The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

SENIORS GAMES

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): I'd like to share some information with this House about an event that Mrs Margaret Marland, the member for Mississauga South, and I attended very recently. It had to do with the official opening of the Mississauga Seniors Games, which was held in Mississauga recently to celebrate Actifest, a senior citizens program in Mississauga. They participate in Actifest every two years. The purpose is to select winners who will participate in the Ontario Seniors Games, which will be held in Hamilton from August 24 to 26 this year.

Those opening ceremonies were held on April 23. I want to personally congratulate our chairman this year, Mrs Gwen Wilson, and particularly some of the wonderful senior citizens in our community, like Lucy Turnbull, Billie Cournoyer and Olga Tyne. These are ladies who really have a history in our community of being involved in these games and in other activities at the Cawthra Senior Citizens Centre. But we have a very special senior citizen who who gets angry every time I refer to her as the honorary chair of the seniors games, and that of course is our mayor, Hazel McCallion.

There are many activities, everything from darts to table tennis to cribbage to 10-pin bowling and walking -- wonderful activities. I would like to congratulate everyone involved and invite you all to come out and enjoy the festivities.

ART GALLERY OF ONTARIO

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): In the midst of disheartening strikes in the broader public sector and demands for wage increases that are greater than the rate of inflation, we have one group of employees who have set a remarkable example by agreeing to sacrifice 20% of their wages and work a four-day week in order to preserve jobs.

I speak of course of the full-time staff at the Art Gallery of Ontario, who are to be commended for being part of the solution to AGO's serious financial crisis. As their union president, Sharon McGill, said, "The determination and solidarity of gallery staff in the face of this crisis is nothing short of remarkable."

Even with the employees' wage cut, a temporary measure until AGO receives notice from the province of the amount of its operating grant, the gallery will have to lay off staff if it does not receive a funding increase. AGO is running an operating deficit of $4.5 million.

The NDP government must accept responsibility for some of AGO's financial woes. In 1990 the gallery went through a pay equity exercise as required by provincial law. Employees in AGO's female-dominated job classes received pay equity adjustments averaging 25%. However, while AGO received onetime assistance last spring towards the huge costs of pay equity, the NDP government did not increase the AGO's base operating grant to cover the permanent increase in salary costs.

Clearly the provincial government cannot continue to mandate programs like pay equity in the broader public sector without adequate provincial funding.

VOLUNTEERS

Mr David Winninger (London South): I rise in the House today to recognize the difference each one of us can make to contribute to positive change in the world.

This past Sunday, more than 40 volunteers were recognized for helping the lives of others at Parkwood Hospital in my riding of London South. Awards were given at this celebration of volunteers, marking the beginning of National Volunteer Week. The London and Area Association of Volunteer Administration, Volunteer London and the London Free Press presented plaques to five individuals acknowledging their special volunteer efforts.

Jackie Emerson coordinates a program to train volunteer tutors of physically challenged adults. Frank Keasey, who volunteers at Fanshawe Pioneer Village, is president and regional director of the Canadian Diabetes Association. Alice Lewis volunteers at the Memorial Boys' and Girls' Club. Anna Nielsen, herself a retiree, coordinates two programs at Chelsey Park Retirement Community. Hannah Sherbrin, a nurse and graduate art therapist, applies her talents to tutoring immigrant children. Each of these individuals serves as an example of the positive difference the volunteer effort of just one person can make in the lives of so many others.

I laud the 180 agencies registered with Volunteer London and every one of the dedicated individuals who contributes freely time, talent and caring.

ARMENIAN GENOCIDE

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): For thousands of Armenians in Ontario, many of whom live in my riding of Oriole, April 24 is a day not to be forgotten. April 24, 1915, 77 years ago, Armenian intellectuals were deported and mass killings began. Every Armenian is personally touched by the genocide which left over 1.5 million people dead.

The European Community has already officially recognized the Armenian genocide as a historical event. Canada has yet to do so. The independent state of Armenia was established six months ago and has been officially recognized by the government of Canada. Now is the time for Canada to also recognize the Armenian genocide of 1915.

In this rapidly changing world people look to Canada as a symbol of justice and respect for human rights. Recognition of the tragedy of the Armenian genocide by Canada would serve to reinforce these important values for which our nation stands.

On behalf of my constituents, I believe this is an important statement today on this important remembrance of the Armenian community, and I thank the House for its attention.

1340

HOSPITAL FINANCING

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey): I would like to bring to the attention of the Minister of Health the plight of those who are relying on her ministry's commitment to build a new hospital in Wiarton. The people in the area have contacted me because they do not seem to be able to get answers anywhere else.

Five years ago, the Liberal government announced that it would replace the dilapidated structure with the help of the community. The community responded with an energetic fund-raising campaign which raised the $4 million needed from private sources, and then it waited.

In 1989 the government asked Wiarton to reassess its plans and examine its needs. It was assured that following this process it would move to the top of the list. A new planning study was completed in December 1989, and in 1990 the then Minister of Health made another announcement of $9 million to build the facility.

The hospital has put together working drawings and a pre-construction budget and is now waiting and waiting for approval to go to tender. The community has done its part and it is confused as to why the government is not doing its part. The present building does not meet current fire codes or other safety standards and patient care is at risk.

The minister has apparently not responded to the many resolutions passed by local councils on the subject, but I would ask that she investigate this situation as quickly as possible to ensure quality health care for the people of Grey and Bruce.

MEMBER'S MAILING

Ms Christel Haeck (St Catharines-Brock): I would like to share with the House the confidence that has been unexpectedly placed in me by the leader of the third party. I just recently received in my constituency office yet another of a series of mailings from the leader of the third party addressed to me, Christel Haeck, not in my capacity as the MPP for St Catharines-Brock but as a representative of the Pro-Business Network.

As you know, Mr Speaker, we on this side of the House have been working very hard in the last few months to establish the kinds of partnerships with the business community that will assist the growth of the Ontario economy. However, you can imagine my surprise to find this effort recognized by, of all people, the leader of the third party in his linking of me with the Pro-Business Network.

In addition to a letter from the leader of the third party telling me that he values my views and my input, the mailing includes a "Leader's issues survey" in which I am asked to rank the most important issues of the day. I would be more than happy to fill out his questionnaire and send it to him, only instead of running up his postage bill, I'll just practise what he preaches and save the taxpayers some money by hand-delivering it. The mailing also includes a hot list of publications.

Finally, while the leader of the third party talks about fiscal responsibility, I would urge him to do likewise and not to use his Queen's Park office.

MEMBERS' CONDUCT

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): The people of this province are very concerned about the integrity of the NDP government, and for good reason. People are wondering: Where are Bob Rae's standards? What are Bob Rae's standards? Can we trust the word of this government?

Look at the track record. Back in November, the word of the Premier himself was called into question when it was revealed that his newsletter misled his constituents by claiming credit for extending pay equity, something the government had not done.

Then of course we have the infamous Martel case, where a minister of the crown admitted that she lied and slandered an Ontario doctor. Yet the Premier said: "That's okay. The Minister of Northern Development can remain in cabinet because she told the truth about lying."

The latest example of this government's lack of integrity has come to light in a newsletter sent out by the member for Yorkview. The member tried to justify his position on a housing project by claiming the approval for it was given by the previous Liberal government. He states: "I must inform you that approval for this project was given before I took office. I will not take the blame for something that is not my fault." This is completely false. The Finch-Ardwick project was approved by the NDP government: the date, November 29, 1991.

It's an epidemic. First the Premier, then the cabinet; now the government backbenchers feel free to play footsie with the truth whenever it suits their purpose. It has to stop.

CANADA 125 RIBBON ROUND-UP

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): I would like to recognize the efforts of a group of volunteers in my community who have organized a Canada 125 event entitled Canada 125 Ribbon Round-Up.

This project, which was officially launched on March 27, is based upon the yellow ribbon campaign during the Gulf war. It is intended to serve two very important causes, Canadianism and charity.

Until the July 1 Canada Day celebrations, red and white ribbons held together by a Canadian flag pin, such as the one I am wearing now, are available for the price of a donation at several locations in Kitchener-Waterloo.

The organizers want to have the entire community wearing the red and white ribbons for Canada Day and, in the process, raise money for a very worthy cause: Kitchener-Waterloo Hospital's fund-raising campaign for its dialysis unit. They also hope people will decorate their cars, trees and front porches with red and white ribbons.

This exciting campaign will allow people in my community to show their commitment to Canada and their pride in being a Canadian, while helping K-W Hospital provide an essential service. I want to congratulate the organizers of this campaign, Iola Lottko, Justine Arsenault and Diane Bonfonte, and extend my warmest wishes to them for the success of this very worthwhile project.

INDEPENDENCE '92

Mr Gary Malkowski (York East): Independence '92, the International Congress and Exposition on Disability, recently took place in Vancouver, British Columbia, and over 3,000 disabled and non-disabled delegates attended from 90 different countries.

The exchange of information was astounding and the networking was incredible. However, some of the disabled delegates had difficulties in accessing certain workshops. There were not adequate services in some cases, but we have learned from that and I am sure we are going to see things change in the future.

The closing plenary session, Towards the Millennium, included representation from the World Blind Union, World Federation of the Deaf, International Federation of the Hard of Hearing, World Mental Health Association, International Federation on Aging, International League of Societies for Persons with Mental Handicaps and Disabled People's International.

Also, we noticed that the key message of this conference was that disabled people have to be involved in decisions that impact their lives. I encourage all levels of government to get out and meet the diverse group, listen to their very diverse needs and take them into consideration and account when planning any action that will affect their lives.

I was also very proud to see that the Ontario government had taken positive action and I know that employment equity and the Advocacy Act will happen.

RESIGNATION OF FIRST DEPUTY CHAIR

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I beg to inform the House that a vacancy has occurred in the office of the First Deputy Chair of the committee of the whole House by reason of the resignation of Mr Mike Farnan, the member for the electoral district of Cambridge.

1350

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

YORK CITY CENTRE

Hon Ruth A. Grier (Minister Responsible for the Greater Toronto Area): As minister responsible for the greater Toronto area, I rise today to bring good economic news. At a time when the government is painfully aware of the difficult circumstances brought on by the recession, I am pleased to inform the Legislature of an investment in Ontario that will create jobs and improve the urban fabric for a sizeable number of residents in the greater Toronto area. This investment represents a mark of confidence in Ontario, the greater Toronto area and the city of York.

My colleague the Minister of Transportation and I have just signed a memorandum of understanding with the city of York and Dumez Real Estate North America, a new Canadian company. Their parent company, Dumez Immobilier, is based in France. York City Centre will be their first major investment in Canada. This agreement launches a major public-private partnership and facilitates the first phase of a new city centre for the city of York.

I'm delighted to say that the project, to be located on the southwest corner of Eglinton Avenue West and Black Creek Drive, will be much more than bricks and mortar. It will provide a new downtown focus for the city, including commercial and mixed residential uses, as well as a transportation gateway and other public uses.

York City Centre phase 1 represents a development consistent with nodal concentration, a concept at the heart of the GTA Visions process. It will provide people with an opportunity to live and work in the same community.

In addition, I'm pleased to say that a $5-million transportation gateway will be a key component of York's new city centre. The gateway's strategic location facilitates a GO Transit station, a Toronto Transit Commission surface bus station, a kiss-and-ride and the proposed Eglinton West rapid transit line.

Construction of York City Centre phase 1 will be staged over the next 10 to 15 years and at maturity will represent an investment in Ontario of $400 million. Upon completion, the development will have provided an equivalent of one year's employment for as many as 6,600 workers in construction and related industries. In addition, this development will accommodate 4,000 permanent jobs.

In the recent speech from the throne, the government renewed its commitment to facilitating economic growth. The York City Centre phase 1 project demonstrates this commitment. Today's success was made possible through my ministry, the Office for the Greater Toronto Area and the Ministry of Transportation. Together they worked on behalf of all provincial public interests in negotiating a fair and sound agreement with the city of York and Dumez. Indeed, the York City Centre phase 1 project is a good example of governments, both provincial and municipal, developing an effective partnership with the private sector.

This project also represents an important victory for citizen participation, and I would like to express my thanks to the citizens involved for their hard work and commitment to an open and honest public process. I would also like to acknowledge the success of the city of York, in particular Mayor Brown and the current council, in planning its new city centre, and thank Dumez Real Estate North America for its willingness to work through a difficult time with the city and the province on a development proposal that will benefit all parties.

RESPONSES

YORK CITY CENTRE

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): The announcement today by the minister responsible for the greater Toronto area is of course an important announcement, and frankly we welcome the fact that this agreement has finally been reached. I noted, however, that in congratulating the people whom she congratulated through the course of her statement, she neglected, perhaps capriciously, to mention the previous government. This proposal to develop a transportation gateway at the corner of Black Creek and Eglinton Avenue is something that had been almost completed at the time of the last election, something that had been worked on by the ministry, by the office she's now responsible for, by the previous government, by the city of York, by a number of private concerns, and indeed by Humber College. I regret the fact that Humber College isn't mentioned here, because at one time there had been a proposal to put a site there for a community college right in the heart of the city of York.

What interests me is that the party that is now in government, which used to think those involved in the development industry, those responsible for developing land and building buildings and creating new communities in the province of Ontario -- they were thought by the NDP party, while in opposition, to be about the lowest form of economic life in the province.

Now, on the road to Damascus, we have met not a Canadian developer, not an Ontario developer, but a French developer, Dumez Immobilier. Well, congratulations. I hope the minister in her office, and the Premier and the government can start to realize that within the development community indigenous to Ontario there are some entities that would like to participate in this new partnership the minister is now a champion for.

She mentions transportation. I want to remind the minister that since she has come to power, not one kilometre, not one metre of new subway has been built in the greater Toronto area; not one line has been expanded. There has been absolutely no progress at all on that score.

In her statement she mentions not a new Eglinton West rapid transit line but a proposed, perhaps a possible line. The minister ought to realize that unless she and the government she is a part of get on with building new rapid transit facilities in the greater Toronto area and directly in Metropolitan Toronto, this city and this urban area will grind to a halt. We urgently need a subway to York University, we need to work on the Eglinton line, and we need to proceed on the Sheppard line.

Finally, while I have the opportunity, I might just congratulate the minister in this case for making a public announcement. Yesterday the minister didn't believe in public announcements. Indeed, she had a press conference to announce, as I understand it, the proposed ban or phase-out of 21 toxic substances, and this was by invitation only. One wonders why the Queen's Park press gallery was not invited to that press conference.

My colleague the member for Oriole will have a few comments as well on this announcement by the minister.

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): In the few minutes remaining I too would like to say this is an important initiative for the greater Toronto area and, I believe, for the province. We know the greater Toronto area has long been the engine of the economy in this province.

However, I would like to say to the minister that there are many other projects she could expedite and get under way. It has been 18 long months. This is the first significant initiative within the GTA. This is long overdue. I agree there are the kinds of projects that are ready to go that you could expedite. The loop of the Spadina and the Yonge Street lines in the North York area is critical and needed. It is mired down in studies which you could expedite. The Sheppard line proposal could move forward. It is extremely important that this minister show some leadership and get these important transit initiatives under way if we're going to have the kind of infrastructure in the greater Toronto area that we need to lead us into the next decade.

Further, I'd say to her that these are the kinds of initiatives that would create jobs and have to happen now, especially while we are having the kinds of economic problems in the greater Toronto area in particular. I would urge her to use her office, which was created exactly for the purpose of expediting important initiatives and bringing communities and governments together, to make sure the kind of economic activity which creates jobs and prosperity in the greater Toronto area will happen. I would urge the minister to do that and to do it without delay.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Anyone who's been around Metropolitan Toronto for any length of time understands what this announcement is. This is a repackaging and rehashing of the same old stuff that has been promised over and over again. I'm surprised that the Minister of the Environment, who was on Etobicoke council, would stoop to the level of calling this a $400-million development approval, when what we have here is a kiss-and-ride and a gateway in the city of York that might add up to $3 million or $4 million.

When this development was negotiated and approved, we know full well that the only development that is going to take place over the next 10 to 15 years, as they say, will be some cooperative housing. This minister talks about the Eglinton rapid transit line. I sat in meetings, and this minister knows full well that the Eglinton rapid transit line has about as much chance of being developed in this government's lifetime as this government has of being re-elected next election.

We talk about 4,000 permanent jobs. That's got to be about the most misleading number you can give to the public today: 4,000 permanent jobs on this site over some 10 to 15 years if every dollar of investment is given by this provincial government. There have been studies completed. There have been projects approved. We've had a slowdown in the planning process. We've got a bog-down at the Ontario Municipal Board. We've got government after government promising and promising development in these nodal sites within the Metropolitan Toronto region. It simply doesn't happen. Why? Because governments such as this government stand up on days such as today and make bold promises that, I will say, they have frankly no intention of fulfilling.

Four hundred million dollars will not hit the city of York. Can you imagine anybody today building commercial office space in Metropolitan Toronto? The developers would have to have rocks in their heads if they think they're going to build commercial space today and rent it out to anybody, with all the space available in Metropolitan Toronto.

Being a member of Metro council, I've heard these kinds of announcements before. I know this minister is on record, as the minister for the GTA, as supporting the Eglinton rapid transit line. I don't see any money for that. I don't see any money for any regional reconstruction of rapid transit in Metropolitan Toronto as part of the 2011 study. All I see is empty promises: 6,600 workers will be employed in construction and related industries. With this announcement, not one nickel is approved to be spent. It will be studied to death by this government. It will be pushed off and pushed off, and eventually in 1995 some other government will be over there, and it will be standing up and promising $400 million. The people of Metropolitan Toronto are sick of these kinds of promises because they never happen.

1400

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): This announcement reminds me of the little story I heard yesterday which said that unfortunately, because of the recession and because of the Bob Rae government, the light at the end of the tunnel has been turned off. In fact, what we're seeing here is a small flicker of a match at the distant end of a tunnel. When you start talking about hundreds of millions of dollars and opportunity, you're really not facing up to the real truth. The fact of the matter is that we have a problem, and the problem is that the minister comes in today with great hopes and expectations of something happening. We want to see growth and we want to see this city burgeon again, but we've got to see a climate for the economy where the government gives some sense of confidence to business people to invest here.

You've finally found someone who's willing to do something; at least, they're talking. Get your whole government together and start finding ways of getting all of our province back to work again. There are people who are unemployed. Their jobs have disappeared. Their hope is going with it. Our young people can't find jobs this summer and you come in today and say you've got the answer. It's going to be 10 or 15 years out. Let's deal with today. We have some crises right here in this province and your government hasn't begun to address them. The economy is floundering. People are suffering. Let's get people back to work again. Let's not start having this kind of announcement, which doesn't mean as much as you think it does.

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): I would like to ask unanimous consent to make a statement, and the other parties may wish to as well, on the day of mourning for deceased workers.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Do we have unanimous agreement? Agreed.

DAY OF MOURNING

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): This morning I took part in formal ceremonies commemorating those workers who have been killed or injured in workplace accidents or whose death can be traced to an occupational-related illness. The day of mourning is an opportunity for all of us to show solidarity and honour those who have died as a result of their daily work. The armbands we wear today are symbolic proof of that commitment, as are the flags that fly at half-mast outside this building.

Last year in Ontario, Labour ministry officials investigated 61 traumatic workplace fatalities. If you add to that figure all those workers who died last year as a result of industrial disease, long-term workplace illnesses and injury, the total exceeds 260.

Our government today dedicates itself to the memory of those workers and reaffirms its vow to prevent any further waste of life.

I have fought most of my life for improved health and safety conditions. I also helped, along with Elie Martel, to bring that fight into this chamber, where we prodded and pushed the government of the day into treating workplace health and safety as a real issue of life and death. That's why the day of mourning must also serve as a catalyst to make us all work even harder towards improving workplace health and safety.

Our government believes there can be no compromise on worker health and safety. There is no production schedule, no shipping order or delivery urgent enough to take precedence over human life. Employers and workers must know the hazards present in their working environments, and they must guard against complacency and carelessness when confronting dangerous situations. The needless fatalities will continue until an ironclad agreement, in spirit and on paper, is reached between labour and management on the absolute value of health and safety. There has to be a will and determination to do what is right for working people.

We have made a start down that road. The amended Occupational Health and Safety Act, now in its second year, is gathering strength and beginning to foster a new health and safety culture in the province's workplaces. Some progress is being made. For the first time in living memory workplace deaths resulting from traumatic incidents declined last year, by a third. It's a turnaround that came too late for the workers we commemorate today and it's a turnaround that can evaporate just as quickly without constant care and attention to the mutual commitment. We must all make a commitment to take health and safety seriously. I will not be convinced of any genuine change until there are absolutely no more fatalities in Ontario's workplaces.

The Ministry of Labour will continue to use the powers it has to bring employers into compliance with the amended Occupational Health and Safety Act. The courts have registered a number of convictions, along with record-breaking fines, recently. The goal here is not punishment but deterrence. I am repeating today our determination to continue to seek convictions and severe fines that will have potentially wayward employers finally taking health and safety seriously.

A safe and healthy work environment is not a privilege, it's a right, and our government will continue to fight for that right and make it a reality in every Ontario workplace. I hope that one day a Minister of Labour of the province of Ontario is able to rise in this chamber and say that no workers were killed in the province during the previous year. We owe it to the workers killed in 1991, and to all those who died before them, to continue to fight for that day. I want to thank you for the opportunity to make this statement in the House.

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): The day of April 28 is set aside each year as a day of mourning for persons killed or injured on the job. This date marks the day 78 years ago when the first worker safety legislation was passed in Canada. That day was a landmark in Canada, when governments began passing laws that would improve working conditions for all employees. Now workers have the right to expect Ontario's employers to provide a decent workplace. If you're injured on the job, compensation is available and rehabilitation is there to assist the worker back to work faster.

Ontario has a history of leading the way in protecting its workers, but as with many things, these protections must not only continue but indeed improve. Last year 262 fatality claims were made under the workers' compensation system; in other words, more than 200 people died on the job in 1991. If one death is one too many, then 262 are far too many. Efforts must continue to be made to improve workplace safety. We must continue our efforts in the area of hazardous substance identification on the job site and ensure, through educational initiatives, that workers and employers know about safer alternatives. We must encourage them to use them.

This is a moment to remember those workers who were hurt or lost their lives on the job. As we reflect upon these losses, we should rededicate and recommit ourselves to continue the pursuit of workplace health and safety.

1410

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): Today I join the members from the other two parties in remembering those workers who have been killed or injured on the job as a result of workplace accidents and industrial diseases. I believe it is important for us to observe this day of mourning to remember those who have tragically lost their lives or who were injured in the performance of their jobs.

Unfortunately, as has been pointed out, 262 people were killed in job-related accidents or diseases last year and many more were very seriously injured. By setting aside this day of mourning each year, it reminds us as legislators of the need to remain dedicated to the task of eliminating all workplace accidents and diseases. Creating a safe working environment requires the cooperative efforts of government, business and labour. Only by working together can we ensure that genuine progress will be made to eliminate the risk of death or injury to workers.

As legislators we have a special responsibility to help foster the spirit of cooperation and to ensure that our occupational health and safety laws and programs are effective and relevant to the modern workplace. We must always be vigilant against complacency, and constantly strive to make our laws and our programs better.

While much has been done in the past by all governments, much remains to be done. I look forward to working with all the members of this House to ensure that we protect all men and women in this province from serious death and injury in the future.

I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate all those groups and organizations that have organized special events to mark this day. I know that in my own community, the health and safety committee of the Waterloo Regional Labour Council has organized an event at Cambridge city hall.

As we observe a moment's silence for the working men and women who have been killed or injured in the workplace and take the time to remember their families, let us all rededicate ourselves to ensuring that such needless and tragic accidents do not occur in the future.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I would invite all members and our visitors to stand for a moment of silent reflection upon this solemn occasion.

The House observed one minute's silence.

The Speaker: Thank you. Be seated. It is time for oral questions. The member for Bruce.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Before we start the oral questions, we've been told that the Premier is here someplace. Mr Laughren is also away. Is Floyd not well? I just have to say that in a budget week, when we anticipate that the first minister and the deputy first minister are to be here to field questions, we shouldn't be asked to start question period until those two bodies or one of them comes in both breathing and able to answer some of our questions. I wonder if we might just take a brief recess until the Premier arrives. I know this is not usually done, but to be quite honest, this is a problem for us and it is a continuing difficulty.

Again, at my invitation, the Premier has appeared. I would like to thank you for inviting me to be the after-lunch speaker until the Premier could make his presence felt here. I think maybe we could now start the question period.

The Speaker: To the member's point of order, he indeed has a remarkable way of not having a point of order, yet making the effect occur.

ORAL QUESTIONS

TRANSFER PAYMENTS

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Premier. Last week, the Premier will know, the Treasurer confirmed that the province of Ontario expects the transfer payments from the federal government to reach about $7.6 billion. That's an increase, Premier, as you know, of close to 25% from the federal government this coming fiscal year. This, as you know, Premier, was the same government you called the "absconding debtors."

My question to you, Premier, is, how can you with credibility refer to the federal government as "absconding debtors" when it's in the middle of the same recession you are, yet it's able to provide transfer payments in the range of a 25% increase? That amounts to almost a $1.5-billion increase.

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): In the budget on Thursday, the Treasurer will be presenting the House with information with respect to the situation with the federal government. I'm sure the honourable member will know it was his government which expressed its very strong opposition to the cap on the Canada assistance plan and the impact that has had in the province. The cumulative impact of that alone in the three years in which it's had an effect will be a loss of over $3.5 billion when we take that into 1992-93.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): That didn't bother you when you were in opposition.

Hon Mr Rae: The member from St Catharines says that didn't bother me in opposition. It certainly did. It bothered all the members of the House. I would think all members of the House would be joining this government in saying that the federal government has a responsibility to join with us with respect to the cost of social assistance and the other costs of established programs financing.

In terms of what we have experienced, the reality is we have undergone a drop in the federal contribution to CAP down to 30-cent dollars on social assistance and down to 30-cent dollars with respect to higher education and medical care. In response to the very severe loss in revenue, Ontario has put in for an application under the stabilization plan, and it is those stabilization numbers to which the member is referring.

Mr Phillips: A month ago, the Premier stood up at a first ministers' meeting and said, "Further cuts are planned." That's what your statement says. The fact of the matter is that the federal government is going to increase transfer payments, according to the Treasurer, by almost 25%. That isn't further cuts, that is a 25% increase.

My supplementary question is the same as my first question. How do you call the federal government an absconding debtor, how do you say it's going to cut back transfer payments when transfer payments are going up, according to the Treasurer, by 25%?

Hon Mr Rae: First of all, with respect to the Canada assistance plan, our costs have gone up by double digits every year over the past three years, and the member knows that full well. That was the case when he was in office and that is the case today.

The federal transfers under the Canada assistance plan -- and the member knows this full well -- have been capped at 5%, and he knows full well the impact that is having on the province. There is no question that the share going to the province, the share coming from the federal government in relative terms has not kept up in any way, shape or form with the needs being experienced by those people on social assistance today in the province, nor with respect to higher education and medical care. At the same time, the member has to consider the fact that, under the stabilization plan, Ontario has put in for the loss of revenue we have experienced over the last year.

Mr Phillips: The thing that offends people -- I hope this is not out of order -- is hypocrisy. On the one hand, the federal government says, "We are going to give you a 25% increase in transfer payments." On the other hand, the Premier gets up and says in a speech: "These are tough times. We are going to give our transfer payment agencies, the hospitals, the school boards, the property taxpayers, 1%."

My question is very simple. If you can call the federal government an absconding debtor with those sorts of transfer payment announcements, what should the students in the schools, the patients and nurses in the hospitals and the senior citizens who are going to pay property tax increases this year call the Premier of Ontario?

1420

Hon Mr Rae: I'm sure they'll --

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): Blackjack Bob.

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): Just call me Bob.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. Will the Premier take his seat.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Premier.

Hon Mr Rae: I am sure I'll be called many different things in many different places, but "Bob" is just fine. But I would say to the honourable member, he cannot overlook the fact, and I am sure he wouldn't want to be overlooking the fact, that the impact of what the federal government has done with respect to the Canada assistance plan has been to deprive the taxpayers of this province of $3.5 billion. When you add on the cuts in established programs financing in terms of the impact that has had, the net impact next year will be over $4.5 billion. Those are facts which the member opposite cannot deny, because they are having such a serious impact on the people of this province.

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): Stupid answer.

The Speaker: The member for York Mills, the vocabulary in the House helps to determine the atmosphere in the House, and I would ask the member to very carefully consider temperate language.

Mr Sorbara: "Bob" is not what they are calling the Premier in my riding.

MINISTERIAL CONDUCT

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): My question as well is to the Premier, and regrettably these questions continue to revolve around the question of hypocrisy.

Later this afternoon this Legislature is going to be setting aside its regular business to engage in an emergency debate on the question of standards of conduct of ministers and parliamentary assistants in the government. This debate has been made necessary because the Premier has fundamentally breached the trust that the people of Ontario placed in him as a result of the election of September 1990.

Prior to that election, Bob Rae, as the member for York South, was the patron saint of standards. He was the member who set the standard for a very high degree of conduct on the part of cabinet ministers or anyone in whom the public trust was vested. We remember in this House his attack on Joan Smith. We remember his attack on René Fontaine. We remember his attack on Ken Keyes.

My question to the Premier is simple. I ask the Premier this: From that time when you were sitting here in opposition to the time now when you have been vested with a much higher degree of public trust, what has changed? Why is it you're not able to impose upon your ministers the standards that you insisted previous governments impose upon their ministers?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I'm afraid I just don't share the assumption of the member's question.

Mr Sorbara: Tell the Premier, Mr Speaker, there is something that he's missing. This charade continues to go on and on and on. This morning on a provincially broadcast radio program on the CBC Ontario network we have the spectacle of the chief government whip describing a little payoff program for MPPs.

Let me set the scene. The three participants are talking about foreign junkets. The chief government whip says as follows: "Well, the House leader has allowed me -- I call it rewards," and she goes on, "and our House leader has given me a list of the different trips, so that I take a look at who's gone that little extra mile, and it's my way of rewarding them. I'm allowed to allocate these trips." She goes on to say: "But I'm also a woman, and in my former life I take care of myself. I've made a deal with most of them. 'When you go on this trip that I've sent you on, you've got to bring me back a present.'"

I ask the Premier, what in the world is going on over there? Will the Premier put an end to his little frequent flyer program that the chief government whip and the government House leader have going on, and will he notify us in the House that he has accepted the resignation of the chief government whip and the government House leader? I see that the chief government whip is laughing about this.

Hon Mr Rae: I can only conclude -- and I haven't seen or heard the broadcast the member is referring to --

Mr Sorbara: I just quoted it.

Hon Mr Rae: Well, that's fine. I can only say to the honourable member that the member in question is a woman of enormous integrity and ability and has demonstrated that consistently in her parliamentary career.

Mr Sorbara: I am not questioning the integrity, yet, of the chief government whip. I am just quoting what she said about rewarding members who go the extra mile with trips. That's what she said. These are not my words; these are her words. The surprising thing is that she talks about it on a radio program. She doesn't see anything wrong with it. There's nothing wrong with rewarding the members who go the extra mile with a little trip.

Let's put this in perspective. As Leader of the Opposition, the now Premier decried any abuse of public trust. In his first throne speech he talked about a set of guidelines. He presented those guidelines to a committee. The committee considered them and we have never seen them since.

Will the Premier put an end to the frequent flyer program, I ask him again, and will he bring a set of guidelines to this House with appropriate sanctions that he and his government are willing to live by?

Hon Mr Rae: This is a question which is now being looked at across the country. The federal legislation is being re-examined and I'm sure, as that takes place across the country, it is something this Legislature will want to consider.

BUDGET

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My question is to the Premier. Tomorrow marks the first anniversary of your, your Treasurer's, your party's and your government's first disastrous budget. Taxes were up and the deficit was up to support massive government spending increases last year.

Premier, you set a course last year that was, to coin a phrase, 180 degrees in the wrong direction. There are two ways for a government to try to stimulate a recession-bound economy: One is to hike government spending and therefore hike taxes and the deficit to support that government spending, and you chose that option last year; the second way is to cut taxes to stimulate the economy to give more money to taxpayers to give more money to consumers to give more money to businesses so that they in their spending and business plans can stimulate the economy.

Premier, would you not agree with me that your direction last year was a total, unmitigated disaster that has failed miserably and that this Thursday you should be heading in the direction of cutting taxes as the way to stimulate the economy in this province?

1430

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): The member, if I follow his policy correctly, would like the government of Ontario to cut taxes.

Interjection: Cut government spending.

Hon Mr Rae: The member says, "Cut government spending," but that's not the message I'm getting. With respect to hospitals and school boards and all the transfer payments, we're getting arguments that they should go up. We're getting these suggestions, and at the same time the third part of this Tory triangle is that we should cut the deficit.

I will listen carefully to the comments being made by the honourable member. I've listened carefully to the suggestions he's made in the House over the last several months, and I simply say to him that we have to do everything we can to maintain the level of services the people of this province need, we must do everything we can to create jobs and make sure as many jobs are created as is humanly possible, both through the public sector and especially in the private sector, and, finally, we have to make sure the deficit and the debt problem are kept in check and we have a handle on that. Those are the three things we're going to try to do. Those are the three things we must do in this budget. That is what I set out on January 21 when we looked at the alternatives. Those are the things we've been discussing with the people of the province and the direction the budget will and must take.

Mr Harris: The Premier talks about the statement on January 21. You said you were going to limit transfer payments to 1%, all the transfer agencies. We then had a wage settlement with the civil servants that was supposed to be limited to 1%, so you told us. The increases in welfare payments have been limited by you to 2%. Why then did you, on January 21, project your own spending in total to go up 10%, when you've said all the things -- health care, education, welfare, all the services, the wages to the civil servants -- are not going up any more than 1% or 2%? Why then did you project on January 21 to hike your own spending 10%? Obviously, you'll have to hike taxes and the deficit to support that kind of spending. Why is that necessary?

Hon Mr Rae: We pointed out in the January 21 paper very clearly, and I think it was pointed out in the background paper we released on that day, that one of the elements that goes into the problem we face, perhaps the most important element, is the rise in social assistance costs in the province, which are projected to increase by a lot and which we have to do everything we can to keep under control. We keep them under control not by attacking the victims but by creating as many jobs and training opportunities as we possibly can. That is the direction we must take as a government. The statement on January 21 was intended to show the citizens of the province how serious the situation is and how we had to deal, and have to deal, as a government with the projections contained in it. That is exactly what the budget is intended to do.

Mr Harris: Premier, over the last five, six, seven years we've massively hiked the gasoline tax, we've hiked the retail sales tax and now we've driven shoppers away from Ontario, across the border. We have a new concentration tax we've brought in for Toronto and now businesses and companies are moving out of Toronto. We brought in a new payroll tax and now employers are laying off people. We've lost 200,000 jobs just since you took office. We've lost $2 billion to cross-border shopping. We've tried the big-tax, big-spend approach for the last seven years. Would you not agree that we are far worse off today as a result of that and that now is the time to cut sales taxes, cut gas taxes, can the commercial concentration tax and allow people to get back to work in this province?

Hon Mr Rae: This is the position today of the Conservative Party. The position tomorrow will be that the deficit has to be lower, and the position on every day of the week will be that various kinds of spending have to increase. So I would only say to the honourable member that I listen carefully to his suggestions and no doubt they will be taken into account, but in order to be taken into account we have to balance as well the other considerations I have mentioned, the ways in which we have to do everything we can to create jobs and what we have to do in order to keep that deficit in check.

MINISTERIAL CONDUCT

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): I have a question of the Premier as well. Mr Premier, I want to talk about opposition day and the resolution being debated here later this afternoon. I note that in the final paragraph of the resolution, new legislation is called for with respect to conflict of interest.

I want to read you one of your own quotes of July 7, 1986: "One of the things we would like to see is certainty of enforcement. That is not a problem with the guidelines; that is a problem of political will."

Mr Premier, I couldn't agree more. The last thing we need are new guidelines. What we do need is the political will to enforce the ones we already have. Mr Premier, you cannot legislate integrity, you cannot legislate morality, but you can enforce your own guidelines. Why won't do that?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I think the evidence will show that this government has carried out its responsibilities to the very best of its ability in this area, and we will continue to do so.

Mr Eves: You have in your cabinet, sir, the Minister of Northern Development, who has admitted that she has breached your guidelines twice within a six-month period of time. I want to ask you a question you asked of David Peterson on June 13, 1989:

"It is the Premier's job to determine what are the ethical standards of members of his cabinet....I want to ask the Premier: Does he understand the distinction between a conflict-of-interest law and a standard of ethical conduct which he should be requiring of his own ministers?"

Hon Mr Rae: Yes.

Mr Eves: If the Premier understands that, he doesn't seem to be doing anything about it. Most people I talk to understand that lying is a very serious offence. They understand that there are serious consequences to be paid if they lie in their day-to-day lives. They don't understand how a cabinet minister in your government doesn't seem to have to live by the same rules and the same standards they do in their day-to-day lives. I think we have to get to the heart of this matter. What is the real story and what is the real reason Shelley Martel is still in your cabinet today?

Hon Mr Rae: You know, this is the same member who was among those who were pushing the hardest in December for a committee. This government agreed to such a committee. We had a very extensive discussion, and at the end of all that discussion we know exactly now what we knew back in December. We also know there's no hidden agenda. To quote the words of other members, there's no smoking gun: That's what we know. That's what the committee found and that was the clear view of the members of that committee.

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): In the absence of the minister of government waste, I'd like to ask my question of the Premier. Yesterday, Mr Premier, in this House, your minister acknowledged that the taxpayers are paying $1.9 million for frivolous renovation costs. In fact, he is quoted in Hansard as saying the approximate cost was "only" $1.9 million.

What makes this expenditure even more appalling is that yesterday the minister of government waste did not give us the whole story. He failed to include in his figures the cost of moving several hundred Ministry of Natural Resources officials out of the Whitney Block. He forgot to mention that the relocation of these employees cost the taxpayers well over a million dollars and included an $800,000 lease, plus $84,000 more to move this staff and yet undisclosed expenses for moving the library.

I would ask the Premier if he will stand today and justify the judgement and the decision of his minister of government waste.

1440

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): The member will well know -- I'm sure she does -- that the Whitney Block, as it is known, the building across the way, was transferred to the precinct of the Legislative Assembly in terms of that portion of it. The building has required renovation for many years with respect to upgrading, telecommunications and modernizing the building. She will know that as we speak, there are parts of the building that cannot be used and are not being used. This is a building which has been in place for many decades. There was a renovation of part of the building in order to accommodate a shift from here. Again, these are plans that have been under way for many years with respect to the long-term use of this building and of the building across the way. She will also know that the process has been under way for some time in terms of its planning and implementation.

Mrs Caplan: In supplementary, I would say to the Premier that the taxpayers of this province have a right to know how the NDP government sets its priorities and decides to spend the taxpayers' money. In this House, what makes this particular issue so bizarre, I would say to the Premier, is that the officials of the Ministry of Natural Resources who have been moved to North York will be moving again within two years to Peterborough. Two moves in two years is an enormous waste of taxpayers' dollars. Will the Premier intervene to stop this ridiculous game of musical chairs and save the taxpayers' money and get his minister of government waste in check?

Hon Mr Rae: The Minister of Government Services has a responsibility with respect to carrying out the moves which are taking place. If the member is saying that at no time should any government building ever be renovated, if she is saying that at no time should any government building ever be provided with more modern equipment, if she is saying that we should not be tendering these contracts on a competitive basis, if she is saying that we should leave buildings vacant for years on end, if she is saying that we should leave buildings in a state in which they can't be used for years on end, let her stand in her place and say it.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): It would be appreciated if all members would make reference to ministers of the crown by the appropriate title that has been designated by the Legislative Assembly and not designated by any particular members of the House.

ETOBICOKE WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): My question is to the Premier. If you read the recent decision by the Ontario Municipal Board on the motel strip in the city of Etobicoke -- that I'm sure your Minister of the Environment is just filling you in on right now -- it was outlined in that OMB report that there was a serious concern about provincial meddling in the OMB process and the planning process in the city of Etobicoke.

Mr Premier, they cited one letter sent by the minister to the constituents in south Etobicoke. The Minister of the Environment has been fighting this development for some 25 years and sent a letter about the OMB hearing to her constituents that said:

"Dear Friends: As a cabinet minister, I cannot comment on issues that will come before judiciary-like hearings such as those of the Ontario Municipal Board. This is particularly true in the case of the motel strip because provincial interest has been declared in the area. This means that the provincial cabinet, of which I am a member, will have the final say on what happens to this land."

Mr Premier, several parties and area residents who appeared before that hearing referred to exhibit 53, which was this letter, and voiced the concern that the board hearing was redundant in view of the statements by the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore. Mr Premier, do you consider that meddling? A lot of people in south Etobicoke think it's meddling.

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I'll refer that to the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Government House Leader): I am sure the member for Etobicoke West understands that the process that is used under the Planning Act in Ontario is that if a provincial interest is declared under the Planning Act --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order, the member for Ottawa West.

Hon Mr Cooke: I am sure the member understands the process, that under the Planning Act the provincial government has the ability to declare a provincial interest and that provincial interest was declared by the previous government. Then the entire matter was discussed. A proposal was put forward by the city of Etobicoke. The matter went to the Ontario Municipal Board. The OMB has now made a decision and there are now a few more steps to be carried out under the Planning Act whereby the government, the cabinet, gets an opportunity to review the Ontario Municipal Board decision. When that happens and a final decision is made, the decision will be made public.

Mr Stockwell: With all due respect to the minister and the Premier, I don't need a lecture on how the OMB works. I know how the OMB works.

The question is this: Residents, people who appeared before this hearing, read in this letter that the minister said to her constituents, "What is implied in here is if the decision doesn't go the way I like it we'll change it in cabinet." Now, if that isn't usurping a judiciary board, I don't know what is. I'll read it very clearly for the Premier because he doesn't seem to agree. It says, "This means the provincial cabinet, of which I am a member, will have the final say on what happens to this land." She has been categorically opposed to this development for 25 years.

The legal counsel there thought it was meddling. The OMB has suggested it was meddling. The constituents think it was meddling. When are you going to tell this House that you consider this meddling infringing on your responsibilities and retract this kind of action that that minister makes and certainly, if not ask her to resign, reprimand somebody for this kind of meddling in a judiciary process?

Hon Mr Cooke: It may be difficult for the member to understand, but the letter that he just read says exactly what I said in my first answer to his first question. Under the Planning Act, when a provincial interest has been declared, the provincial cabinet makes the final decision and that's what the letter said.

GREY WATER

Mr Daniel Waters (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): My question is to the Minister of the Environment. I have a question concerning grey water. As you know, my riding has many marinas and cottages, as do the ridings of many of the members within the legislative precinct. While most groups are concerned about grey water, I have received comments from marina operators and boating enthusiasts alike suggesting that boaters are being unfairly targeted in our efforts towards improving water quality. Can the minister tell us what the outcome of the public comment period on the draft grey water regulation is?

Hon Ruth A. Grier (Minister of the Environment): I know that certainly in the member's riding both cottagers and boaters alike -- as are cottagers and boaters all across this province -- are very concerned about water quality and have expressed great interest in the announcement from my ministry, some year and three months ago, that we would begin to look at the discharge of grey water from boats.

The response to the public consultation was overwhelming: about 2,500 letters and comments. The vast majority of them felt, as the member said, that to require boaters to retrofit their boats to accommodate a tank for grey water was unfairly targeting the owners of existing boats and might render many of those boats unsafe. Therefore, we have taken those comments and those suggestions from the public very seriously, and have accepted at face value their request and desire to work with the ministry on an education program and to look at a number of other ways in which the boating industry and boaters can affect the environment, and ways in which we can work together to make sure the waterways and the rivers of this province remain unfouled.

1450

Mr Waters: I'll be speaking to the boaters in my area regarding the need to work together towards improving water quality in our lakes. Most people recognize the need for more than just education. Can the minister tell us what kind of regulations she will be proposing?

Hon Mrs Grier: I'm glad to do that. I will be drafting regulations that will require charter boats and boats that are defined as live-aboards -- boats which are moored at one marina throughout the winter months with somebody living on them -- to contain their grey water. We will be working with marina operators to increase the number of pump-outs that exist. We will certainly be working in collaboration with the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation to make sure we have across the province a network of facilities so that boaters, like any other person in this province who wants very much to keep our waterways clean, can play their part in making sure that is what is achieved.

ARTS AND CULTURE FUNDING

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): As I toiled in my constituency office on Sunday night, pondering the inability of the government to provide more than 1% for capital grants for schools in my riding, I received a letter from a constituent which contained a rather interesting report that had appeared in the Globe and Mail on April 11. I should hasten to add that these people were kind enough to tell me the following, in explanation of the enclosure: "This is not coming from an anti-union household. My husband is an unemployed trade unionist making $9 an hour waiting for his callback."

This is for the Premier: We know your government is interested in getting the voters of Ontario to sing the praises of this government, but with one of its most recent grants, the Minister of Culture and Communications has taken this goal to ludicrous extremes. Recently the Ontario Arts Council gave the Canadian Auto Workers money to teach auto workers to sing union solidarity songs to "build a core of CAW musical activists who will be able to stimulate the musical traditions of our union."

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Mr Callahan: I should perhaps sing it, Premier, but I won't.

Premier, given the acute economic crisis in this province, why did your Minister of Culture and Communications okay such a ridiculous grant to the CAW?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I will refer this question to the minister.

Hon Karen Haslam (Minister of Culture and Communications): The Ontario Arts Council is an arm's-length agency of my ministry and it looks after grants to all artists and not-for-profit organizations. We don't discriminate against anyone.

Mr Callahan: I find that absolutely unbelievable. The Premier himself will know that yesterday I put in his hands a request to the Ministry of Culture and Communications for funding for a radio group that entertains Atlantic Canadians, and it got nothing. Also, the government is slashing its spending in order to meets its budget targets. But the NDP government goes about it the wrong way. Instead of dropping frivolous programs such as that, the government's keeping these dogs alive at the expense of more important programs.

One example is that in 1991 the government cut what it gives to the Canadian Foundation on Compulsive Gambling to save $58,000. The government said, "Economic reasons forced this move." Now, with the government ready to okay gambling casinos, it looks like Ontario will need this foundation even more than ever. Has the minister no sense of shame? How could the government cut the money it gives to the compulsive gambling program in order to give the Canadian Auto Workers money for singing lessons?

Hon Mrs Haslam: I can only reiterate that it is a government agency and an arm's-length agency. I have been asked by certain members in the House to take a kind look at individual and particular programs in their own ridings, and I say to them, "You can put the application in." It sits in there with a list of other ones. I do not say which ones get money and which ones don't. There are criteria that must be followed. I do not play favourites and neither does the Ontario Arts Council.

The money that is given out helps the artists of this province. It helps everyone have --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. New question, the member for S-D-G & East Grenville.

WINE INDUSTRY

Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): To the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations: Minister, you've acknowledged the quality of the wine that's produced here in Ontario by our grape growers and our wineries. Those same growers and Ontario wineries, together with the tourist industry, the restaurant industry and the restaurant workers, have all said that high taxes on wine are causing them great, great concern. Minister, what proposals are you looking at to lessen the tax burden and to promote more jobs in tourism and in the wine industry of Ontario?

Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): I personally have no plans for taxes one way or the other; that should be addressed to the Treasurer. However, it gives me the opportunity to say that in fact the wine industry of Ontario is one of our big success stories that we should be very proud of. It's done very, very well, just over the past year, and I'm happy to say that our government was involved in the campaign and contributed to the success of that campaign. I don't think that out of the whole situation he is describing, that is one of the industries that is hurting right now. We'll do everything we can, of course, to continue to assist that industry, but we should be very proud of how well it's done.

Mr Villeneuve: I can assure the minister that I'm very proud of the Ontario wine industry, and well should all Ontarians be, but the minister should know that Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick are looking to lower the cost of wine sold in restaurants in exchange for a reduced markup -- I want the minister to listen to this; a reduced markup -- and indeed BC is promoting farm-gate sales of wine. Can the minister tell Ontarians that she will follow the lead of these other provinces, which do not have a wine industry nearly as vast as we have here in Ontario, get behind the producers and indeed provide an incentive to restaurants to reduce the markup on Ontario wine?

Hon Ms Churley: I'm certainly not going to say anything about the quality of PEI wine, but I will say that the quality of Ontario wine has improved greatly over the past few years and in fact the sales of wines are, as I said, going extremely well.

In answer to your question, no, the option you put forward is not being considered at this time, but what is being considered and will continue to be considered is our partnership we've had for a number of years with that industry and with the grape growers' industry and with the various other ministries within the government. We will work in partnership with them and continue to make sure that industry does as well as it has been doing over the past year or two.

1500

HIGHWAY WIDENING

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): My question is to the Minister of Transportation. It's not just on behalf of my constituents but all the constituents of Durham who make the trek between Toronto and Durham region every day, and also the businesses in Durham that rely on Highway 401 and the transportation corridors between Toronto and Durham.

Given that the 401 is the major route of transportation between Toronto and Durham and that major industries such as Canadian Pacific Transport Co, which is building a $12-million transfer facility in south Pickering, are now locating in Durham region, my question to the Minister of Transportation is, how fast is the expansion going? What are the parameters? When can we expect it to be done and how soon does he think the residents can expect relief on the transportation corridor in south Durham?

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): I certainly welcome the opportunity to thank the member for Durham West for his commitment regarding this essential link. This fine representative breathes the project. He does it with other people. Plans for upgrading the 401 from six lanes to 12 lanes through the collector system are progressing right on time.

The first of nine major contracts was awarded in 1989. However, because of the concerns we all have at the Ministry of Transportation and the Ministry of the Environment, the environmental process has asked that the project not be delayed but that we meticulously look at all the potential hazards vis-à-vis the environment. In lieu of 1997, it will be 1998. It is a project that will serve all and put people to work but, more important, it is a project where the human dimension, where people were put before nuts and bolts, a success story for all to enjoy in the near future.

Mr Wiseman: My supplementary has to do with the road in the north part of my riding. It's a very Liberal road. It starts nowhere, it goes nowhere, has no direction and no ending to it. It's the Taunton-Steeles connection, built by the Liberals with no beginning, no end and no direction.

I would like the minister to inform my constituents today how this road is going to be made into something useful, not just the wasteful energies of the Liberal Party previously, and how we are going to make sure it becomes an important thoroughfare for the residents of Durham to get to Metro.

Hon Mr Pouliot: I have no reason nor any desire to reconcile the philosophy at MTO with any philosophy ever associated with the people across, for they could run parallel for ever and never meet.

The environmental assessment is going to Metro council this spring. Construction of a new four-lane bridge to make access easier and safer is right on schedule. We welcome the opportunity to share this exciting project on the 401 and, more explicitly, on the parochial supplementary I feel I've addressed, and do it justice.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): I have a question to the Minister of Labour. Minister, you will be aware that Denison Mines announced that it's going to stop the funding of the early detection and treatment program next month. You will know that this means funding will be cut for a lung cancer detection and treatment program serving thousands of Elliot Lake uranium miners.

The head of the Canadian Institute for Radiation Safety, the non-profit agency running the monitoring program, stated, "We're facing an epidemic of lung cancer." What are you doing to ensure that Denison Mines will not cut the service so necessary to those workers?

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): I will take the member's question as notice and reply to him tomorrow.

Mr Offer: I thought the minister would be on top of such a crucially important issue. Minister, I bring this matter to your attention because I am now in receipt of a copy of a letter from Mary Tate, the director of occupational health and safety branch of your ministry, which indicates -- and I will quote in part from that letter -- "The Ministry of Labour is reconsidering its chest X-ray and function testing program." It goes on to state, "We are considering reducing the amount of actual testing that the chest clinics carry out."

Minister, the chest X-ray and lung function testing program has been cut back by your ministry. I understand that the schedules for mobile chest clinic visits to plants in the north have not been prepared and that staff have already been cross-assigned. Will you stand in your place today and assure all those individuals that this program will in no way be reduced at any time and will in fact be reinstated?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I would be crazy to make that commitment to the member across the way. What I will tell him is what I told him at the beginning of his questions, that I'll get back to him tomorrow with the information in this case.

REGIONAL GOVERNMENT RESTRUCTURING

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey): I have a question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs, but since he's not here and the Premier's not here and the Deputy Premier's not here, I'm sort of running out of people to ask. Maybe I could put my question to the Minister of Tourism and Recreation.

I hope the minister is aware that the county of Middlesex is unhappy with the recent arbitration procedure to expand the city of London. The county maintains that rural concerns were not listened to due to the restrictive terms of reference. Since it is most unusual to have an arbitrator's report become legislation, I ask if this minister plans to send this bill to committee after second reading for public input.

Hon Peter North (Minister of Tourism and Recreation): I'm sure that I can tell the honourable member across the way that the Minister of Municipal Affairs would love to give you an answer to that.

Mr Murdoch: Mr Speaker, maybe you could direct me to a minister who could answer a question. It's unfortunate that we have heard from the Minister of Municipal Affairs today how the Cooke is going to rule everything now in Municipal Affairs. Since he's set up his henchmen like Sewell and Dale Martin to do all his work for him and now he's not here to answer questions when he --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): If it would be of assistance to the member, the normal procedure in the absence of a minister, and when there's no other minister to whom you wish to place your question, is that any designated minister may take the question as notice. The member is permitted a supplementary. If he wishes to address that question to the Minister of Tourism and Recreation, he may take the supplementary as well as notice and presumably pass it along to the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

Mr Murdoch: Since the minister is here now, maybe I could start over again. Can't do that? My supplementary is to the Minister of Tourism and Recreation. Then maybe he can refer the question to the minister.

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

Mr Murdoch: We have an arbitrator's report that has been presented to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. He indicated he was going to make legislation out of this report. Will this legislation be sent out for public input before it's made law?

Hon Mr North: Perhaps I could refer the supplementary to the --

Interjection: No.

Hon Mr North: I take the question as notice and I'll get an answer for the gentleman.

ONTARIO TRAINING AND ADJUSTMENT BOARD

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): My question is to the Minister of Skills Development. On April 16 I attended a forum sponsored by the Oxford County Federation of Agriculture called Rural Concerns. The forum was designed to allow different interest groups in the agricultural community to present their issues of concern. One of the issues, raised by the local chapter of Women in Support of Agriculture, was regarding training and the role of agriculture in the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board.

Given the nature of what is in the discussion paper and without a clearly defined role for agriculture to be involved in it, could the Minister of Skills Development please tell this House what role he sees agriculture and agricultural organizations taking in the new training and adjustment board?

1510

Hon Richard Allen (Minister of Skills Development): I thank the member for Oxford for the question. It is a question that's being asked in the context of the ongoing consultations around the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board. Because of those consultations on that question and others, I can't give him an exact answer about representation on the board. No specific sectors like steel, auto parts, tourism, food processing and so on are given places on the board; likewise with agriculture, and agriculture was not included in the first plans around the original proposals that came out of the previous Premier's council.

When I established an external consultative committee, I made a point of having the Ontario Federation of Agriculture represented on that. Mr Sulliman, who represents that section, is also on the steering committee of the business steering committee group that advises with respect to the membership of the business community. I understand they have assured the agricultural community that there will be a seat on the board in the business section relating to agriculture.

Mr Sutherland: My supplementary question has to do with the nature of the boards. There has also been concern expressed about the makeup of the local boards in that some of the more rural ridings are being put in with more urban ridings -- in my case the involvement of the riding of Oxford with an area such as London -- and that somehow agricultural concerns in training may be overlooked in the makeup of such a board, since an urban area would have much more industrial training concerns.

Can the minister assure this House that the actual makeup or the geographical area of the local boards will ensure that agricultural concerns regarding training will be addressed?

Hon Mr Allen: Yes, there are a number of local board areas that will be predominantly agricultural. There will be others in which agriculture is a very significant component. It is the intention that the local board structures, since they represent diverse labour market circumstances including a variety of different sectors, will have to have representation on them to deliver training to those specific sectors. Agriculture is certainly one of those. They will have to have their representation -- not just representation; there will have to be mechanisms available that will make it possible to deliver training that is relevant to the agricultural community.

ONTARIO HYDRO CONTRACT

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Ottawa South): My question is for the Minister of Energy. Minister, you will know that Ontario Hydro has entered into a contract to buy electricity from Manitoba. In fact, it's going to buy 1,000 megawatts of electricity per year starting in the year 2000. You will also know that this purchase forms a critical part of Hydro's larger plan to meet our future electricity needs. But the Manitoba purchase is in jeopardy.

I have here, Minister, a copy of the notice of motion filed with the environmental assessment panel which is considering the construction of the transmission facilities needed to carry the Manitoba electricity into our province. That motion has been filed by a coalition of independent power producers and environmental and aboriginal groups, and it asks specifically for a denial of approval for the transmission required to incorporate the Manitoba purchase.

In addition, there's another issue which arises here, Minister. If the Environmental Assessment Board rules in favour of the motion, there's going to be a financial penalty attached. This is what it is going to cost: If the board makes the ruling in June, which is the earliest possible date, it's going to cost Hydro $92 million; if the board waits until early 1993, which it very well could, it's going to cost us $182 million.

My questions to the minister are: First, if the motion succeeds, where are we going to get the 1,000 megawatts of electricity we need by the year 2000? Second, what are you going to do to protect Hydro's ratepayers? Remember, those are the people who this year had their rates go up by 11.8% when inflation was less than 2%. What are you going to do to ensure that these ratepayers pay the smallest possible penalty?

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Acting Minister of Energy): The member will know that the contract for the Manitoba purchase was signed in 1989 during the former administration. In fact the signing was witnessed by the former Premier, if I recall correctly.

I think speculation over particular motions at the demand-supply planning hearing before the EAB is a little bit out of the context of the kinds of things the government has to consider. The member well knows that the board is looking at a whole range of supply options. The member also knows that last fall Ontario Hydro had so many non-utility generation proposals on the table which were making significant progress beyond Hydro's wildest dreams of just a few years ago in terms of demand management that the options opening out in front of us are substantial, and creative approaches to whatever decisions are made by the EAB hearing around any of the options that are before it do not present huge difficulties in terms of the energy future in this province.

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Mr Cooke moved that notwithstanding standing order 94(h) the requirement for notice be waived with respect to ballot item 5.

Motion agreed to.

Mr Cooke moved that Mr Morrow exchange places with Mr Bisson in order of precedence for private members' public business.

Motion agreed to.

PETITIONS

FRENCH-LANGUAGE SERVICES

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey): I have a petition here to add to the 75,000 petitions we've already received.

"Whereas the province of Ontario is experiencing a severe economic recession;

"Whereas the placement of bilingual signs on Ontario's highways without consultation and at a cost of more than $4 million represents a blatant misdirection of taxpayers' dollars, which should be used to address the current pressing economic and employment needs of Ontario citizens;

"Whereas citizens of Ontario are increasingly being denied essential services, such as medical treatment, for lack of adequate funding;

"Whereas Bill 8, the French Language Services Act, does not mandate bilingual highway signs, leaving interpretation to the discretion of the Ontario Transportation minister who, as the minister responsible for francophone affairs, is empowered to grant exemptions under the act;

"We, the undersigned, do petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to resolve that the Ontario Transportation minister's directive to replace existing highway signs in Ontario with bilingual signs at a cost to taxpayers of more than $4 million be revoked immediately."

I have affixed my signature to it.

PARKING FEES

Mrs Ellen MacKinnon (Lambton): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. I present the following petition in regard to proposed parking fees suggested by the Ministry of Government Services in the Lambton county area, and it reads:

"We, the undersigned, object to the proposed parking fees which have been suggested by the Ministry of Government Services. We are all attempting to show restraint in our financial dealings in order to survive the current economic uncertainty of our province. Forcing the employees and the public to pay a fee for parking will only serve to further exacerbate our financial situation."

This is signed with more than 230 names.

RENT REGULATION

Mr John Sola (Mississauga East): I have a petition to the Legislature of Ontario.

"Whereas the proposed Rent Control Act, Bill 121, will prevent apartment owners from carrying out needed repairs to apartment buildings; and

"Whereas this law, if enacted, will be detrimental to the interests of tenants and landlords across the province; and

"Whereas the rent freeze legislation, Bill 4, has already put thousands of workers on the unemployment rolls and Bill 121 threatens a permanent loss of 25,000 jobs;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario as follows:

"To scrap the proposed Rent Control Act; to encourage the government of Ontario to work with tenants, landlords and all interested parties to develop a new law which will be fair to all, and to ensure that in this new legislation, the interests of housing affordability and tenant protection are balanced with a recognition of the importance of allowing needed repairs to rental buildings to be financed and completed."

There are about 150 signatures on this petition.

1520

TAXATION

Mr John Sola (Mississauga East): I've also received a letter in the form of a petition, which I'd like to read as well:

"I am writing to express our concern and opposition to the prospect of a new real estate gains tax in the upcoming provincial budget. I am opposed to this additional tax on real estate gains for many reasons, including the following:

"All real estate gains on all properties except principal residences are taxed now, either as capital gains or as income. Real estate is already one of the most heavily taxed commodities in this province. Real estate and real estate gains are already subject to a wide variety of taxes, including income tax, corporation tax, capital gains tax, goods and services tax, land transfer taxes, property taxes and a host of lot levies for schools, police, parks and other services.

"So-called speculation taxes just don't work. There's absolutely no evidence to suggest a special real estate gains tax will lower land or housing prices or that it would generate any significant net amount of tax revenue. In fact, in some cases housing and land prices can be driven up through such a tax, as investors withdraw property from the market, thereby reducing supply.

"The tax, as outlined in the NDP Agenda for People, unfairly tags legitimate small real estate investors as speculators. Over the years, thousands of Ontario citizens have purchased real estate as part of their retirement planning. The NDP government is trying to suggest that real estate investment is speculation and investors should pay an additional tax on any profit made.

"If the government really wants to lower housing costs, they could increase the supply" --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. The member may wish, on another occasion, to check with the table with respect to the appropriate form for petitions. I got the impression that the member was reading a letter to the House. This is time allotted for the presentation of petitions.

Mr Sola: This letter is in the form of a petition with 18 or 20 signatures on it, sir, so it may be in the improper form but it's still a petition.

The Speaker: Could the member conclude the presentation.

Mr Sola: "If the government really wants to lower housing costs, they could increase the supply of serviced land for building lots, streamline the subdivisions approval process, eliminate restrictive municipal zoning ordinances and a lot more. They would enjoy our complete support if they chose to do so. I am extremely concerned that such a tax will scare more investment out of Ontario and have a very negative effect on the entire real estate market, a driving force in the economy. I urge you to work with your colleagues in the Legislature to prevent another tax on real estate gains."

As I said, it's signed by about 18 or 20 people. I can't quite make out all the signatures.

FRENCH-LANGUAGE SERVICES

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario that reads as follows:

"Whereas the province of Ontario is experiencing a severe economic recession;

"Whereas the placement of bilingual signs on Ontario's highways without consultation and at a cost of more than $4 million represents a blatant misdirection of taxpayers' dollars, which should be used to address the current pressing economic and employment needs of Ontario citizens;

"Whereas citizens of Ontario are increasingly being denied essential services, such as medical treatment, for lack of adequate funding;

"Whereas Bill 8, the French Language Services Act, does not mandate bilingual highway signs, leaving interpretation to the discretion of the Ontario Transportation minister who, as the minister responsible for francophone affairs, is empowered to grant exemptions under the act;

"We, the undersigned, do petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to resolve that the Ontario Transportation minister's directive to replace existing highway signs in Ontario with bilingual signs at a cost to taxpayers of more than $4 million be revoked immediately."

This is in addition to the some 75,000 names we've already presented to this Legislature, and I too affix my name to this petition.

CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): I have been asked by a group of constituents from the great riding of Timiskaming to present this petition, in a rather unorthodox form, to the Legislative Assembly. It is in regard to a ratification process of the proposed constitutional amendments.

"To the Premier and my member of the Legislative Assembly in the province of Ontario:

"I, as a citizen of the province of Ontario, believe that the constitution of a generally democratic society truly belongs to its people and that my views on any changes to it must be heard, and final approval of such changes must be given by myself and my fellow citizens. Up to this time, there has been very limited opportunity for input from grassroots Canadians.

"I therefore request of you, who administer the affairs of this province, to make available every opportunity for the people to see and fully understand what the new Constitution will mean to each of us and then make provision for a final say by the people by way of referendum. Quebec is to have a referendum; I want nothing less."

I will append my signature to this.

TAXATION

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): I have a petition signed by the residents of Kitchener and Waterloo.

"We, the undersigned, petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

"We support the proposed changes to the Ontario tax for fuel conservation, the feebate scheme. We are in favour of increasing the taxes on the gas guzzler category of cars and creating a new $100 rebate for more efficient, gas-efficient cars.

"We approve of earmarking this extra revenue for energy and environmental projects such as grants for municipal bicycle paths. We request that the upcoming Ontario budget include the proposed changes to the Ontario tax for fuel conservation in its entirety."

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): I have another petition as well, a petition that's been signed by 214 Ontario residents representing both the management and employees of a number of Ontario companies, including Swenson Canada, Ellis-Don Construction, Coad Construction, Unalloy/IWRC, Shandon Associates, Peterson and Habib Consultants and Sola Canada, which reads:

"Whereas investment and job creation are essential for Ontario's economic recovery, we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"To instruct the Minister of Labour to table the results of independent empirical studies of the effect that amendments to the Labour Relations Act will have on investment and jobs before proceeding with those amendments."

FRENCH-LANGUAGE SERVICES

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): I have petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the province of Ontario is experiencing a severe economic recession;

"Whereas the placement of bilingual signs on Ontario's highways without consultation and at a cost of more than $4 million represents a blatant misdirection of taxpayers' dollars, which should be used to address the current pressing economic and employment needs of Ontario citizens;

"Whereas citizens of Ontario are increasingly being denied essential services, such as medical treatment, for lack of adequate funding;

"Whereas Bill 8, the French Language Services Act, does not mandate bilingual highway signs, leaving interpretation to the discretion of the Ontario Transportation minister who, as the minister responsible for francophone affairs, is empowered to grant exemptions under the act;

"We, the undersigned, do petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to resolve that the Ontario Transportation minister's directive to replace existing highway signs in Ontario with bilingual signs at a cost to taxpayers of more than $4 million be revoked immediately."

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the province of Ontario is experiencing a severe economic recession;

"Whereas the placement of bilingual signs on Ontario's highways without consultation and at a cost of more than $4 million represents a blatant misdirection of taxpayers' dollars, which should be used to address the current pressing economic and employment needs of Ontario citizens;

"Whereas citizens of Ontario are increasingly being denied essential services, such as medical treatment, for lack of adequate funding;

"Whereas Bill 8, the French Language Services Act, does not mandate bilingual highway signs, leaving interpretation to the discretion of the Ontario Transportation minister who, as the minister responsible for francophone affairs, is empowered to grant exemptions under the act;

"We, the undersigned, do petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to resolve that the Ontario Transportation minister's directive to replace existing highway signs in Ontario with bilingual signs at a cost to taxpayers of more than $4 million be revoked immediately."

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the province of Ontario is experiencing a severe economic recession;

"Whereas the placement of bilingual signs on Ontario's highways without consultation and at a cost of more than $4 million represents a blatant misdirection of taxpayers' dollars, which should be used to address the current pressing economic and employment needs of Ontario citizens;

"Whereas citizens of Ontario are increasingly being denied essential services, such as medical treatment, for lack of adequate funding;

"Whereas Bill 8, the French Language Services Act, does not mandate bilingual highway signs, leaving interpretation to the discretion of the Ontario Transportation minister who, as the minister responsible for francophone affairs, is empowered to grant exemptions under the act;

"We, the undersigned, do petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to resolve that the Ontario Transportation minister's directive to replace existing highway signs in Ontario with bilingual signs at a cost to taxpayers of more than $4 million be revoked immediately."

1530

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): I have a petition that reads as follows:

"Whereas the province of Ontario is experiencing a severe economic recession;

"Whereas the placement of bilingual signs on Ontario's highways, without consultation and at a cost of more than $4 million represents a blatant misdirection of taxpayers' dollars which should be used to address the current pressing economic and employment needs of Ontario citizens;

"Whereas citizens of Ontario are increasingly being denied essential services, such as medical treatment, for lack of adequate funding;

"Whereas Bill 8, the French Language Services Act, does not mandate bilingual highway signs, leaving interpretation to the discretion of the Ontario Transportation minister, who, as the minister responsible for francophone affairs, is empowered to grant exemptions under the act;

"We, the undersigned, do petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to resolve that the Ontario Transportation minister's directive to replace existing highway signs in Ontario with bilingual signs at a cost to taxpayers of more than $4 million be revoked immediately."

I have affixed my name to this petition.

Mr Murdoch: I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the province of Ontario is experiencing a severe economic recession;

"Whereas the placement of bilingual signs on Ontario's highways, without consultation and at a cost of more than $4 million represents a blatant misdirection of taxpayers' dollars which should be used to address the current pressing economic and employment needs of Ontario citizens;

"Whereas citizens of Ontario are increasingly being denied essential services, such as medical treatment, for lack of adequate funding;

"Whereas Bill 8, the French Language Services Act, does not mandate bilingual highway signs, leaving interpretation to the discretion of the Ontario Transportation minister, who, as the minister responsible for francophone affairs, is empowered to grant exemptions under the act;

"We, the undersigned, do petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to resolve that the Ontario Transportation minister's directive to replace existing highway signs in Ontario with bilingual signs at a cost to taxpayers of more than $4 million be revoked immediately."

ORDERS OF THE DAY

OPPOSITION DAY

CONFLICT OF INTEREST AND CONDUCT OF MINISTERS

Mr Sorbara, on behalf of Mr Elston, moved opposition day motion 2:

Whereas the NDP government has undertaken to make "integrity in government" and "conduct of ministers" the centrepiece of a new NDP administration and made specific reference to that undertaking in its first speech from the throne;

And whereas, pursuant to that undertaking, the Premier (1) placed before the Legislature and the standing committee on administration of justice a new set of guidelines regulating conflict of interest and conduct of ministers of the crown; and (2) committed his government to introducing legislation based upon the committee's consideration of these guidelines;

And whereas several ministers and parliamentary assistants of the government have, since the NDP government took office, violated the Members' Conflict of Interest Act, the general standard of conduct applicable to elected officials and ministers of the crown and the specific guidelines initially adopted by the Premier;

And whereas in each such instance the Premier has applied an ad hoc, politically expedient standard and sanctions to those who have violated his own guidelines;

And whereas a special committee of the Legislature charged with examining the conduct of the Minister of Northern Development, having conducted 15 days of public and in camera hearings, found no justification for the damaging remarks made by the Minister of Northern Development concerning an Ontario physician;

And whereas the strictest application of stringent standards of conduct is essential to the maintenance of public confidence in government and the integrity of the democratic process;

Therefore, this House calls upon the government to introduce specific legislation regulating conflict of interest and the conduct of ministers of the crown, including clear and enforceable sanctions for any violations.

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): It is with some degree of regret that we as a party find ourselves constrained to bring forward a motion of this sort at this time. There's no doubt there are all sorts of urgent and pressing matters that we believe this House should be directing its attention to, including the state of the provincial economy; including the fact that as was mentioned earlier today in question period, some 200,000 jobs have been lost in Ontario during the course of the past year; including the fact that notwithstanding its commitment to eliminate food banks, we see that thousands and thousands of people in Ontario have only the recourse of food banks to feed themselves and their children and their spouses etc. We find ourselves constrained to move this motion and ask the House to engage in a consideration of the proposals we have here in this motion.

The first question is, why is it that we are here today with this motion? What's the central issue we're debating here? I put it to you, Mr Speaker, and I put it particularly to the government members of this House that the conduct of the Premier, and by extension of his cabinet and caucus have put into serious question the very trust that the people of this province have in the democratic process and in elected officials.

It was the Premier himself, when he was the Leader of the Opposition, who said in sometimes eloquent and glowing terms in this House and outside of the Legislature and around Ontario that the first question of elected officials is whether they meet the very highest and strictest standards of integrity in the discharge of their public responsibilities.

I put it to the members of this House that the election campaign of July and August and September, 1990, had in part to do with a vote on those questions, because the now Premier, the Leader of the Opposition at that time, crusaded across Ontario and campaigned and warranted, in the fashion of a consumer warranty, that his government would be different, that he would impose standards that were of the very strictest sort.

Since that time we have seen an ongoing parade of questionable conduct, beginning with the ejection from cabinet of the former Minister of Financial Institutions, the member for Welland-Thorold, and on and on. But in each of those cases the patron saint of piety, the member for York South, now the Premier of the province, has refused to call upon the very standards that the people of Ontario said to him, by way of the confidence they placed in him in electing him as the Premier and his party as the government party. He has consistently refused to apply those standards and in each case has taken a politically expedient approach to the question of conduct of ministers.

The worst and most high-profile example is the famous Shelley Martel affair, and it gives rise to this motion today.

What's the real issue in the Shelley Martel affair? The real issue in the Shelley Martel affair is this: It is okay to commit a civil slander; it is okay for a minister to lie; it is okay for a minister to impugn the reputation of a private citizen, so long, apparently, as she apologizes.

1540

How do you know when a minister's telling the truth? How do you know? How can the people of Ontario have confidence that when a minister makes a statement, that when a minister makes a remark in a press conference, that when a minister is quoted in a scrum, it's the truth? I see my friend the chief government whip laughing over there on the other side of the House. She represents the latest example of this inability to know whether what they're saying is true or not.

I happened to be driving into work this morning, into Queen's Park, and I was listening to a radio program called Breakfast at Queen's Park. There were three people on that program. The interviewer was Donna McElligot of CBC Radio. Steve Mahoney, the member for Mississauga West and our whip, was one of the guests and the member for Niagara South, the chief government whip, was the other guest.

I couldn't believe my ears at what I heard. The interviewer, by the way, mentioned the point of foreign junkets, and the chief government whip said: "We have a system of rewards. The government House leader gives me a list of the trips and I hand them out to the members who have gone the extra mile."

Thousands and thousands of people were listening to this program and most of them, I think, would be scandalized. So we raised this issue, on this day when we're debating integrity of government, with the Premier. Now I hear from members of our staff that outside this House after question period the Premier said, "It was a joke." But what about the thousands of people who were listening and weren't able to contact the Premier today to find out whether or not it was a joke? You see, that's the problem.

The way in which the Premier is applying standards of conduct in this Legislature and in the government, you have to get back to them to find out whether it was a lie, whether it was a joke, or whether the minister was misinformed. The people have lost trust in this government's ability to tell it like it is.

If Miss Martel, the member for Sudbury East, is not required to step down from office, that casts a shadow on every single member of this Legislature, because the new standard is that you can lie. The new standard is that as long as the Premier will back you up and you apologize, it's not a problem. But the issue here for us is the Premier himself, because it's the Premier who was elected on the basis that his standards would be higher. He's elected, and we find that he has no standards at all.

Let's go back for just a moment or two to Bob Rae in opposition. Let's go back to his attack on Joan Smith, a former Solicitor General and the member for London North. According to Bob Rae, Joan Smith made a transgression. At 2 o'clock in the morning she was woken up by a telephone call in which she heard that the son of a family friend had just been arrested and would she please come down to the police station. Remember, she's the Solicitor General.

She apologized, but she acted out of compassion. It was a transgression and she said in this House: "It was wrong to go to the police station -- I'm the Solicitor General -- but I acted out of compassion." What did Bob Rae say? He said: "We will have her head. She will resign. We'll close down this Legislature unless she resigns." That was his standard.

Let's go back to Ken Keyes, the former member for Kingston and The Islands. Let's go back to Bob Rae's attack on Ken Keyes. What was his transgression? As Solicitor General he was entertaining a high-ranking official from Scotland Yard on an OPP boat and offered that official a bottle of beer, I think it was -- some alcoholic beverage or other. That was a violation of the laws of the province of Ontario. Now, what drove him to do this? I suggest it was protocol. It was a matter of trying to be polite, entertaining a high-ranking official. So he was driven by protocol. He transgressed the law, and Bob Rae said, "It's not the particular instance, it's a matter of standards of conduct, and for the good of us all Ken Keyes must resign," and he did resign.

So, according to Bob Rae, if you're driven by protocol and you transgress, you must resign. If you're driven by compassion, as in the case of Joan Smith, you must resign.

What about Shelley Martel? By her own admission she was driven by anger, she was mad, she lost her temper. Bob Rae says in that case it's okay. So compassion is no good for this Premier, protocol is no good for this Premier, but anger and venom from the mouth of the Minister of Northern Development and Mines is acceptable.

Bob Rae said in opposition that this was a threshold question, that if the people do not trust us to enforce the very highest standards, then we can't get on with the rest of the business we're elected to conduct.

Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): "And I will change that."

Mr Sorbara: He said, as my friend the member for Ottawa East says, "I will change that," and the people voted for him, they voted for that change. He has turned his back on those people and he, not the others, has committed the fundamental breach of trust. Virtually every editorialist in the province has commented on this now. The reputation of the Minister of Northern Development can never be repaired. The Toronto Star said, "He has allowed Martel to drag down the entire government, depleting it of political capital and diluting its sense of morality."

This is not a place where there is a guarantee of employment. We are here to occupy positions for a while. Ministers come and go. Harry Truman said it best when he said, "It's not the office holder that's important; it's the office itself." What has happened over the course of the past 18 months is that the offices the ministers hold have been degraded.

This is not a personal attack on the member for Sudbury East. This has nothing to do with personalities. This has to do with simply upholding a particular standard of conduct. If we don't do that, those who come here after us -- and we will soon be replaced, no doubt -- will look to the precedents, to what happened in 1990, 1991 and 1992 under Bob Rae, and they will enforce those standards.

We say simply to the Premier that this can no longer go on. There must be guidelines, there must be a very high standard of integrity. We say to him, by way of this motion and this opposition day, that the government must now bring forward to this Legislature a set of guidelines that the Premier of Ontario, whose reputation is really in question, who made a commitment in an election campaign to enforce a set of standards, must finally bring to the Legislature those standards and make a public commitment, not only to us but to the people of Ontario, to enforce those standards. I look forward to the support of the government members as we vote on this resolution.

1550

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): I have had a quite considerable involvement with the Martel inquiry and the Martel affair so I will attempt to be very brief. I am going to refer to page 41 of the decision of the minority report. It's very interesting, because page 41 includes the remarks made by counsel to the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly. These are not the words of any partisan, political person who was involved in the Martel inquiry. These are the words of counsel, who provided an analysis of the facts. Counsel says this:

"So long as there is legislation in place which protects the privacy of this sort of individual information, it appears that it is a violation of the spirit of that legislation to provide and circulate estimates or hypotheses of what that information might be. The communication of such information not only represents an apparent violation of the individual's privacy because the information appears to be confidential in nature; it is arguably more damaging than the circulation of actual confidential information because it is inaccurate, and perhaps damagingly so.

"Nor does it appear that this concern can be mitigated by appropriate disclaimers that the information is 'hypothetical' or 'an estimate.' So long as that information is coming from the office of a government MPP, or indeed from any MPP, the recipient of the information will be inclined inevitably to think that it is accurate and based on government records."

Counsel is saying that what happened in the Martel affair, what the member for Sudbury East and the member for Sudbury, the parliamentary assistant, did was essentially to break the law; they broke the spirit of the law as it exists in this province, and that's the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. To these people who sit, to the 10 of them who are here now, I congratulate you for being here --

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Order. I won't allow any exchange from one side to the other. The member for Willowdale has the floor.

Mr Harnick: The Minister of Natural Resources says there was no breach of the law. I recommend to the Minister of Natural Resources, before he pops off and tells me about breaches of the law, that he pick up this report and read on page 41 what counsel said to the committee. What counsel said to the committee was that this was tantamount to breaching the freedom of information act. But do you know what that means to the members on that side of the House? It means absolutely nothing. They can go to receptions and they can lie and slander citizens of this province. They can run constituency offices where they --

The Deputy Speaker: I just warn you: Be careful with your language.

Mr Harnick: Mr Speaker, in this situation, where we have the admission that that's what the member did, I don't know any better way to repeat it, because I'm repeating what the member said about herself. She had a lie detector test --

Hon Howard Hampton (Attorney General): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: If I heard the member correctly, I heard him assert that members on this side of the House lie and slander. I think that's quite unparliamentary.

The Deputy Speaker: Please take your seat. I heard exactly the same as you did. This is the reason I stood up and this is why I warned the member for Willowdale to be careful in his choice of words. I consider this finished unless somebody else has a point of order.

Mr Bob Huget (Sarnia): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: It's traditional to withdraw those types of remarks, and I wonder if that's the procedure we're going to follow today.

The Deputy Speaker: I've been absolutely clear: I will not tolerate any accusation of anyone in this House to be liars. The Chair will not accept that.

Mr Harnick: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I appreciate the warning.

If one reads page 41, in the remarks and the analysis prepared by independent counsel to that committee, what she has told us is that there has been a breach of the freedom of information act. That doesn't mean anything to the people who breached that act; they continue to sit here every day. They continue to sit here in spite of their admissions of breaching the Premier's guidelines. In spite of the fact that counsel has said they have breached the law, they continue to sit here every day, and every day it means nothing to them, and every day we have a litany of more of the same. Today it was the chief government whip. Who knows who it's going to be tomorrow?

I think that is precisely why my friends in the Liberal Party have brought forward a resolution, and the final paragraph reads:

"Therefore, this House calls upon the government to introduce specific legislation regulating conflict of interest and the conduct of ministers of the crown, including clear and enforceable sanctions for any violations."

I regret very much that is what this government needs and I regret very much that is what my friends in the Liberal Party believe we need, because the fact is that what we're talking about here is morality; we're talking about decent, honest behaviour and we're talking about ethics. The fact that they have to bring a resolution before this House to say that we need clear and enforceable sanctions because it's not enough that people would know what is right and wrong is very regrettable. I believe people should know right from wrong, and if someone transgresses, they should know they should resign, or the Premier should know, without needing something written down to say, "If you breach morality, you're going to be out of the cabinet." I believe that should happen without having enforceable rules, because we should know better than that. We should be at a higher level.

But because of the conduct of members of this government, we are not at that level. I regret that my friends in the Liberal Party think everybody in this House will behave that way if and when they are in government. I regret that, because I certainly don't think people should have to be told what is right and what is wrong and how it should be enforced, but that appears to be the level to which we have sunk in this Legislature with this government.

I urge the people who have been a part of this Martel inquiry to read what counsel said, not to read their own majority report, biased and politically partisan as it is. I urge you to read what independent counsel said, what someone steeped and learned in the law has said in her analysis of the facts. I appreciate that to most of you that doesn't mean anything, but I think morality might better start right now and right here.

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Health and Minister Responsible for the Provincial Anti-Drug Strategy): In the words of Justice Evans, one of the things we must try to avoid in debates around conflicts of interest that emanate from the members of this Legislature is the partisan political hyperbole we are sometimes wont to engage in. I've just heard some of that.

Let me try to remind members of the House of the nature of conflict-of-interest legislation, the nature of conflict-of-interest guidelines -- that we want to ensure that the public is protected -- and with respect to which the members of the House have very clear and understandable expectations of behaviour and conduct.

I have been thoroughly amazed, throughout this whole process of the discussion of the special committee's investigations, by the way in which members have mixed the term "conduct of behaviour" with "conflict of interest." I would point out to the members of the House that with respect to conflict of interest and the kinds of problems that have been experienced by members of this Legislature in past governments -- in fact, by members of other governments -- it is that which has given rise to the public cynicism we see, to the public demand for clear conflict-of-interest rules. By and large, that really comes from the public saying: "We want to have honest government with integrity. We want to know clearly where people's interests lie when they're making decisions."

Those kinds of conflict-of-interest guidelines and rules speak very clearly to the kinds of pecuniary interests individuals can have, the trust interests and holdings: Where's your money when you're part of making a decision in government? Is that decision you're involved with going to affect your assets, your bank, your stocks, your accounts, your property? Those are the sorts of things about conflict of interest we must guard against, all of us, in terms of being public members, to ensure that we can maintain the highest level of confidence from the public. Unfortunately, I don't believe that level of confidence is there. We must work to build that up again.

1600

What else? What about members of our immediate families? What role should they have in terms of gaining employment, contracts, those sorts of things? Where do we have the opportunity to have full disclosure about the holdings both of our spouses, our families and of our individual holdings so that the public has an opportunity to judge our actions and to judge the way in which we involve ourselves in decision-making in government?

Quite frankly, those are the kinds of elements of conflict of interest that will lead to clear and open government, but those are not, let me point out again, the sorts of issues that you've heard addressed from the members of the other two parties in the beginning of this debate, nor were those the kinds of issues or points of view that were put before the special committee investigating the issues that were referred to earlier on.

I'll go on. What about divestment? In this government, in this Parliament, we have very clear rules and guidelines for members of the cabinet to divest themselves of interests that could lead to a conflict of interest at some point in time. There hasn't been a previous government that has ever set up those kinds of very stringent demands on members of cabinet. That's taking a very serious point of view and advancing the level of demand with respect to conflict-of-interest rules and guidelines.

The members opposite will make much of demanding that there should be legislation with respect to conflict-of-interest guidelines. We have, as you know, legislation in place in this province which we, as a government, have indicated we think needs improvement as well. We have asked a three-party committee to be involved in making recommendations to improve the legislation. In the meantime, the Premier has put out his own guidelines. He has insisted that members of cabinet, parliamentary assistants and others oblige those guidelines and live up to the spirit of those guidelines, Mr Speaker, and I think you will find that in fact we have.

Let me turn for a moment to the very issue the other members have been raising with respect to the remarks of the Minister of Northern Development, and that somehow this is a violation of conflict of interest, that somehow the legislative initiative they demand would address this situation. We went through a very intensive period of examination of the facts with regard to the remarks of the Minister of Northern Development as a result of the call from the opposition members to set up a special committee. That committee was set up and that investigation has taken place.

In the lead-up to that investigation and the call for that committee, I heard all sorts of remarks from members opposite about what was going to be found: that it was going to be found that the member had received private information from the Ministry of Health or that the member had divulged confidential information and had violated the freedom of information legislation. In fact, I heard the allegation here just a moment ago that what she did was tantamount to violation of the freedom of information legislation. Interesting. If you have no private information, I don't know how you can be in a position to violate the legislation, but those allegations are still being made and they were made at the time.

Those allegations went even further. I heard from the members opposite allegations that I, as a minister, would somehow be implicated in this whole process, and members of my staff and members of my ministry and, my God, there was a whole coverup going on in this province.

What came of that? Absolutely no evidence to support anything that was said by the members of the opposition with respect to this at all; absolutely not. No smoking gun, no conspiracy of coverup. Nothing was substantiated by that process. What we have, unfortunately -- let me come back to the words of Mr Justice Evans -- is a lot of partisan political hyperbole going on.

On this side of the House what we're interested in is trying to work -- and it would be nice if it could be collectively with all members of the Legislature and all elected politicians -- to try and change the public perception of the commitment of individuals in public life, to try and elevate the respect the public has for government, to try and open up government, to try and bring integrity to the process.

Mr Speaker, I will remind you of some comments that were made in the first throne speech of this government, and I think it is really important that we come back to what the goal of our government is with respect to the issue of open government and integrity. Let me read from that throne speech:

"We must create a greater sense of integrity in the work of government. We are under no illusions that this is easy, since the public remains distrustful of governments and other large institutions. It is our job to address that cynicism and to overcome it. When my government makes mistakes, it will admit them."

That is what has happened in this government. The kinds of mistakes that have been made by human beings in ordinary situations where the ordinary person would fall folly to making mistakes of those sorts, and which I believe the public actually understands, have been admitted.

The way the opposition is somehow trying to tie all of this together with violation of conflict-of-interest guidelines and saying that there's something underhanded and something wrong going on on the government side of the benches is untenable, because quite frankly it is that kind of partisan politics that leads to the public cynicism out there.

Let's get the issues straight. Let's put them on the floor. Let's deal with the issues as they are. If you go through, one by one, the kinds of allegations they're making, you'll find they are unfounded, Mr Speaker. Quite frankly, we would like to stress that we are very supportive of introduction of tougher conflict-of-interest legislation in this province. We think we have taken steps by introducing guidelines that go far beyond the legislation that exists now. We're quite prepared, with the support of the kind of work that is being done by the members of all three parties, as well as recommendations from the Conflict of Interest Commissioner himself, to move forward and to develop a legislative package for that.

When I look at the opposition day motion before us, when I see this issue being tied in with conflict-of-interest violations, my goodness, that's not what they're talking about at all. They're talking about the committee which already had an investigation and already developed a report that has been tabled here. There's a sham going on. The people deserve to know there is a distinction between conflict of interest, between the kinds of allegations made of the members of previous governments and of governments in other jurisdictions and the kinds of honest mistakes of human beings that have taken place here which these members are referring to.

It's not in the public interest to have that kind of confusion continue. It is not in the public interest to continue to try to debase all politicians by the kinds of actions of partisan politics in the House. While we won't be supporting the motion, we will support the concept of tougher legislation and we'll move to bring that forward.

[Applause]

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): Was that applause for me? Thank you.

I was interested in the last comment by the member who just spoke that they are in support of the introduction of tougher laws regarding conflict of interest. You don't understand that's not our problem. You could introduce all the tough laws in the world you want, but if you don't have someone at the head of the government who's prepared to enforce those laws, who's prepared to interpret them with some form of integrity, then don't waste the time of this legislative precinct to introduce laws that require hours of committee work and millions of dollars in staff time, lawyers and everyone to put into some workable order some clear-cut guidelines when your boss, Minister, is not prepared to enforce them. That's the point.

When you say you're prepared to support tougher laws, it clearly proves to me that you don't understand the problem we're trying to identify. We see no consistency, no attempt by this Premier to recognize mistakes and deal with them appropriately.

I could go on for hours, which I don't have, through quotes from the past when Bob Rae was on this side of the House. That has been so frustrating, it's almost a waste of time. What I'd rather do is give you something a little more recent, a February 1991 quote from the Premier:

"I suspect that, looking at members of the opposition, there is going to be the occasion when you are going to want to say to the Premier, 'It's all very well. Don't tell us what the standards are in the law. Tell us what your own standards are and tell us what you think should happen,' and I do not think you are going to be satisfied with the answer that says: 'Oh, well, wait a minute now. We've got a committee looking into that. As soon as I hear back from the committee, I'll get back to you."

Bob Rae went on to say, "It has been my sense that at some point the buck also stops at the Premier's office, and there has to be that understanding. I don't know how it could be more clear."

1610

What's interesting is that while the focus of the opposition motion is clearly on the Minister of Northern Development, it is more general than that. It says in one of the whereases:

"And whereas several ministers and parliamentary assistants of the government have, since the NDP government took office, violated the Members' Conflict of Interest Act, the general standard of conduct applicable to elected officials and ministers of the crown and the specific guidelines initially adopted by the Premier;

"And whereas in each such instance the Premier has applied ad hoc, politically expedient standards and sanctions to those who have violated his own guidelines..."

This, for the members opposite, is the roster of this august chamber. All of our names are here. I went through the government side just an hour ago and I highlighted 27 members who have been in some form of trouble or another with the Premier's guidelines or the law.

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): Am I clear?

Mr Mahoney: No, Millsie, I think you're okay.

We have the member for Downsview, who got in trouble with Mel Lastman because he decided to issue some business cards after he had been elected here. We have the member for Cambridge who, we all know, was involved in fixing tickets. We have the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Health, the member for Scarborough East, who had to resign over some form of conflict. We have the member for Scarborough West, who sent a letter trying to influence the outcome of an independent body.

We have the member for Fort York who, while he was a cabinet minister, was using the government's chauffeur-driven limousine to drive his mother to the polls to vote in a municipal election. We have the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay, who was involved in a conflict up in that particular area, got in all kinds of trouble with the press and was summarily called into the Premier's office.

We have the member for Riverdale, who was living in co-op housing at a time when she was a member of the cabinet. We have the member for Port Arthur, who after being elected, received some $20,000 in workers' compensation benefits because she had a bad back and couldn't sit too long. We have the member for Dovercourt with us in the House, who apparently signed a document in his practice of law that he should not have signed.

We have, my goodness, the member for Niagara South, who this morning on a radio show with me as the chief opposition whip, told everyone that she hands out trips as rewards --

Mr Mills: I haven't had any.

Mr Mahoney: Millsie, yours is coming, but remember, when she sends you, you've got to buy her a little Tinker Bell to bring back so that she's happy.

We have a number of members, at least three from the Hamilton area, cabinet ministers, who were involved in secret meetings to tell NDP members of the Hamilton council about the cancellation of the Red Hill Creek Expressway.

We had a member who was in jail, for goodness' sake.

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): Under a tree.

Mr Mahoney: Chained himself to a tree, chained himself to the Peace Tower in Ottawa; I don't know what he did, but they put him in the slammer, and they should have put the Premier in right beside him.

At a time when we were dealing with rent control bills, we had a couple of members who were landlords who were accused by members of the Conservative caucus of outrageous rent increases.

We had a member who appeared -- can you imagine how awful? -- as a Sunshine Boy. Unbelievable.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): Fully clothed.

Mr Mahoney: Fully clothed yet, but wearing nothing but a smile, I'm told.

Mr Curling: That's the whip's puppy.

Mr Mahoney: That's the whip's puppy. He's getting a trip.

We've had so many conflicts, so many confusions, it's simply unbelievable.

There has been one, I say in all honesty, that I think was dealt with properly. That was the member for Ottawa Centre, who is here in this House, who inappropriately blurted out the name of someone who had done something with regard to the health care system. She did the right thing. She stood down. She resigned her seat in cabinet, she took the time to allow the Premier to clear the air and she was subsequently reappointed to cabinet. I congratulate her for doing that. I think that is the proper thing to do.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I just heard the member for Ottawa Centre call the member who's speaking a slanderous swine.

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): I withdraw my comment.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I would ask everyone to be extremely careful. I know you can achieve that.

Mr Mahoney: Mr Speaker, I must tell you it didn't bother me. I was paying the member a compliment for having done the right thing. She obviously doesn't even recognize a compliment. That just shows the level the member really belongs in with those kinds of remarks.

I've given you a bit of an outline in a very short period of time and I haven't done them all. There are more but I'm running out of time, I'm sorry.

People throw up the throne speech. It occurred to me, when the minister got up to speak to this, to wonder what she did, what punishment she deserves, to be asked to come in here and defend this government. Obviously she did something.

I'll go back to the throne speech -- memories of days gone by. Imagine this: Having gone through the litany of conflicts and mistakes, all we ask is for somebody by the name of Premier Bob Rae to deal with this. We're willing to admit mistakes are made. Human beings make mistakes, admit them, pay the price, take the punishment and live by the standards this Premier put before this Legislature in the first throne speech. I remember those heady days when everyone thought: "You know, maybe it was a mistake that we elected these guys, but let's give them a chance. Just maybe something new will come out of the first socialist government."

When they said in the throne speech, "My government's first challenge is to earn the trust and respect of the people of Ontario" -- it ain't working, folks. "We will set clear standards of behaviour for the conduct of ministers, members of the Legislature and senior government officials....We will introduce legislation on conflict of interest at both provincial and municipal levels....We must create a greater sense of integrity in the work of government." Then the caveat they all wrap around themselves when they make these errors and nothing happens is, "When my government makes mistakes, it will admit them."

We have had about 18 months of mistake followed by admission followed by mistake followed by admission followed by mistake. When in goodness' name are we going to have some form of discipline, some form of integrity, some form of this government living up to standards it demanded so pompously when it was on this side of the House that everyone else in the world should live up to, some imaginary socialist NDP doctrine?

I have here article after article. "Martel Should Quit to Salvage Honour." That is truly one of the tragedies: that a bright star of the New Democratic Party has been shot down in flames by her own inability to recognize the proper course and by a Premier who so stubbornly stuck to his guns on this issue that he has destroyed her -- maybe intentionally, I suggest to you. Maybe the Premier really did see that this lady could be a threat to his leadership one day and this is a good opportunity to get rid of her.

"Martel Slanders Hit Rae's Integrity," "NDP Members Soften Report on Martel" -- the adjustments by the majority members of the committee of that report written by the legal staff just to make it sound better -- and the one that is so true and simple that says, "A Lie Is a Lie Is a Lie."

1620

When I hear the kind of reaction from the Minister of Housing to the speech I'm making here, it reminds me of a day in this House when I as a member in the government back bench was attacked by your boss, your Premier, and accused totally falsely, with no information, with lies. He threw it all over the place with no fear or regard as to what it would do to a member's career. That was your hero, folks. That was your leader. He didn't give a damn what he said about a member and it cost a tremendous amount of money, time and heartache to come back and straighten that man out. He has no principles. He has no morals. He doesn't care who he tries to destroy. He doesn't --

The Deputy Speaker: Order, order. Please take your seat. Frankly, you're going too far. You're imputing all kinds of faults to the Premier and the Chair will not accept that.

Mr Mahoney: With all due respect, I don't accept your ruling but I will suggest that my time is up in any event.

The Deputy Speaker: Please take your chair. The procedures are extremely clear. You don't argue with the Speaker on a ruling.

Mr Mahoney: I would not argue, but I would reiterate that as far as I'm concerned there is no integrity in this government. There cannot be integrity in this government when there is clearly no integrity in its leader. He doesn't know what to do, and if he does he refuses to do it.

Mr Tilson: The subject before us today, of course, is the matter that's raised in the motion before us, which has to do with integrity in government and conduct of ministers. The solution that's being put forward by this resolution is, "This House calls upon the government to introduce specific legislation regulating conflict of interest and the conduct of ministers of the crown, including clear and enforceable sanctions for any violations."

I have trouble with this resolution. I have trouble in that it probably will be creating more bureaucracy. There's enough bureaucracy in this place. I suppose it will give more powers, more responsibility, to the Conflict of Interest Commissioner. The commissioner may require more staff. There'll be more investigations. There may be hearings. The resolution is quite silent as to how it deals with that. But I'm averse to the Liberal resolution, which will require the spending of more taxpayers' dollars on a process that is already in place that I think is quite adequate. I therefore will not be supporting the resolution.

The quandary I'm in is that not supporting the resolution -- I'm certainly not condoning the actions of the Premier and the actions of this government -- puts me in a very difficult position where, because of the rules of this House, I'm unable to make an amendment to the resolution. I must confess to having said that I'm opposed to the resolution. I will say that the Premier, in his capacity as the head of this government, has the ability to choose who is in his cabinet for whatever position he wishes. He also has the ability to remove individuals from his cabinet. He can dismiss them for any number of reasons: perhaps for just a change of policy, or perhaps because of his guidelines with respect to conflict of interest.

Although I oppose the resolution I understand the intent and the frustration of the Liberal opposition in putting forward this resolution, particularly when we're talking about the integrity of this government. I'm not going to repeat all the various people on the list that has been referred to by the member for Mississauga West, who have done wrong in this government. We all know what they are. We all know this government does a great deal of defending its integrity, specifically when you start to read the Premier's guidelines with respect to conflict of interest as referred to on December 12, 1990, and announced by the Premier of this province.

The very first principle is to increase public confidence in the integrity of the government. How's it doing that? How is he doing that? We've just spent $500,000 in listening as to the conduct -- it has nothing to do with conflict of interest; it's called the "conduct" of a minister of this crown who admittedly lied. She said she lied, and she took a lie detector test to say that she was telling the truth about lying. Can you imagine?

Principle 4: "Ministers shall at all times act in a manner that will bear the closest public scrutiny." We have the right to demand a high standard from our ministers. That's what the Premier's guideline says, the guidelines imposed upon cabinet ministers and parliamentary assistants, more stringent standards of conduct than those imposed by the existing conflict-of-interest legislation and policy. How is that being enforced by the member for Sudbury East when she acts the way she has? She won't resign and the Premier won't fire her.

Principle 5: "Ministers shall perform the duties of office and arrange their affairs in such a manner as to maintain public confidence and trust in the integrity of the government." That's what it's all about. That's what this government was trying to do with its initial throne speech: It was trying to develop integrity. I'm afraid this government led by Premier Bob Rae has miserably failed.

As the member for Mississauga West said, you look at all the headlines, all the polls, all the discussions in your own constituency. I can't believe the comments they've made with respect to the member for Sudbury East. I can't believe it.

Any time this minister's going to stand in this House from this point on we are all going to be very suspicious as to what she has to say. Is she telling the truth? Is she mad today? Is she annoyed? Has she lost it, to use her words? Will we be believing her? It's called integrity.

As I say, although I am opposed to the resolution I understand its intent and I understand its seriousness, and I must say that it gives me great concern as to where this government's going in trying to develop not only the integrity of the government but the integrity of this House. The members of the public, I'm afraid, look on us less and less as to what we do in this place.

Of course today there have been more actions that have come forward, when the House leader is now talking about perks for trips, and I understand the Premier has said that's all a joke. It will remain to be seen whether it was a joke. I don't think it's a joke.

The Minister of the Environment today was talking about the evidence that's come forward in a decision from the Ontario Municipal Board that she is interfering in the process. That's the very thing the minister from Sudbury East --

Hon Ms Gigantes: Oh, go on.

Mr Tilson: That's exactly what she has done. The Ontario Municipal Board has stated that in its decision. The Minister of Northern Development, the member for Sudbury East, resigned at one point for interfering in quasi-judicial proceedings, and for some unearthly reason the Premier did not accept her decision. Six months later she's slandering a doctor in northern Ontario and telling lies to her constituents.

The member for Sudbury, who was here in the House -- the evidence came forward in the facts of the Martel affair hearing that she had her staff give misleading stories to the public. Terrible. She's a parliamentary assistant for the Ministry of Labour. She is subject to these guidelines. The minister's done nothing with respect to her. It seems you can do anything over there -- anything.

So the resolution is most relevant; it's just not the way to do it. All the Premier has to do is enforce his very guidelines. That's all he has to do. But for some unearthly reason -- whether he can't find any more talent or whether he's just overlooking these things or whether his principles are not quite as high as he alleged they used to be.

There are other members of this House who wish to address this subject. As the member for Mississauga West said, there are many, many editorials and newspaper articles that have been written commenting on this whole subject of integrity and specifically the Martel affair, because that's what sparked it.

She even refused to resign and refused to deal with it even before the committee had finished its hearings. She said: "I'm not resigning. No matter what that committee says, I'm not resigning." There's no integrity.

1630

I'm going to close by referring to one of many articles that have been written on the Martel affair; it came out in March in the Toronto Star. This is the attitude of this government. Referring to the member for Sudbury East, "She thinks herself too valuable to the north -- and to the government -- and believes voters in her Sudbury riding will back her at election time." The article says, "She still just doesn't get it." I think that's the problem. She still doesn't get it. She doesn't understand what she's done.

"Martel has now recast herself as the victim: an earnest, innocent, principled politician who was hard done by." Can you imagine? She paints herself as the victim -- some integrity of that specific minister.

"She claims to have been overworked and overwrought after fighting so hard to keep doctors in Sudbury. She says she felt 'personally manipulated' by Dr Donahue, for whom she had lobbied the Health ministry. And she blames her December 5 outburst on a bystander who 'pressed a button' by merely mentioning the doctor's name in her presence. The devil made her do it." Can you imagine? Where are the Premier's guidelines?

The article concludes, with respect to the member for Sudbury East: "She admits she 'fell far short' of Premier Bob Rae's guidelines for cabinet ministers, and even considered resigning. But she has persuaded herself that her indispensability to the north, and to cabinet, outweighs any wrongdoing on her part." Can you imagine? "These are self-indulgent rationalizations. The only question is whether the Premier remains equally myopic over his own conduct guidelines and will keep a discredited and unrepentant politician in cabinet."

I'm going to close by saying I oppose the resolution -- not on the issue of intent. I understand it; it is quite clear what the Liberal opposition is trying to do. They're concerned, they're frustrated; so are we in the Conservative caucus. It's become so clear what this minister should do and what it appears possibly other ministers should do. But I'm afraid it is developing more legislation that will create more bureaucracy and more cost to the taxpayer of this province. All the Premier has to do is his job and enforce his own guidelines. That's all he has to do, and that's all we ask him to do.

Mr Mills: It's indeed a pleasure for me to join in this debate this afternoon and put right some of the misconceptions in the debate so far. We have to put everything in proper perspective. I have no doubt that the real issue today, the real issue of this motion, is Shelley Martel.

I see my friend and colleague across the way, the member for Renfrew North, already going through a whole pile of books, and I'm sure that when his turn comes to speak we will undoubtedly be treated to some history lesson on what people have done in the past, and we await that pleasure.

I'm rather alarmed at the member for Mississauga West holding up the sheet, waving it in the wind, about all the things everybody has done wrong so far.

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): You're clean, Gord.

Mr Mills: Mr Speaker, I'll address my comments to you. I went to church on Sunday, as I go most Sundays. I'm not saying that because I've got some corner on virtue; I'm sure a lot of other members also went. As the member for Mississauga West held up this sheet and went through all the people, oddly enough the sermon at the church I went to Sunday centred on that famous story about the woman who committed adultery. This poor, unfortunate woman was grabbed by the officials of the day, and they said to Jesus: "This woman is an adulteress. You know the law. Let's stone her to death." Anybody who's been there can tell you there's no shortage of stones out there; they seem to be everywhere. Anyway, He turned around and said: "Just a minute here. Let somebody who hasn't done anything wrong throw the first stone."

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): Christ said, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

Mr Mills: My friend the member for Welland-Thorold is quoting explicitly from the Bible. I'm not going to do that, but you get the gist of what I'm trying to say: Here we have the righteous member for Mississauga West, and I think he should have listened to the sermon I listened to on Sunday and gained some insight from that.

I was asked to be on the committee that investigated the conduct of the Minister of Northern Development. I, along with my colleagues, was told that if we didn't want to be there we could step aside. I chose not to do that. Also, I want to make it perfectly clear to the public watching this afternoon that our committee members, the members of government, made it very clear at the outset that we would not be a party to hiding anything, we would not be a party to any misrepresentation of anything; that whatever came up, wherever the chips fell, that's the way it was going to be. That was agreed to by all the members, believe it or not, on that committee.

I went on that committee. I'm not swayed by the previous political arguments that have gone on. I haven't been involved in the René Fontaine episode or Joan Smith, and all I know about the poor fellow on the boat drinking beer with the fellow from Scotland Yard was what I read in the newspaper -- I must say it made me chuckle at the time -- so I'm not really caught up in the history of the House and I'm not swayed by anything and it's not payback time for me.

When I was on that committee, I listened to everything very carefully. What I have to say here this afternoon I believe to be my honest reflection on all the evidence that was placed in front of me. I think what we've heard so far this afternoon is rather a hyped-up affair, where the Minister of Northern Development has done something that almost warrants her being dragged off to the scaffold. I want to get to the real nitty-gritty of this story.

Here we have the minister, who by all accounts and to all purposes was absolutely exhausted. She had a schedule -- I had the opportunity to find out what she did that day and the day previously -- that would have devastated a huge, fit male person who was doing PT every day. It was a devastating schedule. However, in recognizing her commitment to the north, she travelled over to Thunder Bay to the Canadian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy meeting. While there, she's absolutely interested in mining and putting her ministry forward, when, out of the blue, Mrs Dodds shows up.

Mr Kormos: Ms Dodds. Ms Dodds?

Mr Mills: No, she said "Mrs." Mrs Dodds showed up and started an argument with the minister. I think it's fair to say that Mrs Dodds has the reputation that she will argue with anyone, upset anybody, on anything and everything. So there she comes and slams the minister and gets into this awful argument with her. I must say that, given the circumstances, it's rather human to lash back; I think it was human.

Having lashed back and said some things the minister regretted very much afterwards, what does she do? The minister had her executive assistant phone Mrs Dodds and say, "Look, what the minister said was not right and we would appreciate that you don't repeat it."

1640

Subsequent to that, she called Mrs Dodds and apologized for what she said. Where I come from -- maybe I'm a strange fellow, and I've had a lot of things said about me and bad things, wrongs -- people come to me and say, "Look, Gord, we're sorry." My inner feeling is that I accept an apology on that basis. I think accepting apologies for indiscretions is the cornerstone of what life is all about. This is what separates us from the animal kingdom. The animal kingdom cannot rationalize, it can't think, it can't apologize. They get into a scrap and they devour one another, but we are a plane above. I would like to think that it's incumbent upon us, as we live this life, to accept an apology from the heart, as it was given in the case of the minister to Mrs Dodds.

To put that in perspective, all of the people who knew about this indiscretion were two or three at the most, who were gathered around there. The big argument across the road here is that this doctor was disgraced by what the minister said. Keep in perspective that the only thing that was said was in that close group of two or three people, but the damage was done when Mrs Dodds came to Toronto. She didn't ask Dr Donahue if it was in order to call anybody. The first thing she did was call the Globe and Mail. She wanted it in the Globe and Mail about the Minister of Northern Development. She called Mike Harris: "Look, we've got a tiger by the tail here. What can we do about it?" She called Dianne Cunningham: "What can we do about it?" She was in a frenzy like a piranha that was trying to make great effort of this. This was where the damage was done. Then the damage to this doctor was further done by the questions that were asked in this House, without him ever being consulted, without him ever being asked if he wanted his name bandied about.

Let's keep in perspective that originally we've got two or three people gathered together in a room. They were the only people who knew that conversation. The minister apologized. She wrote a letter to follow up her verbal apology, but still that's not enough. They wanted blood and they wanted to embarrass the New Democrat government as much as they could.

Dr Donahue came before the committee. I can remember him sitting down there, and he said, "You know, I'm so scared of the government. It's devastated me. When I get a piece of notepaper and I see it's embossed with some government office, I break out into some sort of cold sweat, I'm so frightened about this notepaper."

Mr Stockwell: He did not.

Mr Mills: He did say that. This is the same doctor, the doctor whom embossed notepaper frightens, who at a public meeting on November 15 in Sudbury had the severance cheques for his staff. He was going to close up but he never really did. He was going to go to the United States, but he opened up a corner shop. This is the same man who was scared of embossed notepaper, who threw his severance cheques at the Treasurer of Ontario. Does that strike you, Mr Speaker, as somebody who is scared of the government, who was scared of the minister? I doubt it. Obviously he wasn't scared at all.

Now I would like to turn to the allegations made about my friend and colleague the member for Sudbury. There's a great deal of nonsense in here about her conduct. To put that into perspective, Mr Speaker, you've got a constituency. I ask you. Here we have a hot potato in Sudbury. The incident has been fanned to a high degree by Dr Donahue. He's sent out letters to all his patients to say what the government is doing to him. So obviously there's high tension and all the constituents are phoning my colleague's office for some sort of information.

What did she do? She had piles of information that was in the public domain, in the newspapers, about what this fellow was doing and what he earned. There was nothing secret. She had no access to any documents. Perhaps, Mr Speaker, she did what you and I would do when we are bombarded with questions like lately about bilingual signs. I research it and then hopefully am able to put the government's point of view or the government's twist on the particular issue.

The member for Sudbury did nothing worse. Here's a hot issue in her riding, and she worked out a few figures, based on public information, on the back of an envelope in her office, I believe. Then when people phoned she said, "Obviously there's something going on here, and to put the whole matter in perspective, this is what we think."

To question the conduct of the member for Sudbury and ask for a release and all this garbage that people are saying, it's absolutely incredible. Here we have a member who is doing no more and no less than what you, sir, the member for Etobicoke West, and all of us do -- we work it out.

Mr Stockwell: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would ask him not to suggest that I would be doing the same thing as the member for Sudbury stands accused of. That is unacceptable, in my opinion. I would not do it.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): That is not a point of order. I can appreciate there is a difference of opinion, but you can only correct your own record.

Mr Stockwell: They can't even read their minds. How can they expect to read mine?

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member for Durham East has the floor.

Mr Mills: If I have touched a sensitive nerve with the member for Etobicoke West, I'll withdraw that.

Let's look at this whole report in some sort of perspective, as the ordinary man and woman on the street thinks about it. Here we have a very tired cabinet minister at a meeting, and a very angry, agitated woman who is bent on picking a political fight, a woman who undoubtedly, from what she did -- called the Globe and Mail, called Harris, called everybody -- is bent on making political hay. There's no doubt about it.

Here we have every attempt by the minister to contain this. She made a statement on the spot: "I'm sorry for what I did. It was wrong." She followed it up by a telephone call, "I apologize." She followed it up with a letter, "Look, this is in writing that I apologize." I think she made a very credible attempt to contain any damage that may have been done to the reputation of Dr Donahue.

As I sat through that hearing and listened to the evidence, it seemed to me there was a twisting tale of some sort of conspiracy. In deference to my colleagues who want to speak, there were many things and twists that indicated to me that somehow this whole episode had been orchestrated or in fact designed. It was designed not only to embarrass the Minister of Northern Development; it was designed to embarrass the NDP government as a whole, and when you take it in perspective, that's all it was.

This minister has not done anything, in my opinion, that contravenes the guidelines as set down by the Premier. She hasn't been involved in some phoney land deal; she hasn't taken advantage of her office. All she did was say something she shouldn't, and she apologized. I like to think that in society today -- and I'm going to close -- there's room in this House for everybody to examine themselves and say, "We can accept an apology." If we can't accept an apology when someone's done something wrong without causing all this kerfuffle, causing all this money to be spent to find out exactly what we knew in December -- the minister said: "I told a lie. What I said wasn't true," and we found that out, $500,000 later, exactly to be.

We also found out that the minister had no access at all to any confidential information. We also found out that the member for Sudbury -- who's gone now -- also had no access to any confidential information. In fact, this whole episode is blown up so out of proportion, in my opinion as a humble, ordinary sort of citizen, that I just can't understand it.

1650

Mr Mahoney: We know that. We know you don't understand.

Mr Mills: The member for Mississauga West, I understand human behaviour, and surely to God there's a time we can recognize that.

I am going to close with a quotation from Oscar Wilde, and he says, "Where there is sorrow there is holy ground." I think the minister is truly sorry for what she did and her conduct should be accepted for what it was. We are all subject to mistakes. We are none of us perfect. When we become a parliamentary assistant or a minister, we don't suddenly put on a suit of armour. We're all different, we're all humans and we all make mistakes, but for the grace of God, some of us don't make mistakes that we're caught in.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you very much. Further debate on opposition motion 2. The honourable member for Renfrew North.

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): I want to take a few moments this afternoon to discuss the resolution standing in the name of my friend the opposition House leader, the member for Bruce.

I am always pleased to follow my friend from Durham, who is very interesting and I find a fair-minded individual. His reference to Oscar Wilde reminds me of something else Wilde once wrote, and in some way I think it is apropos. Wilde once observed, "It is useful to remember that all saints have a past and all sinners have a future." That might be a useful guide for this afternoon and perhaps for those of us in public life.

I want to take issue, however, with my friend from Durham when he characterizes this as he has and when he says, "You know, we're all just ordinary folks and we all make mistakes." That's true, and we are all ordinary folks to a point, but as elected members of the Legislature we accept a very important public trust that differentiates us from those men and women who sent us here. When we become members of the executive council, we do take on to ourselves a certain particular kind of armour.

I only ask my honourable friend to read the executive council oath. It couldn't be clearer that when my friend from Algoma becomes the honourable Minister of Natural Resources he is a different person than I am as a member of this Legislature. He is one of Her Majesty's advisers here in Ontario, and he has a very special title to make that point. He rightly has access to information the rest of us don't have, and that is a very special trust for which, at a certain level, he has emoluments that we sometimes joke about. He has certain benefits that I accord him unstintingly, like the car and all of the other things --

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Natural Resources): I don't have a car.

Mr Conway: He doesn't have a car. Most of his colleagues should or do. All those perks go with the office, but it's the office and the trust that are at issue here in this debate.

I submit to my friend opposite that ministers of the crown are not ordinary people. They should not forget where they came from, that they belong in a democratic political culture but they are not regular folk, if for no other reason than by virtue of the kind of information to which they have access.

Now we come to this situation, and I'm going to take a few moments this afternoon to talk about the so-called Martel affair. I hope I don't sound, as I sometimes do, a bit self-righteous and hectoring, because I appreciate the difficulties that these kinds of debates produce. In fact, I was thinking over the last couple of days where I could find a precedent for the Martel case, and no two cases in this category are ever alike. That's why trying to codify the conduct is so very challenging. I haven't really come up with anything that I think is in this category, but I was struck by the precedent -- not the precedent, but I want just to briefly remind people of an event that happened in the Parliament of Canada about 27 years ago when the very elegant, the very urbane, the highly touted Maurice Lamontagne resigned from the Pearson cabinet.

Maurice Lamontagne resigned late in 1965 as one of the leading lights in the Pearson government, particularly from the province of Quebec, after a very distinguished career in public service and in academic circles at Laval University. Lamontagne had fought Maurice Duplessis when it was not easy to fight Duplessis. He had advised St Laurent in ways that were, I think, to his credit.

Maurice Lamontagne was a very distinguished public servant and politician. He entered Parliament, after a couple of unsuccessful bids, in 1963 from the Montreal riding of Outremont. He became Secretary of State and a year after he took that cabinet office he was in trouble. A year after the story broke, he resigned, I believe in November 1965.

Why did Maurice Lamontagne resign? He resigned because before he entered Parliament he'd made a rather sloppy arrangement, to say the least, in purchasing furniture for -- I think it was -- his home. It was a real scandal. Mr Diefenbaker said it was one of his favourite scandals. But I often think back to --

Hon Mr Wildman: He was a man who liked scandals.

Mr Conway: It's true Mr Diefenbaker liked scandals. Most opposition politicians like scandals because it shows the government to disadvantage.

But Maurice Lamontagne left the government of Canada, and he left, quite frankly, in some disrepute, because before he entered Parliament he had made sloppy arrangements in the purchase of furniture. It had nothing to do with the discharge of his ministerial responsibilities. It had nothing to do with impropriety, as we were told. It appeared almost that this absent-minded professor, who could contemplate things like the Canada Council and who could fight Maurice Duplessis when a lot of other academics and politicians dared to do neither, couldn't arrange a sensible payment schedule for furniture he bought. One of the reasons Mr Diefenbaker could use this so effectively was that people could understand furniture, and in the end Mr Lamontagne resigned.

I'm going to recite very briefly what he said in his letter of resignation to Mr Pearson. He said that "as a member and as a minister I have fulfilled my responsibilities, without showing favouritism, direct or indirect, to anybody. This is for me an essential principle from which an honest politician ought not to depart. I did not depart from it. I have been criticized for a private transaction made before I entered Parliament, a transaction not tainted with any dishonesty. The subsequent controversy, which has been perpetrated for more than a year and which the general election" -- of 1965 -- "did not stop, requires that I decide whether I can better serve my country at this time inside or outside cabinet. I have accordingly decided to submit my resignation."

He never recovered. He left Parliament and went to the Senate, where he performed -- and I think still performs, if my memory serves me correctly -- some very useful public service.

But what was the offence? The offence was twofold, I maintain. He could not conduct his domestic affairs in a way that seemed reasonable to the public, nor after a while did it appear reasonable to Parliament.

1700

That's where I want to bring this discussion back to. I heard the Minister of Health. She went on at some length about what the committee did not find, on whether the Teatero memorandum and its information found its way into Ms Martel's possession. I have to say that the committee was not able to determine that. The difficulty I have with some of what I heard, particularly from people like Deputy Minister Decter and the famous, the unforgettable Sue Colley, to name but two, is that I've been a cabinet minister. To believe what they told me -- I have to believe it because this system is based on telling the truth and accepting what people say as the truth, because of course we are all honourable members, emphasis on honour.

Honourable people tell the truth. They cannot by definition lie, and of course if they do lie, as did Mr Profumo 30 years ago in the Mother of Parliaments, the course is absolutely clear. Of course there were other issues involved in the Profumo affair, but his cardinal offence was lying to Parliament. That could not be forgiven.

Mr Mills: To the Prime Minister.

Mr Conway: Yes, certainly to the Prime Minister, but the Prime Minister is also responsible to Parliament. It's inconceivable that any honourable member or minister would lie, and that's what ended Mr Profumo's career. That is the point to which I want to return. There are two elements in the so-called Martel affair. There's the question of whether she accessed confidential information. That will never be known. It could not be proven by the committee, and I submit that unabashedly. But there is still the more basic question, that the honourable minister admitted to lying.

Now, here is, I suppose, something of a reference back to the furniture scandal. The public understands, I think, that lying, particularly when it's confessed so openly by people in high office, is just not what people expect. They might understand that it goes on. I mean, we've had too much history over the decades. Who will ever forget the Watergate hearings, to hear at the end of the day what Mr Nixon said on those tapes as compared to what he was saying to the nation? It was very interesting.

I'll dredge up some other interesting history. David Lewis, in his wonderful memoir, The Good Fight, dredged up some fascinating documentation about just how much truth George Drew was telling this Legislature and the people of Ontario in the so-called Gestapo affair 50 years ago. Mr Lewis has made some devastating revelations in whatever chapter in his book deals with the credibility of the testimony of the then Premier of Ontario. Those are just two examples I could cite, and there are many more.

But the fundamental principle, it seems to me, is the principle of honour and trust that surely obligates all honourable members to tell the truth. When we, particularly in these circumstances, admit that in the heat of a moment, having an argument with an admittedly very challenging citizen -- I mean Mrs Dodds, someone I know well -- I saw the minister's itinerary that day in December 1991. I've had those kinds of days, and in the midst of those kinds of days I've met Mrs Dodds and been lacerated in a similar fashion. That does not excuse me from saying things that slander my opponent either in that conversation or hundreds of miles away in my home town, someone with whom I'm having an argument about the efficacy of public policy.

What people find incredible in this case is that we have a minister of the crown, someone whom we all know, and whom I've known longer than most people here -- I've said before that I have a difficult time accepting the official line that the member for Sudbury East is a liar. That's the official line I have to accept. That violates a lot of my experience with that honourable member and her family. None the less, what we are being asked to accept is that it is somehow appropriate for a minister in this or any government, in the heat of battle about a very contentious subject, to fabricate, to attack in a slanderous way your opponent to win an argument -- and pay no price for that. That is just not something people out there accept as very regular conduct from, I suggest, not just cabinet ministers, but particularly others associated with government.

I'm going to have to leave some time for my friend the member for York Centre to wrap this up, but I continue to be concerned that my friends opposite do not get the point.

There's an article here. I referred to it in the committee and I'm going to ask members to go and read it. It's June 18, 1991, by the legendary Michele Landsberg. Michele Landsberg -- Mrs Stephen Lewis -- in that article is going on about the involvement of some of our colleagues in the College of Physicians and Surgeons' case that was before the House back in June. I don't want to get into that, but I found the article incredible, because here is a very bright lady who is not afraid to offer her opinions. She goes on, I think incredibly, saying that she just doesn't understand people who would attack the members of the cabinet who, in that case, intervened or sought to intervene with the quasi-judicial College of Physicians and Surgeons, because what that North Bay doctor did was so heinous.

I think most of us would agree with Ms Landsberg that what this doctor did was reprehensible, but in our due process we have, by act of this Legislature, delegated to the College of Physicians and Surgeons some very important powers to mete out justice in those cases on our and the public's behalf.

So when I read here that she says, "How can any member of the Legislature or any member of the press complain about what the members of the cabinet did in that case, because the offence was so heinous?" I want to say to Ms Landsberg and others in the new democracy, the heinousness of the offence is not the issue. The issue is whether or not we are going to play by the rules of due process we have legislated. If we don't like them, then obviously we are at liberty to change them. But if I don't like what the municipal board does on the motel strip case, or if I don't like what the court of appeal does on a case involving one of my constituents, at the present time I have no right, regardless of how heinous the crime, to phone Charlie Dubin and say, "Charlie, wake up and smell the coffee."

I just have to submit to my friends opposite that that is the issue. The members of the NDP, many of whom are from the social activist community -- and I respect that -- don't seem to understand that social activism is one thing, where one is allowed a range of conduct and activity. Being a member of the executive council is quite another, and there are things you simply cannot do, not just because Bob Rae's guidelines seem to make it obvious that lying and slandering is verboten, but that there is a mechanism to deal with a number of these situations and with the College of Physicians and Surgeons case. That's the case I want to make.

This is fundamentally about honour and trust. The concepts of honour and trust turn on the ancient notion that in British parliamentary democracies, responsible ministers and, I might add, honourable members will tell the truth. When they do not tell the truth they will pay a price, particularly when lying brings about the kinds of consequences the Martel lie has had upon an Ontario citizen who came forward, admittedly with vigour and with a point of view, to challenge and contest a major government policy.

1710

The Acting Speaker: Further debate? The honourable member for Simcoe West.

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): I'm pleased to rise for a few moments and speak to the motion put forward by the Liberal Party. I should say at the outset that I will not be supporting the motion, primarily because I disagree with the last paragraph of that motion, which calls upon the government to bring in codified sanctions and codified guidelines, I assume in the form of legislation, as it says in the motion. The point I would like to make there is that no amount of legislation will ensure that members will follow that legislation, will ensure that the Premfier's guidelines will be followed and that a penalty will be paid for violation of those guidelines.

When I was an assistant in the latter days of Bill Davis's government here in Ontario, it seemed to me that life was simpler in those days. Premier Davis had a very simple rule and a very strict rule for his ministers: that you follow his guidelines. His guidelines were very simple: You could not do a number of the things that members of both the Liberal Party and the NDP have subsequently done. The penalty was very clear: You would be removed from office and removed from your responsibility as a cabinet minister immediately upon discovery of any breach of the guidelines. Life was simple. There were simple rules and everyone understood that the Premier alone enforced those rules.

No amount of legislation will make members accountable. In fact, legislation will work to the contrary. We have guidelines now that the Premier refuses to enforce. Legislation would simply allow future premiers and perhaps this Premier to use legislation as a crutch: to say that an arm's-length committee or an agency of the government will study whether a particular minister has violated the guidelines or the legislation. It will remove the personal responsibility the Premier has over his cabinet ministers.

The people of Ontario know that the Premier and the Premier alone appoints the members of the cabinet, the members of Her Majesty's advisers here in Ontario. Therefore, the Premier alone should have personal responsibility to see that their conduct is in line with the principle of ministerial responsibility and the principle of parliamentary democracy, as so eloquently outlined by the former speaker, the member for Renfrew North.

I find it sad when, during this debate, the member for Durham East, I assume speaking on behalf of average NDP caucus members, fails to understand the principle of ministerial responsibility. He admitted that in his own remarks. I think they fail to understand their accountability to the crown, their accountability to Her Majesty the Queen. The reason we take oaths to Her Majesty -- and I raised this at the time the NDP moved to remove the reference to Her Majesty the Queen from the police oath -- is very clear. I wish the NDP members understood it. We take oaths so that we will not serve ourselves.

We take oaths to Her Majesty, who represents all the people of this province of all ethnic backgrounds, religions, races and creeds. Her Majesty represents everyone and we take an oath to her as a symbolic gesture to assure people that we are not here to serve ourselves but to serve our constituents. We cannot, as the Premier suggests in his response to people who have sent us petitions and letters condemning him for his actions in removing the reference to Her Majesty the Queen from the police oath, swear allegiance to an inanimate object like our Constitution. That's the Premier's excuse.

Now police officers will swear to Canada. Canada is not a person. You can't swear an oath to an inanimate object. You must swear an oath to a monarch or to a person. Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth is the Queen of Canada. I was very disturbed to receive a letter from a member of the NDP riding association in my riding recently telling me that he thought that Bob Rae was right. He interpreted the Premier's actions as understanding that the Queen was a foreign person and not the Queen of Canada. I simply wrote back saying: "You've simply misunderstood your citizenship in Canada. She is not a foreign person; she is the Queen."

Should we be surprised, when we relate that previous incident of removing the reference to Her Majesty the Queen, removing direct responsibility to the people of Ontario from ministers and members of the government and from police officers, that they didn't understand the implications of the Martel affair?

I want to spend just a couple of minutes speaking about the Martel affair.

Hon Mr Wildman: You're stretching things a little.

Mr Jim Wilson: No, I don't think I'm stretching things. The Minister of Natural Resources tells me I'm stretching things. It's not a leap of faith to understand these things. The member for Renfrew North did a better job than I did in speaking on ministerial responsibility, but the principle's there.

When I raised the point of privilege about the oath to the Queen I said to members of the Legislature and to the people of Ontario that it was the slippery slope; that it was clear these people don't understand in whose name they govern and why they are here in this chamber. It has been clear on a number of occasions that they neither take their responsibility as ministers seriously nor, often, do they take this chamber seriously. They have no respect for tradition and the oath to the Queen, and removing the Queen from the oath was absolutely the slippery slope.

Mr Mills: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I take quite an exception to being told that I have no respect for the Queen.

The Acting Speaker: I'm sorry; that's not a point of order. It's a point of view.

Mr Jim Wilson: Mr Speaker, I'm sorry I hit a nerve, but I will move on to the Shelley Martel affair because I've remained silent to this point.

I went to school with Ms Martel. In fact, I dated Ms Martel off and on over three years. We both went to the University of Toronto and St Michael's College together. Like the member for Renfrew North, I knew her to be a better person --

Mr Kormos: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Ms Martel surely deserves an opportunity to defend herself against that most scurrilous allegation.

The Acting Speaker: That is definitely not a point of order.

Mr Jim Wilson: The simple language is that we were friends, we are friends, and the point I would like to make is that we took the same political science courses together. We sat side by side in the lecture halls at the University of Toronto. We took, I remember specifically, courses on ministerial responsibility, on oaths, on allegiances, on Parliament. She comes from a family with a proud tradition: a father who, I understand, understood this place better than many members and served very distinguishedly over the years. As I think the member for Renfrew North so very well said during the Legislative committee hearings, for her not to offer her resignation to the Premier and for the Premier not to accept that, for her not to pay a price, to go to the penalty box for a few months for lying and slandering a Sudbury doctor, I think is a shame. I think it violates Ms Martel's own personal integrity, because I know that she knows what she did was wrong. I know that she knows the concept and the principle of ministerial responsibility. She knows that she was given the title "honourable" to designate her as a citizen of this province representing other citizens of the province as an adviser to Her Majesty the Queen in the council here in Ontario.

I also want to mention that I'm very familiar with Dr Donahue. On the evening of December 5 he picked me up from the airport in Sudbury. I suggest that had Ms Martel gone to the Sudbury and District Medical Society meeting that evening in Sudbury and not gone to Thunder Bay, she wouldn't be in trouble today.

We took the opportunity that evening in Sudbury to discuss Dr Donahue's case and, of course, the cap on doctors' billings. Had Ms Martel, I think, fully understood Dr Donahue's case as she claimed, she would not have said those things she said in Thunder Bay.

It was clear to me in speaking to Dr Donahue on December 5 that he had a very good case and very real concerns. I'm again really ashamed to be part of the same Legislature where a member from Durham East would again imply in this Legislature just a few minutes ago that Dr Donahue didn't have a good case and that this was all some large conspiracy to discredit the NDP government. I don't think that was the intent; that's certainly what did happen.

1720

Finally, I want to say that the importance of the Martel case and the importance really of today's motion, with the exception of the last paragraph, is that what happened in the Martel case reflects badly on all of us. My constituents would agree with the words of the member for Renfrew North that Miss Martel should have gone to the penalty box, that now our children will learn it's okay to lie and slander another citizen of this province as long as you can have some excuse and as long as you can take a number of steps to cover your tracks and try to come up with an elaborate excuse.

I say to the honourable members of the NDP that I hope they will take the time to read some of the literature the member for Renfrew North suggested all members should read that speaks of honour and trust, of their roles in government and of the understanding they should have of their role to serve all the citizens of this province.

Mr Kormos: There are a couple of things I want to talk about, all within the context of course of Mr Elston's motion regarding conflict of interest. It's been an interesting day by all standards. I want to mention, again very much within the context of consideration of conflict of interest, that this morning in her radio interview the member for Niagara South in a mere nanosecond managed to destroy a reputation I had built up over a significant period of time. She referred to me as a puppy. I appreciate the affection inherent in that.

Interjection: Pit bull.

Mr Kormos: Quite right; I'm sure she meant a pit bull puppy, or at least a Rottweiler.

I noticed on several occasions that people made reference to the fact that Ms Coppen, the member for Niagara South, the whip, referred to me as a puppy, but she also said "Peter is great." You'll notice that's the comment that immediately follows the observation that "Peter's a puppy." If there's going to be commentary on Ms Coppen's comments, I wish the emphasis would be on the second one to the effect that I'm great rather than merely a puppy.

In terms of puppies, nobody was really upset about it, but for Charlie the beagle, who we talked about before, the one Joanne Bouchard takes care of and walks faithfully every day. I'm appreciative of that. Charlie is a puppy; I'm not. Ms Coppen will, I'm sure, take that under advisement.

Interestingly, conflict of interest is something I am intimately familiar with. I'm also intimately familiar with the process of being selected to be in cabinet and being among the chosen to be out of cabinet. I know that being an ex-minister in this government's cabinet is not rare any more, but you will note I was the first. I am very conscious of the fact that the Premier chooses to put people in cabinet, and that's his or her prerogative, as the case may be as history unfolds, and chooses to take people out of cabinet. About that there is really no democracy, and about that there is really no due process, and in my instance perhaps no justice.

People will know, and somebody will undoubtedly remark, if not in here, afterwards, that I may well have been a minister but it was for oh so brief a period of time; if people blinked, they missed it. There was debate. I participated in the debate, and my views about what are appropriate conflict-of-interest guidelines are different from those of some. I had been a partner in my law firm, the one I had started some decade ago. I had brought in a young partner when I was elected. In the course of complying with the guidelines, I divested myself of my interest in that law firm. It wasn't an easy exercise and it certainly was a costly one for me. I did that to comply with the conflict-of-interest guidelines that were imposed on me by virtue of having been selected by the Premier to be in his cabinet.

The operator of that firm now is Mark Evans, an incredibly effective young criminal lawyer at 683 King Street in Welland who is carrying on with that practice. Mark Evans has done an incredible job of taking care of the clientele that had stayed with me for a decade, and of cultivating his own clientele. I of course can no longer avail myself of any of the income from that firm, and that was some significant loss, especially when I also lost the income from the ministry.

I've talked to a whole lot of people down in Welland-Thorold about what they perceive the issues to be, especially relating to conflict of interest, and I admit to listening to radio talk shows when I am in the car -- my own car -- on trips -- my own trips, paid for by myself. I should mention this: I'm not sure there's any truth to the allegation about the whip providing trips for obedient members, because she certainly never mentioned it to me. I've not heard word of one trip and have never had an offer to participate in any trips. I just don't believe it could happen in the way it's been described, and that is to say that merely obedient members participate in so-called trips. One would think -- I know this has got to be the case -- that people who can best represent the interests of their caucus at a particular function, surely those are the people who are selected to represent their caucus at that particular function.

Take, for instance, the Canadian Parliamentary Association. Surely that isn't merely a perk to be given to somebody who has fallen into line, who reads from the hymn book at the right time and who happens to submit to the arbitrary whim of a whip or somebody in the whip's office. Surely that's not the case, because one would think that a representative at a Canadian Parliamentary Association function would be somebody who perhaps had previous experience with the same organization, had expressed a special interest or had a history of involvement in that particular activity.

I believe that's called merit, and one would think that in a government, in a caucus like ours, selection to participate in these events would be based on merit. I find it bizarre for anybody to propose that the whip chooses people arbitrarily to participate in these things, because to do that would be unfair, unjust and a denial of the very sorts of things that we as a government and a caucus believe we stand for.

Within the context, of course, of conflict of interest, I know there was one occasion, by God, one occasion -- interestingly, because of the turnover around here -- actually, I'm here for my second term now, and in view of all the neophyte tyros, all of whom have adapted quickly, I've been here not longer than all but longer than many, if not most, notwithstanding that I've been here a relatively short period of time. Once again, that reflects the turnover. In that period of time I've been on one trip.

That was as a member of the opposition. By God, could it be that the government of the day, the Liberals, was kinder to and more considerate of me than my own caucus was? I don't think so. Surely the whip's selection of participants in conferences, conventions and those types of activities is based on fairness and is distributed equitably among backbenchers, because indeed that is one of the things backbenchers can and should be doing.

I'm not averse to anybody ringing bells, but if we are to hear bells, they should be the chimes of fairness and openness and not the chimes of privilege and a bizarre form of -- not quite nepotism but as close are you're going to get to it without actually being related, without somebody actually being your mother.

My position then, as it is now, with respect to conflict is that disclosure -- that's been spoken of already -- is essential. I'm talking about disclosure of interest, disclosure of assets. All of us have engaged in that particular exercise. All of us have the opportunity to be completely candid about the extent of our assets; that is to say, not just to identify them but to identify and evaluate them, assess their value and let the public decide what the impact of those interests would be on our ability to decide issues fairly.

1730

I was part of a Legislative Assembly committee that conducted itself, at the insistence of the opposition, over a lengthy period of time, and that suffered, mind you, under rules that strangled the effectiveness of the committee and which were designed by the opposition and which we government members resisted and opposed, saying: "This has got to be an open process. We're not, and we can't, conduct this behind closed doors, in secret."

But the opposition, Liberals and Conservatives, insisted on secrecy, on operating behind closed doors and on maintaining the so-called confidentiality of transcripts so that the public would never really know the full story, the facts as we very much wanted people in this province to know them, the facts as I believe the subject of that inquiry very much wanted the people in this province to know them.

I listened carefully to my friend Gord Mills from Durham East. I know that's wrong, but that's what his wife calls him: Mr Mills. I know his wife calls him that, because I've been there while she's called him that. I listened to him return to his Sunday morning past and the sermon of the preacher, when the preacher related to Gord Mills and Mrs Mills and Gord Mills's family and the rest of the congregation that well-known story about Jesus and the sinner --

Mr Mills: The adulterous woman.

Mr Kormos: -- the adulterous woman, whereupon Jesus said, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

I found that of interest, because it's one of many remarkable and enlightening pieces from that great book. But it's remarkable that Mr Mills's preacher would read that part of the Bible just before this debate was to take place and just when I have in my hands -- of all people to stand in this House and wax indignant about conflicts. Would you believe it?

Back in December 1991, you know what was happening then, don't you? There was a by-election in the works down in Brant-Haldimand, the one in which, God bless him, Mr Eddy was eminently successful. He wiped the slate. It's unfortunate, though, that the member for Scarborough-Agincourt -- Gerry Phillips, MPP, on his Legislative Assembly letterhead -- would reproduce what appears to be campaign literature for Mr Eddy. It's remarkable that the member for Halton Centre -- Barbara Sullivan, MPP, on her legislative letterhead -- would open what appears to be a letter, "Dear friend," and then go on to engage in what is nothing more than the most flagrant electioneering on behalf of one Mr Eddy.

Make no mistake about it: I am confident Mr Eddy didn't win the election because of Mr Phillips or Mrs Sullivan -- no two ways about it; they're simply not enough of a factor in Brant-Haldimand -- and I'm not in any way suggesting that Mr Eddy did anything wrong. But I suggest very much to you, Mr Speaker, that for these two Liberal members to abuse their position in this House, in this Legislative Assembly, to abuse the taxpayers' dollars they have received to fund and finance their Legislative Assembly offices and their constituency offices, to use those offices for partisan activity, is really an unconscionable abuse of their role in this House and an astounding and shocking revelation in the context of their attacks on a member of this caucus, a young woman who has served her riding and her province well and who has earned the admiration and respect of this caucus and this House and people across this province, and who I'm pleased to see carry on as an outstanding member of cabinet and an outstanding member of caucus and an outstanding member of this Legislative Assembly.

Mr Carr: I did want to add a couple of thoughts to the debate. I had the pleasure of sitting on the justice committee looking at conflict last February, I guess it was. I want to read a letter from a chap that I think says it better than anything else; I got it from my colleague here. It talks about Mr Rae: "I watched you in opposition and thought that here was a clean-cut young man of principle." I don't know where he was looking. "That of course was while you were in opposition. Now you are in power. The NDP has become a party of the big lie." That's a chap by the name of Mr Bill Moody, who I think said it best.

I was struck by the line in this particular motion that talks about integrity. I was flipping through to look at the throne speech we all had when we first came in here, page 3, and the number one thing the Premier was going to do was bring integrity back. I'll read it for those who can't remember: "My government's first challenge is to earn the trust and respect of the people of Ontario." I say, one year and a little bit later, that he has failed in that goal.

I'm reminded of what Alfred Adler said: "It is easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them." That's what this Premier did. In opposition, he started off the last campaign -- and we all remember that -- by calling David Peterson a liar, then proceeded to go out on the campaign trail. He got off the bus eight times a day and promised anybody anything they wanted to hear. And here's a Premier who talks about integrity? He knew he couldn't live up to those promises. Most of you on that side, I suspect, maybe did. But here's a guy who got off the bus eight times a day, promised anybody, anybody who was out there, anything they wanted to hear, and then he talks about integrity.

He goes on to say, "My government's integrity will be measured by the way this government is run and our relations with the people we serve." What kind of relations do you have with the doctors after what happened with the minister we've talked about so long here? What kind of situation and relationship can you have when we see the abuse of power?

It goes on to say, "Our task is to guard against institutional arrogance and the abuse of power wherever they exist" -- noble lines. I'm often struck by what is often said, that man does not live by words alone, despite the fact that he somehow has to eat them. This Premier has to eat the words that were so eloquently read on November 20 by the then Lieutenant Governor.

He talks about the abuse of power. During this period of government we've had more resignations and scandals than we have had bills passed in this Legislature. I sat on that committee while the Premier came in and talked about the conflict guidelines. We then had the Minister of Health come in, then we had the now Treasurer come in. The Minister of Natural Resources came in and did a fine speech about being in government. They all said we have to bring integrity back to government. One year and virtually a few months later, we are farther and farther behind in terms of integrity because of this government and its actions.

This is a government that since it's been elected has bounced from scandal to scandal to scandal. We have had resignations, and I can go through the list: the member for Ottawa Centre; the member who just spoke, when he was minister for -- the member for Welland-Thorold. We had the member for Dovercourt and the members for Kitchener, Riverdale, Cambridge, Sudbury, St Andrew-St Patrick, Scarborough East and Scarborough West. The member for Mississauga West went through some of the details of some of the scandals. Some of them were more serious than others; some of them were rather simple.

1740

The situation with the member for Welland-Thorold, who just appeared wearing his now-famous braces, certainly wasn't a scandal. What was the scandal was that the Premier of this province would throw somebody out for doing that. At the same time he will allow the minister to remain after she did what she did to the doctor up in Thunder Bay.

On page 4 of that same document, the Premier -- because, let's face it, these are the Premier's words -- "We must create a greater sense of integrity in the work of government." That's what he said he was going to do: "We must create a greater sense of integrity in the work of government." I say to this Premier, as a result of your actions you've had far less integrity than any other Premier who has stood in that particular place and represented the people as Premier of Ontario.

He sat there and talked about integrity. At the same time we have seen what has gone on during the last year and a bit. Here's the same Premier who has taken his policies and driven out the private sector in housing and the private sector in day care and he says that we are going to judge our actions on how we run and our relationship with the people we serve. We saw very clearly how they believe the people should be served. If the cause is right, do whatever you have to do to get your point across, because integrity doesn't matter. The bottom line is, in the end the results are what happen.

I guess it was Winston Churchill who said that the price of greatness is responsibility. This Premier's responsibility was to act on the guidelines he said he was going to enforce and to act upon the fine words that were in this throne speech.

I know there are some other members who have now come in who want to speak and I said I would leave them some time. I had quite a bit more material. The beginning of this particular resolution, I think, talks very clearly about what needs to be done. We all know that politicians at all levels and of all political stripes are not held in high esteem today. I say to this Premier that your actions have done far more to destroy the integrity of government in about 19 months than has ever been done by any other Premier in history since I've been following it, and I realize I haven't been around that long.

If we're going to bring some integrity back, what we need to do is enforce the rules and the guidelines and that's what it's all about. You have to have the political courage to somehow sometimes make the tough decisions -- not the easy decisions like you did with the member for Welland-Thorold, because they didn't like each other and didn't get along, so "I'm going to toss him out." That would be very easy to do when you dislike each other like they do. It would have been tough to stand up with the integrity to do what needed to be done with the minister over what has now been referred to as the Martel affair. Those would have been the tough choices because of the long close ties, but this Premier has taken the easy way out and the integrity of everybody in this House is suffering. We are going to have to work long and hard to get that integrity back, because every time we take one step forward we are taking two steps back when the Premier of Ontario does what he has done over the last 19 months.

I'm afraid I'm going to have to wrap up on some of my comments, but I will close by just saying that this particular Premier is going to be measured -- and the direct quote is, "The measure of the man is what he does when he is in power" -- very severely by the people, because the integrity of all of the people in this Legislature is lower as a direct result of this Premier.

I appreciate the opportunity to say a few words and I will pass the speaking over to the member for Markham, who I believe is next.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Further debate?

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): This is an interesting day. Woeful to see what has happened in such a short duration with the New Democrats. We now have a roll call of cabinet ministers and senior people -- Zanana Akande, Peter Kormos, Will Ferguson, Evelyn Gigantes, Shelley Martel -- and the most recent case, that of Miss Martel, as we are considering it under this opposition motion, is that indeed she did display very poor judgement and really jeopardized her own credibility and that of her government for time to come.

As well, we see something else that's rather disappointing, and that is the poor judgement of the Premier, who prior to achieving office had such high standards that he invoked on everybody else and now has also displayed poor judgement. The inquiry that has just been concluded really shows that it could all happen again. The standards that were once esteemed and looked up to have been abandoned, and people now have reason to believe that politicians are not worthy of trust.

That's the roll-call and the circumstances around the New Democrats, but let's remember the hall of shame of the Liberals. The Liberal record really has a long list as well. They were in office a little longer. The New Democrats have accelerated the process, but Christine Hart -- these names should evoke some kind of emotion in those who were left of the Liberals after September 6, 1990 -- Elvio DelZotto, director of the Ontario Arts Council, on June 26, 1989, resigned; Gordon Ashworth, the executive director of the Office of the Premier, on June 22, 1989, resigned; Patti Starr, chair of Ontario Place, on June 8, 1989, resigned; Joan Smith, Solicitor General, on June 5, 1989, resigned; Raj Anand, chief of the Ontario Human Rights Commission, on June 2, 1989, resigned; Ken Keyes, Solicitor General, on December 4, 1986, resigned; René Fontaine, re-elected after it all happened, but on June 26, 1986, resigned; Elinor Caplan, resigned on June 16 from Management Board; Ross McGregor, provincial Liberal chair, not in government, but none the less resigned in October 1985.

So when we come along and say, "What's gone wrong?" I just have to say there's a lot in common between the Liberals and the New Democrats. Mr Peterson and Mr Rae have all the rules you'd ever want to have, but both of them knew how to break them and know how to break them. Both of them stepped back from what happened, washed their hands and were so sanctimonious, and there they are setting themselves up for another fall. What I end up seeing is --

Interjections.

Mr Cousens: I think I've touched a chord.

The Speaker: You've certainly caught our attention.

Mr Cousens: The time is precious, and I certainly wouldn't want to interrupt other honourable members as they are doing to me. It's just obvious that there is so much in common between the Liberals and the New Democrats. They can set out all the legislation they want, but if they're not going to follow it and support it in the spirit and will, then there's something seriously the matter. There was a day when we didn't have legislation and conflict-of-interest guidelines; now you've got it and now you have something to break.

Both the Liberals and the New Democrats have not faced up to the issue of senior staff and deputy ministers who are not under any conflict-of-interest guidelines. Why? Why didn't the Liberals face up to that? We said to them when they were in power, "Do something about it." But they haven't; they've come along today and said, "Well, we'll go after you guys." Why don't you do a little bit of mea culpa, mea culpa? There isn't anyone in this House who shouldn't take hold of himself and say: "Hey, we have a responsibility to the people. Let's not let them down." These guys need a little lesson in penance; maybe they're getting it. A little longer will do them good. You guys will get your penance 1,400 days from now.

The Speaker: Further debate?

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): We find ourselves in an unfortunate situation today where a member of the Liberal caucus had to bring forth this item for debate when already, during the term of office of this government and during the deliberations of the standing committee on administration of justice, we did have recommendations from a committee of this government, and we had a minority report from our party with regard to the Members' Conflict of Interest Act, 1988.

So I say to my colleague who has brought in this opposition day motion that indeed we do agree that the conflict-of-interest act we are subjected to here should in fact be amended.

I have two things to say with regard to conduct of ministers of the crown. I won't be supporting this resolution today because I don't think you can legislate conduct. I think it's something we learn. There are standards we've set for ourselves. I think it's the kind of behaviour we either teach our children or the examples we set for others. I don't think any piece of legislation could help any of us when it comes to our conduct, but we want to know what the law is, and we have one. Members of the cabinet want to know what the Premier's guidelines are, and in fact we have those.

1750

The other part of my colleague's motion today talks about sanctions for any violations. I stand in the House today to say that with regard to a minister of the crown of the province of Ontario, I believe there is only one sanction: that he or she resign. I don't think there are alternatives to that.

I have been in this House for four years. I have seen very inconsistent applications of Premier's guidelines, not only the present Premier of this government but the former Premier. What is missing in this House, and perhaps in the work we do inside or outside this assembly, is both the political will in here and sometimes the managerial will outside this place to follow the rules we set for ourselves.

In response to the member for Markham, my colleague, he has already named the Liberal ministers. We all know who they are. We ourselves could probably go back and name some Tories. Unfortunately that's not what we're talking about today, but I do think we're talking about improving the conduct in this place and about the real desire on behalf of the public to see some standards.

I will finish by quoting the Premier of December. As he introduced his guidelines on December 12, 1990, this Premier -- Bob Rae -- said: "These guidelines do not replace the existing standards...but extend and strengthen them. I consider it essential to establish certain fundamental principles. It is to be our governing principle that we must at all times act in a manner that will not only bear the closest public scrutiny but will go further and ensure public confidence and trust in the integrity of the government."

This Premier has not in fact enforced his own guidelines. We've been subjected, as has the public, to many deviations from them. I'm sorry we have to stand here and say this today.

The Speaker: Further debate? The member for Algoma.

Hon Mr Wildman: In the brief time left I'd like to make a couple of comments as a minister and as a member who's served in this House for 17 years.

I am disappointed in the debate, because with only a couple of exceptions members on all sides -- and I include my own caucus as well as the other two caucuses -- have used the opportunity of this debate to do what we do so often in this House and engage in political one-upmanship. Rather than dealing with a very serious issue that has been an issue for as long as I've been a member of this House, an issue for the Conservative Party and the Conservative government prior to my being elected in this House -- I could list, as other members have done -- one in particular -- names of members of this House; members of governments who have had experience and difficulties with conflict of interest. I could list some Conservative members. I don't think that's what this debate was about. This debate was supposed to be about a resolution brought before the House in relation to how we deal with very difficult issues.

All of us agree, I think, in this House that not one of us -- no member of the Legislature -- and particularly not members of the government bench, should profit personally, or their friends or their family, from their positions in the assembly. Also, we recognize that not one of us should gain any kind of advantage -- not just monetary advantage but any kind of advantage -- because of our position; neither should our acquaintances or friends.

What is of significant importance to all of us in this House, I hope, is how we deal with the question of perceived or real breach of trust. That is a very difficult issue and one that Premiers, from Premier Davis through Premier Peterson and now Premier Rae, have attempted to deal with. It is not easy. However the rules have been drafted in three different successive administrations, there have been difficulties with them.

I thought the motion brought forward here was an attempt to look at how we might change them. I must say I do not support the "therefore." I have differences of opinion with a number of the "whereases," but the importance in this resolution is the "therefore," that we "introduce specific legislation regulating conflict of interest and conduct of ministers of the crown, including clear and enforceable sanctions for any violations."

I don't think this deals with the problem. The problem is how do we as legislators, as members of government, ensure that our position of trust is maintained, whether we be New Democrats, Liberals or Conservatives.

I understand it is the role of the opposition -- I served in opposition for 15 years -- to look for malfeasance, to criticize, to look for incompetence, to look for inconsistency. It is also the responsibility of the opposition to provide constructive criticism. I don't think it is appropriate or constructive to have members stand in their place and list all the foibles or difficulties other members have experienced. I was here for the very difficult situation facing one of my colleagues from the north and I expressed my opinion, as a member of the opposition, in support of him.

I don't support this resolution, but I must say it's not for that reason that I am disappointed in this debate.

The Speaker: The member for York Centre, to wrap up the debate.

Mr Sorbara: In the very brief time remaining, I simply want to say to my colleagues in this Legislature that there is really only one issue and one issue alone before us in this debate, which we are going to be asked to vote on in just a very few moments; that is, shall this Legislature maintain the high standards that have governed the conduct of ministers, MPPs and parliamentary assistants over the 125-year history of this Legislature, or shall we now amend those standards, change them, degrade them and lower them by saying that we as a Legislature condone the conduct of a minister, even when that minister is driven in the heat of political battle, to slander a member of the public and lie to the public? That is the one issue that we -- and I say to my colleagues that you -- are voting on.

I ask you to think beyond your party discipline and beyond the wishes of your whip, and support this resolution so that the standards our predecessors have established can be the standards those who succeed us will live by when they sit in this Legislature.

1804

The House divided on Mr Elston's motion, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes -- 29

Bradley, Brown, Conway, Cordiano, Curling, Daigeler, Eddy, Elston, Fawcett, Grandmaître, Henderson, Mahoney, Mancini, McClelland, McGuinty, McLeod, Miclash, Morin, Murdoch (Grey), O'Neil (Quinte), O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau), Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt), Poirier, Poole, Ramsay, Scott, Sola, Sorbara, Stockwell.

Nays -- 61

Allen, Arnott, Buchanan, Carr, Carter, Charlton, Churley, Cooke, Cooper, Coppen, Cousens, Cunningham, Dadamo, Duignan, Farnan, Ferguson, Frankford, Gigantes, Haeck, Hampton, Hansen, Harrington, Haslam, Hayes, Hope, Huget, Jamison, Johnson, Kormos, Lankin, Lessard;

Mackenzie, MacKinnon, Malkowski, Mammoliti, Martel, Martin, Mathyssen, Mills, Morrow, Murdock (Sudbury), North, O'Connor, Owens, Perruzza, Philip (Etobicoke-Rexdale), Pilkey, Rae, Rizzo, Silipo, Sutherland, Turnbull, Wark-Martyn, Waters, Wessenger, Wildman, Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Winninger, Wiseman, Wood, Ziemba.

The House adjourned at 1808.