal counterpart indicated it was a matter for concern; it was a matter for some very sensitive application of the technology to correct the problem, but it was not a matter for panic.

Since this issue has developed to such a high level of interest, would the minister at the earliest opportunity indicate when the all-clear signal is back with respect to the environmental status of that area? As well, would he remove, as I have asked him to do on so many occasions, this web of concern that is being wrapped around the very capable and responsible staff that represents his ministry in that area? If there are guilty parties --

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member has already asked at least two or three questions.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: First, I will answer the comment about Alexander Haig by saying it is unfortunate there was not an Alexander Haig in charge of that area for the last 25 years.

I would not have said that if the member had not provoked me, Mr. Speaker.

In terms of the all-clear signal that the member wants to give, I cannot give such a signal until I am satisfied that all of the materials there have been cleaned up, there is no potential threat to any drinking water or recreational water, and until such time as I am satisfied that any potential contributors to the pollution of that area have ceased their pollution. At that time, I can give the all-clear signal.

While I am not sending out signals of alarm, I am sending out signals of concern. The evidence forthcoming each day as we do our investigation confirms there is a need for concern. That is why, over the last several days, I have taken the action I decided to take.

Mr. Rae: If the minister is in charge, if he is the person making all the decisions and he has a complete handle on his ministry, I would like to ask him a simple, straightforward question. Can the minister stand up in this House today and tell us he has complete confidence in the judgement that has been exercised by his staff, particularly his ministry staff in the Sarnia office? Does he have complete confidence in those individuals? Is he satisfied with the information they have passed on to him and to the public? If he is not satisfied, what does he intend to do about it?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I am confident and satisfied with the information I have available through various sources, including my ministry staff in that area. I feel the appropriate action is being taken at my direction. Down the line, even the leader of the third party will recognize that the activities my ministry has undertaken in this area will be positive and will bring about the results I discussed earlier in this House.

FREE TRADE

Mr. Rae: I have a question for the Premier with respect to free trade. The Premier will be aware of the report of the select committee on economic affairs and the division of opinion on that committee. He will be aware of the discussions that have taken place in Ottawa and the statements that have been made not only in the House but also in certain reports which have been leaked to Maclean's magazine and other publications with respect to what is going to be on the table in negotiations and what is not.

It seems very clear from what has been said in Ottawa by Secretary of State for External Affairs Mr. Clark that cultural institutions are going to be on the table and will be part of the discussions. The members on the select committee have said the Premier can veto what is going to happen in these discussions. I would like to know what the Premier is doing to ensure that cultural institutions will not be negotiated away at the bargaining table by our federal negotiators.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: At present the apparatus has not been assembled as to how to approach those talks if they do develop. It is very hard to answer the question in the absence of more knowledge or direction from the federal government, which has carriage of this matter.

I have not been at all happy with the way this thing has developed in Ottawa. There should have been far more attention directed to building some kind of national consensus on this issue. It is still in a very amorphous state.

Like the member, I too am concerned when I read of secret strategies to suppress information, to try to put a public relations gloss on the discussion as opposed to involving every Canadian. The honourable member would agree that this is an important discussion and any agreement will have ramifications in our country as important as any in our history. It is not only an economic question, as the member says; it goes to the very heart and soul of our nation.

It is my view we should not be bartering away our cultural agencies. That position has been put very forcefully to the federal government. It will be put again at the first ministers' conference taking place in about three weeks. I remind the member, however, that I do not have the power to say what will happen at this point. He can count on a consistently strong voice from this province representing our views. We hope the federal government will take our views into account.

11 a.m.

Mr. Rae: With great respect to the Premier, he has a rather stronger bargaining position than he is giving himself credit for. When Prime Minister Mulroney phoned him some time ago and said he was going to proceed, if the Premier of this province had said, "You will proceed at your peril; Ontario is opposed to your proceeding until such time as we know precisely what is going on," I think that might have affected events. The fact that the Premier has consistently pulled his punches when faced with difficult decisions about free trade has helped to create the problem. That has helped to create the momentum in terms of the negotiations.

With respect to these institutions that are so crucial, not only for our cultural identity but also for this province's economy -- publishing, communications, the theatre, the whole range of our cultural industries -- I would like to ask the Premier whether he is prepared to stand up today in this House and say to the Prime Minister of Canada, "If those items are on the negotiating table in the discussions, Ontario will oppose Canada's participation in those talks."

Hon. Mr. Peterson: At this point, no one knows what is on the table from either side. My position on this matter has been very strong. Let me present the other side of this. Suppose these discussions go along without any provincial involvement. If Ontario does as the member suggests and stands on the side and shouts at people, the discussions could proceed anyway. That is a constitutional reality. Our view is that, with the Prime Minister having made the decision he did, at least we will be there, forcefully putting forward our point of view. I disagree with how it was done; it was premature and we should have done far more to create a national consensus.

The views we have carried are shared even by some of the member's colleagues, who now wish they had taken the strong views we did. The member's colleagues in Manitoba tend to be more in favour of the whole discussion than we are. What they have to do is to be more consistent in the view their party presents on this matter.

I believe we have been strong. Everybody acknowledges that we have put forward the most substantive case on behalf of protecting people in Ontario, not only in the cultural area -- an important one, I agree -- but also in the automotive, agricultural and other areas as well. When the other Premiers start looking at this question and at their exclusions, who knows where this thing is going to go? To stand on the sidelines and shout, "Do not talk," is not appropriate at this point, given the circumstances.

Mr. Grossman: The members on this side of the House, and I include all of them, do not require a lecture from the leader of the government about being consistent on free trade. The Premier was opposed to free trade discussions when he first came into office. Then he went to the Premiers' conference and had "the right questions." Then he seemed to be in favour of freer trade. Then he went to Washington, was intimidated, came back and again appeared to be against freer trade discussions.

Speaking of consistency, let me invite the Premier --

Mr. Speaker: By way of a question.

Mr. Grossman: -- to tell us, first, whether he agrees in substance with the Prime Minister's having discussions; second, whether those discussions should include cultural industries -- that is a "yes" or "no" one -- and, third, specifically what work has been done by the government on the cultural industries question.

Mr. Speaker: The Premier. The question was asked.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Breaugh: It is only three.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: How many questions was that?

An hon. member: One answer will do.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The member is not doing his homework. I have difficulty understanding his position. He has talked about sectoral free trade --

Mr. Grossman: The question is the Premier's position. Let us hear that.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The member's problem is he thinks --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The members are not interested. Final supplementary.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Let me answer, Mr. Speaker, because --

Mr. Speaker: Order. The members were not willing to listen. Final supplementary, the member for Oakwood.

Mr. Grande: The Premier, of course, knows --

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Ring the bells all week.

Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: With respect, you are suggesting that the members on this side are not interested in hearing the answer. That treats unfairly the members of the opposition who are here to hear one answer. We will settle for one out of three. The Premier does not want to answer the question. He wants to talk about the Conservatives

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Sit down.

Mr. Gillies: We would take an answer to anything from over there.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a point of privilege. I was trying to get order and I could not get order. The only other choice I have is to recess the House if I cannot get order, which I did not do.

Mr. Grande: The Premier, of course, knows his members on the committee supported the Mulroney initiative in this regard. But let me be specific with respect to the book publishing industry.

The Premier knows Ontario has levers here instead of following slavishly what the federal government is doing in selling off our industries, or giving up our cultural industries. The Premier knows, and I would like some clarification on this, that Prentice-Hall is going to move out of Ontario. Will he make a commitment right now that this government will not buy from Prentice-Hall or the school boards will not buy from Prentice-Hall all of the books and educational material on Circular 14? The economic handle is there for Ontario to say it will not allow Prentice-Hall to sell those books in --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: In response, the member raises a very good question. The issue of the Gulf and Western takeover concerns me greatly. We are very much opposed to that. We have taken a very strong stand with respect to keeping our book-publishing industry here in Ontario. There are many discussions going on now about our role vis-à-vis the federal role, but we are very keen on keeping that particular company here in Ontario and others that have some problems, as the member may be aware. I can assure him we are very much at one on that issue and we are doing everything we can to keep that company in Canadian hands.

TAX REVENUES

Mr. McCague: Every time I rise for a question, the Treasurer walks away. I would like to ask him a question and I will make it short. It will just require one answer, and I hope I will get one.

In view of the fact the Treasurer has now confirmed our suspicions that he underestimated the revenues flowing from provincial income tax, would he please explain to this House just what the extent of that is?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The underestimation, if that is what it was, is really based on the adjustments made by the federal government in our share of personal income tax. I believe the increase is a measure of the increased economic activity, that is, the increased share of taxes paid by the province. There is not an underestimation.

It is nice to know, however, that the buoyancy in the community is such that the taxes payable are greater than was estimated by the government of Canada and by the Treasurer of Ontario. It is all reported in the books of the province and will be on a continuing basis.

Mr. McCague: I do not want to say the Treasurer is misleading the House, but I do not think he is stating the facts quite as they are. I hope that if I get removed from the House, he comes with me and we will chat about this for a couple of hours, get it figured out and get the facts.

It has been speculated by this party, by the third party and by the press that the Treasurer underestimated the revenues flowing because of the federal government's increase in income tax, which he knew about. I asked him about this on several occasions and he has denied it up until this point. Now he has come, cap in hand, admitting we were right.

Will he tell me the extent of whatever it is he is going to get from the federal government, a figure he or his officials should have known prior to his setting out the budget for it?

11:10 a.m.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The honourable member may huff and puff and try to inflate this into some sort of issue. I really have never, at any moment, indicated to anyone that any information that was available to me would not be fully available to the House on this matter. I am not prepared to say anything more than I said yesterday on this matter, namely, that a report came to me, even as I was sitting here. I wondered how the member got it. He said he read it in the paper. That is fine.

As far as we are concerned, it will be approximately $50 million. I will provide a full report of that whenever the member wants it. I do not have it here. I do not know any more about it than that and that is a fact. I hope the member is not going to indicate I am not being factual.

Mr. McCague: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Certainly there is something here --

Mr. Speaker: Under what section of the standing orders is the point of order?

Mr. McCague: Under page 1535 of Hansard.

Mr. Speaker: If the member cannot give me the standing order, the member for Windsor-Riverside on a new question.

ASSISTIVE DEVICES PROGRAM

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I have a question for the Minister of Health. He will be aware that the assistive devices program has been in place in Ontario for people 18 years old and under for several years. The minister will be aware that the program has been assessed and that on May 1, 1984, the then Liberal Health critic, Sheila Copps, went on record calling for immediate extension. On October 11, 1984, the then Liberal Health critic, the member for Kitchener-Wilmot (Mr. Sweeney), called for immediate extension. Does the minister support the position taken by the those Health critics?

Hon. Mr. Elston: We are working very hard at putting together a program to expand the operation of the assistive devices. The member will be aware that the usage of the assistive devices program for people under 18 has been quite successful. I am encouraging development of the program so we can extend its application.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: The answer sounds like those we used to get from Tory health ministers. What do I say to a 71-year-old widow who lives on old age pension and cannot afford her ostomy supplies, or a 53-year-old paraplegic who is living on the Canada pension and cannot afford supplies that are necessary? What do I say to these individuals? Why is the minister -- and the Premier (Mr. Peterson) is doing the same thing -- sending out a letter that simply says the program needs to be reviewed? The reviews have been completed. When is the government going to extend the program to adults in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Elston: The member is bringing forward some real and justifiable concerns in the community. We are working at putting together responses. One of the difficulties we have had with respect to the assistive devices program, as with others, is that we are forced to pay for some programs which the former government was not able to put in the estimates. We are working now on putting together ways in which we can realistically extend these programs to assist in those social problems which are well pointed out by this member. We are working at it and will be moving ahead with that program very shortly.

DRINKING AND DRIVING

Mr. Gregory: I have a question for the Attorney General in connection with his statement this morning on automatic suspensions for drinking and driving. We agree with the direction he is taking on this matter -- drinking and driving are a menace and should face harsh penalties -- but we have some difficulties in reconciling this with the same government's approach to making beer and wine more readily available through corner stores.

What steps has the Attorney General taken to assure himself, his cabinet and the public that the new liquor policy will not negate whatever good his drunk-driving initiative achieves?

Hon. Mr. Scott: I thank the honourable member for the question. As he will know from previous answers, the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Kwinter) is reviewing the program the member has described. He will be delighted to know that one of the leadership candidates for the Conservative party now appears to be in support of it.

In due course a statement will be made. The important question to be determined, about which there currently is limited information, is whether the availability of beer and wine has any impact on driving.

Mr. Leluk: It does.

Hon. Mr. Scott: The honourable member says it does, but he does not know. He is just saying it. It is important not to say things one does not know.

In this connection, I would point out that the only study that has been done on this subject, which may or may not be definitive, illustrates that precisely the reverse is true. That is the federal study I referred to in an earlier question.

Mr. Gregory: The Attorney General has received much advice, I gather, from Mr. Bates as well. He must be aware that our party has had a task force on this matter and it raised a number of legitimate and reasonable concerns about the beer-and-wine plan. Does the Attorney General agree to take into full consideration those concerns before approving any change in the procedures for selling beer and wine?

Hon. Mr. Scott: The minister is responsible for reviewing the matter. I would be delighted to receive representations from anybody on any subject. That is the way we have been trying to run this government.

To be fair, if the Conservative Party has a task force that is preparing submissions or recommendations, we would be delighted to have them and seriously to consider them. That is a part of our job. We look forward to that kind of help.

Mr. Rae: I want to ask a very direct question of the Attorney General. Does he seriously believe himself and does he expect anybody in this province to believe that making beer and wine available in corner stores, every corner store in the province, will not increase the consumption of alcohol by minors, will not increase the consumption of alcohol overall and will not lead to problems in the very area which he today says he is trying to clear up?

Hon. Mr. Scott: It is not a question of belief; it is not a theological question. It is a question of fact. As the member will know, in the one province in the country that has made this change, the fact is, and it may not be duplicated here or elsewhere, that not only is there no connection between one and the other, but also the connection, if any, suggests there is a reduction.

I am not interested in beliefs; I am interested in facts. The minister who will be considering the policy is going to deal in facts.

INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER

Mr. Mackenzie: I have a question of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. The minister is aware that American-owned International Harvester has decided to phase out production of the Cargostar truck in Chatham in favour of importing a new line of trucks from Nissan diesel in Japan. That decision, when implemented by mid-1986, is going to cost between 200 and 300 jobs in Chatham. Can the minister explain what he is doing to prevent the shutdown of that production?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: I would like to thank the member for his question and concern. I would like to advise that we had been made aware of the problem that exists there and that the members in the area also have concern for what is happening there. I can say it is under advisement by my ministry. We will do everything we can to make sure the jobs are preserved.

Mr. Mackenzie: "Under advisement" sounds like an excuse for doing nothing.

Given the company's assurance to the union that Cargostar production would be maintained as long as there were orders for the trucks, can the minister explain why International Harvester's head office is not making a bid, or has refused to make a bid, on a South Korean contract for 2,000 trucks, which could keep production going in Chatham until 1987?

11:20 a.m.

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: This ministry is doing a lot in this province. The member should be one of the first who should be aware of the great job we are doing, some of it in his own riding. Do not come at us with something like that. Does the member want me to read the statistics of what this ministry has done in the past three or four months for jobs in the province? If he will be kind enough to provide to me some of the information he has, I will be very pleased to look into it.

When the member starts to criticize this government or this ministry and when he looks at the statistics that have happened in this province, let me quote to him that, in this province, our unemployment rate is one per cent less this month than it was a year ago; there are 40,000 fewer people who are unemployed; between October 1984 and October 1985 there was an increase of 130,000 jobs, and 29,000 of those jobs were in Ontario.

Mr. Gillies: The minister has not answered the question directed to him by the member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie) about one specific industry. If his verbiage could employ people, the unemployment rate would be a heck of a lot lower than it is.

Since the minister took office, White Farm Manufacturing has gone and Massey-Ferguson is laying off. is he now telling the member for Hamilton East, the rest of the members of this House and me that he is going to sit back and do nothing about International Harvester?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: Let me refer to the honourable member's question because it is the second he has had this week. I remind him that when he talks about his area, he was the member there and it was his government that did nothing about it for 42 years. It was partly his fault that nothing happened there.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Gillies: On a very brief point of privilege --

Mr. Speaker: What is the point of privilege?

Mr. Gillies: The point of privilege is that if the minister's only reply to the members' questions is to hurl insults and accusations at members of the opposition --

Hon. Mr. Nixon: That is not fair.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. First, I wish members would realize what a point of privilege is compared to a point of order. I realize the honourable member is trying to bring up a point of order, suggesting that another member has used insulting and abusive language or made allegations. I listened very carefully. He got up on a point of privilege, and he has no point of privilege.

NATURAL GAS PRICING

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: On November 1, the member for Wetland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) questioned me on one of the areas in which cabinet can influence natural gas pricing. I am referring to the petition to cabinet by the New Democratic Party caucus against prices allowed by the Ontario Energy Board to Consumers' Gas. The petition has been filed with the clerk of the executive council, and cabinet will make a decision after all the parties to the OEB hearing have had the opportunity to respond to the petition.

Mr. Swart: Does the minister, as Minister of Energy, not have an opinion to express before this House with regard to the tremendous excess income that has been awarded to Consumers' Gas?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: The Ontario Energy Board Act provides that the Lieutenant Governor in Council may confirm or rescind the board's decision in whole or in part, or require the board to have another hearing. On that basis, I have to defer to the involvement I would have at the cabinet level and not say anything until that has been heard and then referred to this House.

FRENCH-LANGUAGE EDUCATION

Mr. Guindon: My question is directed to the Minister of Education. When will the minister be introducing his promised new legislation on governance of French-language schools?

Hon. Mr. Conway: I hope to be introducing the new legislation on minority-language governance for education some time later this fall.

Mr. Guindon: Since in many school boards throughout this province, such as in Prescott-Russell, the francophone student population and the Roman Catholic student population are virtually one and the same, will the legislation clearly spell out the relationship between the governance of French-language schools and the extension of full funding to Roman Catholic separate schools?

Hon. Mr. Conway: We are working very diligently with the francophone community and with others in the educational community to develop the best possible minority-language governance legislation, having regard to the very legitimate concerns expressed on virtually all sides about the previous legislation introduced in this Legislature earlier this year.

We will be paying very careful attention to the relationship between separate school extension and minority-language governance. We expect to have legislation that will very adequately address the very real concerns that have developed in this area.

REMUNERATION PACKAGE

Mr. Foulds: I have a question for the Minister of Transportation and Communications.

Can the minister confirm that the board of directors of the Urban Transportation Development Corp. and the cabinet violated the pay-increase guidelines of the previous government by paying Kirk Foley, as president of UTDC, an under-the-table bonus of $25,000? Can he also confirm that Mr. Foley's total remuneration as of March 1985 was in excess of $200,000?

Does the minister not feel the same sense of outrage about this as I do when Mr. Foley can go to the workers in Kingston and Can-Car and tell them they have to tighten their belts to keep the company viable?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: The honourable member is somewhat inaccurate about the total remuneration package paid to Mr. Foley. I remind the member that UTDC is an arm's-length corporation under a separate act and apparently was not within the guidelines in effect at the time. There are three separate components to his remuneration: his salary, a deferred compensation plan put into place some time ago, and a bonus system, which I understand was incorporated in 1984.

Mr. Foulds: Does the minister not think it is about time the so-called arm's-length relationship was ended, when we have such a violation of what seems to be the government's policy with regard to pay increases and what seems to be an exorbitant remuneration package?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: I remind the member that the remuneration package is not this government's package. However, I have met with the chairman of the board of UTDC as recently as Tuesday this week, and I will be reviewing the matter with the full board at a meeting before the end of this month.

INSECT INFESTATION

Mr. Pollock: I have a question for the Minister of Natural Resources. His ministry has committed $5 million to fight gypsy moth infestation in eastern Ontario. Will he explain to this House how he is going to spend that money?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Our program is now being evolved as to how we are going to deal with the budworm infestation in north-central and northwestern Ontario and the spraying relating to the gypsy moth in eastern Ontario. We have a very precise schedule, and we have to get it going well before the time of spraying simply because we have to order the sprays, get the aircraft lined up and do all the other things necessary to carry out a meaningful spraying program. We also have a great problem as to what kind of herbicides or pesticides we are going to be able to use.

It is a very difficult task we have before us. However, we are committed to a spraying program. We are going to do everything we can to protect the forests of Ontario and, more appropriately, those parts of the province, such as eastern Ontario, that have hardwood, tourism and cottages aspects. The plan is under way and will be unfolded as quickly as we have a determination of how much money we have at our disposal and how we are going to address the problem properly.

11:30 a.m.

Mr. Pollock: Is the minister going to subsidize spraying by private land owners? I have municipalities that want to know.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: We have a very difficult task as it relates to spraying on private land. Our legal division is attempting to sort that out. We are going to do something if we can. It may not be a direct subsidy or help in that fashion; it may more properly be something we can do at arm's length so we do not put ourselves in a position of liability with respect to private land owners. Up to this point, the responsibility on private land is placed on its owners, unless we can devise a method whereby we can be helpful.

Mr. Speaker: The time for oral questions has expired.

ROLE OF SPEAKER

Mr. Harris: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order or privilege, whichever you feel is appropriate. Members on this side of the House were very disturbed by your comments that indicated members are not interested in hearing an answer.

I ask you, with a great deal of respect, to contemplate whether that is the appropriate way for a Speaker to cut off an answer. I suggest you look at it carefully and make sure. I do not think you intended it, but for the record it appears as though you have imputed what members are interested in doing or not doing. We are very interested in hearing answers in this House.

If you put yourself in a position of trying to make a judgement, one of those might be that members in this House are not interested in the garbage coming from over there. That could have been just as easy.

An hon. member: Or the non-answers.

Mr. Harris: Yes, and the consistent non-answers. In suggesting we were not interested in hearing an answer, you could have just as easily imputed some of the other things that exist. I ask you to look at the wording and to be very careful. I understand you have a problem when this House gets rowdy. I suggest the reason it did was not that we did not want to hear an answer; it was that we were not getting one. I ask you to look carefully at how you will be dealing with this in the future.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, before you respond, I want to note that I have some sympathy with the comment the honourable member has made, except that Mr. Speaker and his predecessors, going back certainly three or four generations of Speakers, have often used the phrase when the opposition -- and believe me, I was a part of it for a long time and may be again -- got so loud that nobody could hear what was going on. The Speaker might use other words, but honestly it is sort of a tradition that Mr. Speaker says, "Since the members are not interested in the response, we will go on to the next question." Frankly, it has been pretty effective in the past; we found it so.

I do not want to make a judgement. I simply want to point out to you, Mr. Speaker, that in my opinion, your criticisms directed to this side and criticisms of that side sometimes sting a bit, but that is what you are there for. Question period is not an easy thing to run, and frankly, I think you are running it well, as long as everybody remembers that the rules allow cabinet ministers to answer as they see fit or not to answer. If their answers are inadequate the opposition can point out their inadequacies, and objective observers can reach their conclusions.

However, I do not think we ought to be picking away at Mr. Speaker, who has been getting through these hours reasonably well, with more members having a chance to ask questions. I am not here to defend either myself or my colleagues. We are doing the best we can; sometimes it is a little difficult. However, Mr. Speaker is doing a good job.

Mr. McClellan: I want to say a word on this matter too, Mr. Speaker. On behalf of my colleagues, I want to say quite frankly that we appreciate the way you have been trying to move the questions along so it is apparent that question period belongs to all the members of this House and not just to the leaders of the parties. That is an important point. We had 60 minutes of questions today in which we had a rotation that extended to only two ordinary members after the leaders had used up the bulk of the question time.

The incident raised by my colleague the opposition House leader was seen by me as follows: the acting Leader of the Opposition and the Premier were both on their feet simultaneously shouting at each other when you intervened and moved it along to another questioner, who happened to be a member who sits in the second row.

It is important that you continue to try to make sure the time is allocated equally among all the members and not simply among the leaders, and that when there are these kinds of disruptions you move along as you did today.

Mr. Speaker: I thank the members for their comments. I hope when I said the members are not interested in hearing the response I was referring to all members.

Because you are up on a point of order -- I guess we can call it that -- I would like to refer you to standing order 23(b), which definitely says, "When a member is speaking, no other member shall interrupt him, except on a question of order."

It is most difficult on many occasions to uphold that standing order, and the Speaker really has only the choice of standing and cutting off all the microphones; but that does not cut off the interjections from your ears. The only other choice the Speaker has is to recess if these standing orders are not upheld.

I will certainly look at it, and I hope have not offended any of the members. By saying that I felt I was referring to all members of the House.

PETITIONS

ANNUAL REPORT, MINISTRY OF LABOUR, 1984-85

Mr. Speaker: I wish to advise the House that a petition was tabled today; it reads:

"We, the undersigned members of the Legislative Assembly, hereby petition that the 1984-85 annual report of the Ministry of Labour be referred to the standing committee on resources development pursuant to article 33(b) of the standing orders of the assembly."

I inform the members that this has been received and will be referred to the standing committee on resources development.

ROMAN CATHOLIC SECONDARY SCHOOLS

Mr. Morin-Strom: I have a petition from students of Mount St. Joseph College in Sault Ste. Marie.

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

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

"That Catholic schools have maintained an impressive record throughout a history of adverse conditions. All we request when we insist on our right to public funding is a chance to fulfil our potential."

This petition has been signed by 676 persons in my riding of Sault Ste. Marie.

MOTION

REFERRAL OF BILL 7

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved that the order for Bill 7, An Act to amend certain Ontario Statutes to conform to section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, to be considered by committee of the whole House be discharged and the bill be referred to the standing committee on administration of justice.

Motion agreed to.

11:40 a.m.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THIRD READINGS

The following bills were given third reading on motion:

Bill 8, An Act to amend certain Ontario Statutes to conform to section 6 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Bill 14, An Act respecting the Enforcement of Support and Custody Orders.

Bill 27, An Act to amend the Municipal Elections Act.

SECOND READINGS

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Although these bills are listed, as they come forward it may possibly be that the members associated with the private bills have not noticed they have a special responsibility in this regard, since this is the first occasion the House has had to do this. I draw to the attention of the members in the various parties that if the individual member is absent it is quite in order for the House leader or any other member of that party, or for that matter any member, to get up and move the bill.

FAMEE FURLANE OF HAMILTON ACT

Mr. Jackson moved second reading of Bill Pr1, An Act to revive Famee Furlane of Hamilton.

Motion agreed to.