34th Parliament, 2nd Session
















































The House met at 1330. Prayers.


Hon Mr Elston: I have a message from His Honour the Lieutenant Governor signed by his own hand. The Lieutenant Governor transmits estimates of certain sums required for the services of the province for the year ending 31 March 1990 and recommends them to the Legislative Assembly.


The Deputy Speaker: I would like to ask all members to join me in welcoming the second group of legislative pages to serve in the second session of the 34th Parliament in this year. They are:

Joshua Arthurs, St George-St David; Jessica Connell, Muskoka-Georgian Bay; Karen Cooke, Etobicoke-Lakeshore; Theresa Cooke, St Andrew-St Patrick; Drayden Cureatz, Durham East; Danielle Da Sylva, Algoma-Manitoulin; Siobhan Gibson, Don Mills; Lisa Goegan, Mississauga North; Matthew Goodman, St Catharines; Ryan Hordy, Fort William; Mary Catherine Jack, Perth; Stephanie Jackson, Etobicoke West; Steven Jensen, Simcoe West; Sean Kaley, Sudbury East; Sarah Mee, St Catharines-Brock; Robin Middleton, Grey; Tamara Nailer, Hastings-Peterborough; Shane Pascoe, Prince Edward-Lennox; Carl Riley, Etobicoke-Rexdale; Emma Sevitt, Oakwood; Jessica South, Frontenac-Addington; Cain Vangel, Scarborough East; Alan Webb, London North; Jennifer Whelpley, Peterborough; Marc Wortman, Cochrane North, and Ronald Yip, Scarborough-Agincourt.

Please welcome them.



Mr Hampton: Today in the Toronto Star there is a large headline that reads “Ambulance Crisis Blamed in Man’s Death.” The same headline could very easily have been repeated in northwestern Ontario this past weekend. A young woman who now lives in Saskatchewan was visiting with her parents in my constituency when her health began to fail. She went to the local hospital in the village of Emo and was examined by the local medical staff. The doctor very quickly decided that the young woman had to be sent to a larger hospital in Winnipeg and had to be sent very quickly.

He felt then and he feels now that the situation was not an emergency, but serious enough to warrant immediate action. The ambulance dispatch was called and the young woman was told that, because she is not a resident of Ontario, the cost of an air ambulance would be $1,500, the cost of a land ambulance to Winnipeg would be $600 and could they have the money up front, please?

She did not have $1,500 or $600, nor did her family, and so she was dispatched to Winnipeg in the back of a car. She is in hospital in Winnipeg today and spent the rest of the weekend in Winnipeg. This all smacks of US-style health care: pay the money up front before you get service. One would think that the provinces could have got together by now to arrange something better.


Mr Cureatz: I would like to bring to the attention of all members of the assembly and people across Ontario, more particularly those in the region of Durham, that this is Heritage Week in the town of Newcastle, one of the larger municipalities in my riding of Durham East.

The town of Newcastle was incorporated from four smaller municipalities under regional government, I say to the member for Durham West (Mrs Stoner): the town of Bowmanville, the former village of Newcastle and the townships of Clarke and Darlington. We have had some growing pains over the last number of years, but as fate would have it -- it has taken a long time -- our four former communities are now starting to work together.

This is one of the first aspects of that kind of co-operation that we see in Heritage Week. To refresh people’s memories as to what has already taken place, on Friday evening we had the official opening with her worship Mayor Hubbard at our new community town centre. Saturday, of course, we had our parade downtown. On Sunday we had the pancake breakfast.

Coming up, this evening we have a seniors’ organization putting on a small tea, Wednesday is Participaction Challenge Day, Thursday and Friday have more lunches in the community and Saturday finishes off with, among other things, the Bowmanville Rotary Club, of which I am a very proud member, with a barbecue at the new Bowmanviile Recreation Complex.

I want to invite all people, especially in the region of Durham, who are close to the town of Newcastle to come and enjoy the festivities of Heritage Week.


Mr Adams: There are still some who find it difficult to believe the reality that women are moving into dominant positions in both traditional and nontraditional occupations. Women are actually the more buoyant part of our workforce today. In fact, approximately a third of new businesses established in Ontario in the last few years were owned and operated by women.

On International Women’s Day, I attended an event in my riding of Peterborough, to discover no fewer than 30 women-owned businesses represented in display booths. The focus that evening was on home-based or cottage industries. Since that time, I have discovered that there are many more in the Peterborough riding.

The businesses include landscape gardening, interior design, home renovations, handicrafts and clothing of all sorts, astrology, computerized hair care and ceramics as well as the new and booming Indisposable Diaper Co. If small business is the foundation of our economy, surely these tiny home-based industries are the stuff of our private enterprise society.



Miss Martel: Within the last month I have received correspondence from several public library boards concerned with the automation program for small libraries. This program is sponsored by the Ministry of Culture and Communications and provides grant moneys to small libraries to automate their services. Library boards representing the towns of Collingwood, Milton, Thorold, Port Colborne and Fort Erie have written to express their concern regarding the selection criteria, the long delay in decision-making and notification of denials, and the wasted efforts of boards applying to a program insufficiently funded from the beginning.

Ministry officials or approved consultants were involved with each application from its inception. The minister knew how many boards were applying for funding and how much money was in place to meet the needs. Promotion of the program should have been halted when the well ran dry. Instead, 41 library boards continued to complete their requests for proposals, conduct cost-benefit studies, analyse and choose a fully integrated system, seek municipal council support in principle for matching funds and submit all the documentation by September 1988.

Boards not qualifying for funding were not advised until March of this year. At that point some boards were then forced to return to municipal council to request more funding for the automation project, this after the municipal budgets had already been set. For many boards it was a waste of precious time, money and resources to apply to a program not adequately funded in the first place. I urge the ministry to keep this in mind if the program is ever revived again.


Mr Eves: I have a statement with respect to home care. I rise today to inform the Minister of Health (Mrs Caplan) and the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr Sweeney) about some problems people have related to me that they are experiencing with eligibility processes for home care and homemaker services in the province.

I recently received a letter from a woman whose mother was denied homemaker services because the social worker had determined that her mother was a high risk to stay in her own home. The social worker recommended that she be institutionalized. The woman was no longer in need of medical visits from nurses; she simply required assistance for household chores occasionally.

In a similar case, I have been informed by the family of an elderly woman who speaks no English at all that the Ministry of Health home care people recommended that this woman be institutionalized instead of receiving a visit from a nurse once a week. The woman had been hospitalized for several days because of difficulty with her breathing. The family wanted to keep their mother at home, and all that was needed was a supply of oxygen and a weekly visit from a nurse to check her blood pressure and heartbeat and help bathe her, but the local home care people said she should be institutionalized.

We find these situations somewhat disturbing. We have families who are ready, willing and able to care for their elderly relatives in the comfort of their own homes, and the government with its home care and homemaker programs should not be discouraging them from doing so, but should in fact be making more home care and more homemaker services available to those who need it in the province.


Ms Collins: This House is well aware of the serious congestion at Pearson International Airport in Toronto. This situation is raised periodically in the media during peak travel times or when the latest near-miss comes to light. Hamilton Civic Airport is the ideal alternative to Pearson. City and regional officials in the Hamilton area have been pursuing this matter with the federal government for many months.

The federal government has been slow to respond, while on the other hand the provincial government has recognized the need for immediate action. When the question of a licence for a duty-free liquor outlet arose, the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations sent a letter to the region offering to locate a Liquor Control Board of Ontario outlet at the airport to serve international passengers.

On 17 February the Premier (Mr Peterson) urged the Prime Minister to work with Ontario to make better use of the Hamilton facility. On that same day I asked the Minister of Transportation (Mr Fulton) to accelerate the new Highway 6 alignment to the airport to provide better road access for travellers. The minister responded, saying he wanted to move quickly. On 17 May the Treasurer (Mr R. F. Nixon) included the acceleration of this project in the budget.

Our government is doing its share; the federal government is not. Action by the federal government is long overdue. The time for rhetoric and commissions has long since passed. Now is the time to get on with using the Hamilton airport to its full potential.

The Deputy Speaker: For one minute, the member for Hamilton West.


Mr Allen: One sometimes wonders whether the government, in implementing and in timing some of its program changes, has due regard for some of the side effects that are going to follow.

For example, when the Minister of Skills Development (Mr Curling) cancelled the Ontario summer employment program, he certainly did not inquire about its impact on the summer day camp program of the Young Women’s Christian Association in our community, which relies upon this fund in order to subsidize the counsellors who help guide the camp and thereby is also unable to provide a subsidy to the low-income families in the community who access this camp almost exclusively.

Particularly with the timing, the result has been that it has been very difficult to maintain the level of fees that would, first, make it possible for those families to easily access the camp and, second, make it possible to secure other funding that might have replaced the original.



Hon Mr Sweeney: I wish to announce that my ministry is acting on the recommendations contained in the report on the Review of the Young Offender Residential Service System that was tabled in this House two weeks ago. This report provides us with a blueprint for action. Some recommendations will be implemented quickly, and the results will be evident. Others will involve longer-term planning, which has already begun.

In order to assist young offenders to become productive members of society and to do so in a safe and secure environment which protects the staff, the public and the children themselves, the following steps will be taken.

We will increase funds to community residential programs for children so that they can increase the wages of their direct-care staff at the low end of the salary scale. All programs serving young offenders exclusively will be funded for double staffing at night. Effective immediately, probation officers and provincial directors will use the risk indicators outlined in the report to guide their decision-making regarding the placement of young offenders. They will also ensure that information related to these factors is shared with service providers in the community.

Over the coming months, we will work with service providers to validate the effectiveness of these indicators.

Young offenders who are considered to be potentially dangerous now will be dealt with in the young offender system. Only by exception, when unique treatment needs exist, will they be placed in other programs. When this does occur, additional supports will be made available to the program to ensure safety and security.

The capacity of the secure custody/detention system is being increased to alleviate the current overcrowding, and specific upgrades are being made to the security of facilities for young offenders.

As well, we will fund the provision of personal security devices for staff; fund the development of new training programs; develop specialized staffing resources to ensure the safe transportation of young offenders; ensure that the ministry staffing guideline for secure facilities is appropriately in place and work on the development of enhanced standards and guidelines.

Since tabling the report on the young offender residential system two weeks ago, I have been informed that the federal government has frozen its funding to the provinces for services to young offenders. I feel that this is inappropriate, and it certainly makes our job more difficult.

My announcement last week relating to the increased funding to community-based agencies included $7.9 million for implementation of these recommendations. That announcement also included additional funding to improve the salaries of people working in the young offender system. To ensure that all of these initiatives are implemented effectively, I have charged my assistant deputy minister of operations with that responsibility.

I am confident that the commitments we are making today, in partnership with our service providers, will enhance the safety and security of the public and of residents and staff in our programs for young offenders.

Hon Mr Ramsay: Following from the statement of my colleague the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr Sweeney), I am pleased to announce that the Ministry of Correctional Services will be providing funding in the amount of $9 million in response to the recommendations contained in the recent review of security and staffing in young offender community residences.

This additional funding will be applied to 53 youth residences throughout the province which provide education and literacy training, counselling for substance abuse, job readiness training, life skills education and other rehabilitative programs, as well as residential accommodation for 16- and 17-year-old young offenders ordered by the court to serve terms of open custody, as it is defined under the Young Offenders Act.


The funding will also apply to adult residences that are geared towards easing the transition of adult offenders from life in a correctional institution to supportive community living.

This review identified several areas for improvement to our present system, areas which for the most part have been the subject of ongoing refinement by my ministry in consultation with our network of community agencies.

Of particular note are the recommendations concerning staffing levels and salary compensation in young offender open custody residences. I am pleased to inform the House that with these new resources, our community correctional residences will be able to augment their present staff levels, particularly during the night-time hours, in the interests of the safety and security of both residents and staff.

In addition, this increased funding will permit our agencies to enhance the salaries and certain benefits of many front-line workers in our community correctional residences.

We want to ensure that those among the lowest paid of community residential workers will receive salary and benefit compensation that is in keeping with the serious nature of their responsibilities.

The review also made recommendations on enhanced physical security measures and standards for training of residence staff.

My ministry has been engaged in ongoing discussions with our community agencies on these and other matters, and has established a set of standards encompassing all the procedures and activities in our community residences.

My officials will be reviewing these particular recommendations with all our contractors to determine the optimal response to meet the requirements of each individual facility.

These initiatives will enhance our commitments to providing a safe, secure environment for staff and residents.


Hon Mrs Caplan: In our recent speech from the throne, our government identified AIDS prevention and treatment as one of several specialty care areas in which my ministry continues to concentrate its efforts and resources.

Earlier today, I announced that my ministry will be providing new funding of over $7.4 million for the care and treatment of people with AIDS or those who are HIV-positive, as well as for AIDS education and community support programs.

Among the new AIDS initiatives is funding for a clinic at the Toronto Rosedale Medical Centre, where aerosolized pentamidine is now available to patients on physician referral. Aerosolized pentamidine is being made available in Ontario to further test its effectiveness in controlling secondary AIDS infections, notably PCP or pneumocystis carinii pneumonia.

In providing access to aerosolized pentamidine, my ministry is thereby continuing to ensure that the most effective drug therapies are available in this province for people with HIV infection.

The Ministry of Health is providing a one-time grant of $100,000 towards setting up the Rosedale clinic, as well as $550,000 a year for its operation, which includes the cost of the drug. The Rosedale clinic is the first of its type in Canada and is being administered by the Sunnybrook Medical Centre. As members know, Sunnybrook already distributes AZT, or azidothymidine, another AIDS drug, to 56 hospitals in Ontario. We are therefore capitalizing on our earlier achievements in drug accessibility.

Today, I am also announcing funds for three new AIDS outpatient clinics at hospitals in Toronto, Hamilton and London.

The new outpatient clinic at Toronto’s Mount Sinai Hospital will be unique in its focus on psychiatric help. Mount Sinai staff will be available to counsel people with AIDS or HIV infection, as well as families and friends. My ministry is providing a one-time grant of $28,000 to establish the Mount Sinai clinic. Operating funds will total $160,300 a year.

A new AIDS clinic at Chedoke-McMaster Hospitals in Hamilton, at the McMaster hospital site, will receive a one-time grant of $72,200 with annual operating funds of $309,500.

St Joseph’s Health Centre in London will be receiving funding to open a clinic near the hospital. St Joseph’s will receive a one-time grant of $60,100 to establish the new facility, and operating funds will total $335,500 a year.

Our three new hospital outpatient clinics will add to the network already in operation. That network now includes Ottawa General Hospital and five hospitals in Toronto: Toronto General Hospital, Toronto Western Hospital, St Michael’s Hospital, the Hospital for Sick Children and the Sunnybrook Medical Centre.

This expansion of Ontario’s AIDS care network means more AIDS patients and their families will be able to take advantage of treatment facilities and support networks near their home communities.

I am also announcing today that my ministry will allocate an additional $2 million to assist community groups to provide AIDS education and support at the local community level. I am asking the groups that might be interested in applying for funds to submit their proposals to the ministry by 18 August. Funding will be available for both new programs and the expansion of existing ones.

Since it began in June 1987, my ministry’s community support program has funded AIDS committees in 10 centres across the province: in Toronto, London, Hamilton, Ottawa, Windsor, Kingston, Thunder Bay, Guelph, Sudbury and Kitchener-Waterloo.

With the additional funding committed today, my ministry expenditures to the community support programs for people with AIDS in this province will rise to $3.4 million this fiscal year. That is an increase of over 140 per cent on the $1.4 million already committed by my ministry for 1989-90.

An additional $3.1 million will also be going to Ontario’s 43 local boards of health. This represents an increase of nearly 80 per cent on what we had already committed to boards of health for AIDS initiatives this year.

Ontario is proud to have launched one of the most aggressive campaigns in our society’s battle against AIDS. Indeed, throughout Canada and the world we are regarded as a leader. Today’s announcement confirms our government’s commitment to see this battle through to the end.

Let me conclude by saying that I look forward to attending the international AIDS conference to be held in Montreal next week. I expect the conference will be an excellent opportunity for countries to share information and expertise as together we seek answers to human immunodeficiency virus infection and HIV disease.


Hon Mr O’Neil: I rise to challenge the pride and the pulse rates of all the members of the House to take part in the country’s biggest celebration of physical activity: Canada’s Fitweek.

Last year, 7.5 million Canadians participated in 17,200 Fitweek events. I am certain we can make that number even higher this year.

On Wednesday, the seventh annual Crown Life Participaction Challenge Day will take the country by storm once again. Last year, 322 communities got into the act. Keno City, Yukon, had 100 per cent involvement when all of its 37 residents joined in. In Japan, the city of Nayora, which was challenged by its twin city of Lindsay, Ontario, participated.

Here in Toronto, the Premier’s Participaction Challenge will again be one of the highlights of Challenge Day events. Premier Peterson will lead a light workout on the front steps of the Ontario Legislature starting at 8:30 am Wednesday, 31 May.

I would ask all members to join us in that participation.

This year, Toronto has taken on Vancouver to see which city can involve more people. As the members know, we have had a heated rivalry with Montreal for the past two years, and I am sure we will give Vancouver a run for its money.

Challenge Day, of course, goes beyond enjoying friendly competition. As our government expressed in the recent throne speech, nearly a quarter of our provincial health care budget is currently spent on treating preventable, lifestyle-related diseases. I am sure all the members appreciate how important it is for us to encourage physical fitness.

Last year, over three million people in 74 communities across Ontario participated in Challenge Day. This year, we will do even better. Our province and all of Canada are world leaders in the fitness and wellness movements. So let us stay there out front -- on the front steps at 8:30 Wednesday morning, 31 May.




Mr Allen: I want to respond to the double-decker announcement by the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr Sweeney) and the Minister of Correctional Services (Mr Ramsay).

I think I should say in the first instance that we in this party are delighted that the government has moved as quickly as it has with respect to the Review of the Young Offender Residential Service System. The incidents that lay behind that report caused a good deal of concern around the province and it was obviously an area that needed to be responded to very quickly.

We hope the $7.9 million is going to be sufficient to put in place the reforms intended and will increase the salary levels and the services available, such that the system will be much better able to attract more competent, better trained staff in the future, and also that there will be enough provision for those devices the minister has referred to to enable the safety of the personnel in the homes to be adequately protected.

We are pleased to see that the double staffing arrangement is going to be extended not just to young offenders institutions themselves, but at least in some instances to the community homes that occasionally house young offenders for special treatment purposes.

Given the clientele of the homes -- emotionally disturbed young people who have had severe problems in many instances -- there may be some concern remaining about single staffing under any circumstances and I hope the minister will think a little bit further about that.

With regard to the risk indicators the minister is going to be putting in place, I recall that a study indicated there was not really any clear consensus as to when that combination of risk indicators really precipitates a thoroughly risky situation. I hope the minister will be further refining the indicators in further studies and applications so that we will have a much better handle on when and how we detect the risk situations, which of course are the precipitating elements in the tragedies we have had heretofore.

Let me simply say that we hope there are sufficient resources being put into the program reforms that they can be effectively carried out.


Mr Reville: The Minister of Health (Mrs Caplan) today has made her sixth announcement, so this must be week 6 of the session. Let me say that the minister opened her press conference with more of a bang than usual today and I can see the headline now: “Health Minister Turns Tables on Press: More at Eleven.”

On a more serious note, I would like to extend my congratulations to people with AIDS and their support groups who have worked very hard to become educated about this very difficult disease and clearly I want to congratulate the minister on her initiatives in this regard.

I would point out that the city of Toronto last year spent almost $5 million on AIDS-related efforts. It turned down $1.5-million worth of requests by community groups, so the $2 million the minister is announcing for that function will not go all that far.

I am concerned as well that the minister has sidestepped the difficult issue of anonymous testing and I hope we will hear from the government in that regard very soon. I do hope the minister is now committed to making AIDS the manageable chronic disease it has become in other jurisdictions.


Mr Reville: If I might, I will respond as well to the statement by the Minister of Tourism and Recreation (Mr O’Neil) regarding Canada’s Fitweek. While we in the New Democratic Party would encourage all Canadians and all Ontarians to be as fit as possible, it will be difficult to match the display of synchronized dancing we see across there.

I should point out that the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale (Mr Philip), a well-known wit, says this should be called Retrofit Week.


Mr Cureatz: I would like to respond also, along with my colleague the member for Hamilton West (Mr Allen), to the joint announcement from the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr Sweeney), and more particularly from the Ministry of Correctional Services of which I am critic, among other ministries.

We would like to congratulate the minister, as my colleague the member for Hamilton West did, in terms of the new provisions that have been made by him in terms of both support to those people who are working within the young offenders jurisdiction, and more important, to the residences. I am sorry I will not have enough time to expand further, but I am sure there will be another opportune time.

I would like to say that of course we are disappointed; it is too bad it has come at this time, when possibly the recent tragedies might have been averted. But at least it is a step by the minister to try to do his best to centre in on those kinds of concerns that were brought forward by the recent report.

I would just like to conclude by saying to the minister that of course there is a lot of work that has to be done yet, and not specifically in the youth area. I think it is important we should monitor what will take place over the next six months, but more particularly, as I indicated in my question to the minister last week upon my visitation to the Don jail, there is still a lot of improvement that has to be made within the ministry. We can begin by looking at some of our institutions.

Mr Cousens: The Minister of Community and Social Services has made an announcement showing that the government is trying to respond to the needs of young offenders through the residential service system. It is quite amazing; here we are in a city that is about to open the SkyDome, and we can do a great deal when we really want to do it. Yet when it comes to serving the needs of young offenders, we have a hard time putting our act together as a society.

We know the act is flawed and the province is trying to work with the federal government to make the necessary changes to it. We know young offenders have needs within the system and have to be served. One has to support the kinds of initiatives that were delineated today in the release by the minister, in conjunction with the Minister of Correctional Services (Mr Ramsay), but I still go away and worry that we, as a society, have not begun fully to face up to our responsibilities to meet the needs of young offenders. They are still out there and they are still not being fully served. We as a society have failed our young people if we do not do a better job of it.

If the courses the ministry provides through this funding begin to help, good. If the extra services we are going to have begin to help, good. But do we have an all-encompassing plan that is really going to begin to solve the problem? I am not just sure it is there yet.

I suggest that the Minister of Community and Social Services, the Minister of Correctional Services and this government continue to put a very high emphasis on the needs of young people and make sure we are doing the job we should be doing to help them. Even in the minister’s press release, he was commenting on the fact that some $7 million is being spent, but this is from an announcement that was made the week before. How much is being identified with this project? That is not indicated in the announcement.


Mr Eves: I would like to congratulate the Minister of Health (Mrs Caplan) on making her announcement truly with a bang today. On a more serious note, we do indeed support the initiative she has announced today.

I would just add one word of caution; I do mean a word of caution, not a derogatory remark or one too critical, I hope. I know that Wellesley Hospital has in the past indicated some concern, and I am sure there are others besides: Besides the outpatient services we are providing for AIDS patients, there is of course going to be an oncoming need for inpatient services as well. I just ask the minister to take a look at that.


Mr McLean: I rise to accept the challenge from the Minister of Tourism and Recreation (Mr O’Neil) and to participate with the Premier (Mr Peterson) in this country’s biggest celebration of physical activity: Canada’s Fitweek. Last year, 322 communities took part in it and I hope that this year as many more will take part in it.

This is really about fitness and health care. am pleased to see the minister mentioned that in his statement today, because it is so important. If you are physically fit, you certainly need less health care. The more people involved, the more people who take part and the more people who exercise in the morning, such as the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay (Mr Black) who does not get up in time to do that -- the rest of us should look at that situation.

I anticipate once again being able to have that workout, to feel fit as a fiddle and to come in here and have some good solid questions for the ministers. We want to talk to and see Bingo Bradley here too.



Mr Kormos: I have a question for the Premier. On Thursday, 25 May, he read us a letter from the Police Association of Ontario, one signed, he tells us, by a Neal Jessop. I wonder if the Premier would tell us today if he read us the whole letter, and if he did not, would he read the portions that were deleted on Thursday?

Hon Mr Peterson: I do not have it with me, but I would be very happy to read it. We distributed copies of that letter to those who were interested in it, and I would be very happy to share a copy with the member as well.


Mr Kormos: The transcript of Hansard from Thursday, 25 May, indicates the Premier saying: “I received a letter from them this morning which I will read to my honourable friend. It says ... .” Then he goes on to read what he would have us believe, I presume, was the letter, indicating that it was signed.

What was not read was this statement: “It is the position of the Police Association of Ontario that it is inappropriate for a Solicitor General of the province to intervene or to be seen as intervening in occurrences of this nature.” It then goes on with the balance of that paragraph, two more, and then the signature.

The Deputy Speaker: Supplementary question.

Ms Collins: Read the rest of it.

Mr Breaugh: We have to read it all? He can read selectively.

Mr Kormos: Selective reading. The question is, why would the Premier dare tell this Legislature that he was reading a letter from the Police Association of Ontario? As a lawyer who, I presume, has spent some time in court, he should know that there are sleazy ways to present facts and there are honest and accurate ways to present facts. Why would he deliberately create the misimpression that he was reading the whole letter, when indeed if the whole letter is read, it is the Police Association of Ontario that talks about the gross inappropriateness of the behaviour of the Solicitor General (Mrs Smith)?

Hon Mr Peterson: The letter was obviously no secret. Everybody is entitled to read it. My honourable friend got a copy of it and put his own construction on it.

Mr D. S. Cooke: A part of it that you refused to read.

Hon Mr Peterson: He will be aware that I read the first paragraph before. I will read the last part of the letter right now, for the benefit of my honourable friend. The member is quite right; my honourable friend did quote a part of it, but why did he not choose to quote the rest of it?

Mr Reville: Because you covered that last week.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Hon Mr Peterson: Let me just help the member.

“It is the position of the Police Association of Ontario that it is inappropriate for a Solicitor General of the province to intervene or to be seen as intervening in occurrences of this nature. However, our association with the Solicitor General since the beginning of her tenure in this office would lead us to sincerely believe that she would not in any circumstances deliberately attempt to subvert or defeat the course of justice in any way at any time.

“You may rest assured that since the Solicitor General, Mrs Joan Smith, has taken office that the proper course of policing in Ontario has made excellent progress.

“We anticipate that this will serve to clarify any misunderstanding that may have arisen over this recent newspaper article.

“Yours very truly, Neal W. Jessop, president.”

Mr Kormos: I still have some real concerns that the Premier did not see it appropriate to read that when be read us that letter on 25 May; that he created the misimpression that he was reading the whole letter, when he knew full well that he was not.

The Deputy Speaker: Question?

Mr Kormos: The question is, and the Premier reads on, whether or not the Solicitor General’s conduct was designed to deliberately subvert or defeat the course of justice, is it not true that it remains the impression among the public across this province that the course of justice was not allowed to take its proper course and that indeed there was inappropriate conduct on the part of the Solicitor General, for which she and the government now have to be held responsible?

Hon Mr Peterson: I understand my honour-able friend’s subjective judgement in this matter. He has his own view, and he is entitled to stand in this House and discuss it and share his view. But, no, I do not share his view of this matter. I respect his right to have it, but I say that as much as my friend might like to try to have a different impression, I think that is not the impression.

Certainly the independent police report did not have that impression; there was no subversion of justice.

I say to my honourable friend -- and he can see that the police association takes the same view -- I think his subjective impression in this matter is not one that is widely shared in all sectors of the community. In any event, I think we have to make a decision in this matter and my honourable friend knows my decision.

Mr Reville: My questions are of the Solicitor General. No one has ever alleged during the questioning to the minister or the Premier that the Solicitor General deliberately attempted to subvert the course of justice. No one has alleged that.

I wonder if the Solicitor General has had an opportunity to read today’s Toronto Star column by Thomas Walkom with the headline, “Even Decent Politicians May Need to Resign.” The other politician is Michael Wilson. What Mr Walkom says partway down in his article is:

“What is at issue in both cases is a question of responsibility. Sometimes, the nature of a person’s work makes him or her responsible for matters that have nothing to do with intent.” I wonder if the Solicitor General agrees with that statement.

Hon Mrs Smith: Would you read the last part of your question again?

Mr Reville: Do you agree with the statement that: “What is at issue in both cases is a question of responsibility. Sometimes, the nature of a person’s work makes him or her responsible for matters that have nothing to do with intent”?

Hon Mrs Smith: Certainly there are sometimes questions that do not have to do with intent.

Mr Reville: Thank you. We may be getting somewhere.

The case involving the previous Solicitor General was unique in that a police report was released following the allegations that were made of impropriety on his behalf. We are advised that that unique situation came about because the previous Solicitor General said it would be all right if that report were to be released. I wonder if the Solicitor General would say it is all right for the report involving her conduct to be released.

Hon Mrs Smith: The member will be well aware that I was not accused of a crime. The Attorney General (Mr Scott) further advises that he would not like to let this be released.

Mr Reville: I do not recall the Attorney General having made such a statement in the House or outside the House. I have not asked a question of the Attorney General. I think the Solicitor General’s referring to the Attorney General’s view is something that the jury should disregard. Do you not?

Again, we have discussed this report, which we have not seen, which the Premier refused to table and which the Solicitor General now tries to muddify the fuzzification of by suggesting that the report does not talk about her criminal behaviour. Surely the point of the report was to determine whether or not the Solicitor General had committed acts that might justify an accusation of criminal behaviour or whether police officers with whom she talked behaved in a way which might justify criminal charges.

Can the Solicitor General not realize that were she to stand in the House and say that it would be fine with her if the report were tabled, that that would go a long way to resolving this matter?

Hon Mrs Smith: No, it would not be fine with me if the report were tabled. The investigation was held, as the member knows, and nothing was found wrong with it. A young man stands before the courts at this time.

Mr Runciman: My question is to the Premier.

The Premier will no doubt recall that in the George Kerr case in 1978, the then leader of the Liberal Party and of the opposition, Dr Stuart Smith, called for Mr Kerr’s resignation pending the outcome of an investigation by a legislative committee into the propriety of Mr Kerr’s actions. Dr Smith stated at the time, “I am not trying to be political about this, but I believe Mr Kerr has made a grave error and should offer his resignation out of sheer propriety.”

When we compare the position of the Liberal Party in 1978 to the attitude of the Liberal government in 1989 with regard to what is generally accepted as a grave error in judgement made by the Solicitor General, would the Premier not acknowledge that this comparison shows that his party’s standards of what constitutes acceptable conduct on the part of ministers of the crown were considerably higher and more stringent in opposition than they are in government?


Hon Mr Peterson: If that is the honourable member’s view, maybe the same thing applies to others as well. I just say to my honourable friend that he has asked these questions on several occasions and my answers are the same.

Mr Runciman: The Premier may also recall that Mr Kerr tendered his resignation because, as he acknowledged before a committee of this House, his call to an assistant crown attorney was “a call which should never have been made and which reflected bad judgement on my part,” and as he put it to the committee, “because of my concern about the ministry, my concern about the government.”

Given that in the current case we are dealing with a visit to a police station which should never have been made, and a subsequent call which should never have been made and which reflected bad judgement on the part of the current Solicitor General, can the Premier tell us why he is willing to accept and why the people of the province should be expected to accept a lower standard of ministerial accountability and responsibility and a lower degree of concern about the credibility of the Ministry of the Solicitor General and the administration of justice and law enforcement than was demonstrated by a minister in 1978?

Hon Mr Peterson: The honourable member will be aware, because we have discussed this before in the House, that I view those situations differently. He may not, and I respect his view. The Solicitor General responded to a cry and a call in the middle of the night. He is familiar with the circumstances and judgements have to be made thereon. As I said, I respect the honourable member’s view on this subject, but he knows mine as well.

Mr Runciman: I will try again with respect to Mr Kerr’s resignation. At the time, he said, “I am the political head of the police in Ontario, and like Caesar’s wife, I’ve got to be above reproach.” As he put it in his letter of resignation to the Premier, “As the senior law officer of the crown, I am wholly conscious of the fact that there can be no suggestion of impropriety on my part that could in any way reflect upon the administration of justice and law enforcement.”

Surely the Premier would agree that is the standard by which the conduct of his ministers must be judged. Would he not agree that by that standard, the current Solicitor General must be removed from office?

Hon Mr Peterson: I am just repeating answers I have given to my honourable friend before, in response to essentially the same question. As he knows, I have reflected on this at great length, I have had the benefit of advice from a number of people on both sides of the question and I distinguish between those two cases for the reasons I have shared with my friend.

Mr Runciman: Again to the Premier, on the police report by the Ontario Provincial Police, taking a look at the actions that occurred on the morning of 9 April, the Premier indicated in the House last week that there was no evidence given with respect to what the Solicitor General said to the police on that evening, the visit or the phone call, nor how the police responded to the Solicitor General’s call.

Can the Premier indicate why that kind of evidence, which we feel is critical to reaching a determination, was not asked for?

Hon Mr Peterson: My honourable friend asked an identical question last week on several occasions and I will give him an identical answer. The police force conducts an independent investigation and draws its own conclusions. I do not tell them what questions to ask nor whom to talk to.

They drew their own conclusions -- and I have told the member the conclusions -- that there was no compromise of the justice system or that there was no influence brought to bear in the circumstances. Those are the conclusions, based on a factual analysis of the case. The member may have a different view of the facts, but that is the independent investigating officer’s view of the facts.

Mr Runciman: I guess we would be interested in hearing the Premier’s personal views with respect to the objectivity and the ability of the OPP to really ascertain whether indeed a problem existed on the morning of 9 April, when, for reasons known best to them, apparently, they did not talk to the Solicitor General, did not indicate what she said on that evening or early morning and did not find out how the police responded to her.

I think we would all be interested, as members of this House, in knowing how the Premier can feel confident about the OPP conclusions, given the fact that he himself does not know what the Solicitor General said nor how the police responded. How can he feel confident that the Solicitor General did not act improperly on that morning?

Hon Mr Peterson: Unlike my honourable friend, I have great faith in the independence, the judgement and the impartiality of the OPP in this matter. The member is standing in this House now and questioning their judgement. I do not question their judgement. I have great faith. They are not so weak-kneed that they would bend for some reason that was not proper in the circumstances. They came to an independent conclusion. Had they had a different view, they would have come to that view and shared it with the senior law officers of the crown.

So I say to my honourable friend that we have a difference of opinion. I respect their independence, their professionalism and their impartiality.

Mr Runciman: I suspect we in this party respect the OPP much more so than the government or it would not have put the OPP in that position.

I want to talk about the independence question. The Premier is talking about his confidence in the independence of the OPP and he is really basing his case on the fact that the OPP is capable in this situation of carrying out an independent investigation of its boss, the top law enforcement officer in the province.

Last week I called the inspector in charge of the investigation to talk to him about how the investigation was conducted. He would not talk to me. Half an hour later, who called my office? It was the Deputy Solicitor General’s office. He talks about independence. I called the OPP investigator and who calls in return? It was the Deputy Solicitor General. That is not independence.

Is the Premier prepared to stand upon his feet today and indicate to the House and to the people of this province that he is going to take the OPP off the hook and have an independent investigation conducted so that all of us in this House and all of the people across this province can rest assured that indeed the Solicitor General was not carrying out some independent action on the morning of 9 April that, indeed, was improper for the top law enforcement officer of the province?

Hon Mr Peterson: I have no idea who phoned my honourable friend, but the Deputy Solicitor General is not a politician. My friend may be aware of that. Number two, as far as I am concerned, we have had an independent look at this matter by people whose judgement I respect, and it is all there.

Mr Kormos: I have a question of the Premier. The Solicitor General’s own version of these events seems to have meandered all over the place and the story seems to have changed from day to day to day. I will tell members how:

Back on 18 May, when she was questioned by the London Free Press, the Solicitor General told the London Free Press that she began making small talk about her friend’s son once she got into the police station. After talking with Whalen Sr, she went into the police station and she began making small talk about her friend’s son: “I stressed I was only there as a friend of the family.”

Interestingly, notwithstanding that she was prepared to tell the London Free Press on 18 May that she engaged in small talk about the Whalen accused, who was in custody and about whom she impressed with the police that she was a friend of the family, in the Legislature last Thursday, 25 May, she said: “Actually, I discussed with them summer’s advent and some casual things and left.”

Those are two entirely different things. Conversation about the Whalen boy, the close friend of her family, and conversation about summer’s advent are two very different things.

How can the Premier not disclose to this Legislature the contents of that report when we have these types of contradictions inherent in the minister’s own statements?

Hon Mr Peterson: In great fairness to my honourable friend opposite, who I know is very interested in this case, there is no contradiction whatsoever.

Mr Kormos: Obviously, the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing. In view of the fact that the public is very concerned about these contradictory statements, the Premier does not appear to be overly concerned about them and the Premier does not appear to be overly concerned about the inappropriate behaviour of his Solicitor General, why then will he not table the report?

If he wants to insist that the contents of the report deal with a criminal investigation of Whalen -- and he knows that is not true -- why does he not permit the report to be released, deleting the references to Whalen Jr, just so we can know with some certainty what indeed the Solicitor General did and said at the police station in Lucan at 1:30 in the morning?

Hon Mr Peterson: As I recall, and my honourable friend will correct me if I am wrong, the member stated in this House last week that he had talked to the investigating officer and that he had seen the report. If my facts are wrong, he can let me know on that matter.

So he is familiar with the facts. The facts are not particularly complicated. But as my honourable friend knows, police reports are not made public, as a matter of course -- there has been only one exception to that -- and particularly when there is a criminal trial proceeding standing now before the courts and it deals with facts relating to an accused. My honourable friend, I am sure, is aware of that as an esteemed, practising member of the bar.


Mr Sterling: I would also like to ask the Premier a question. The Premier has stated as his defence that this young individual was charged, I believe, with disturbing the peace. Quite often, I understand that people are held for a short period of time and released. Is the Premier 100 per cent convinced that had the Solicitor General not involved herself, this individual still would have been charged with disturbing the peace, notwithstanding what happened on 9 April?

Hon Mr Peterson: I am not prepared to engage in hypotheticals about who may or may not have been charged. But let me just say I have great faith in the police and their objective powers to make decisions based on the facts as they see them, commensurate with their duties. That is what I think they have done, and I respect their views.

Mr Sterling: One of the problems we have on this side is that we have not seen the report the Premier has seen with regard to this whole matter. Will the Premier not release those portions of the report which do not directly reflect on the criminal case? There must be a lot of the report which refers only to the actions of the Solicitor General. Will the Premier delete those particular parts and release the remaining part of the report?

Hon Mr Peterson: I think, frankly, all the facts are known in this House at the present time. There is nothing terribly complicated about them. My honourable friend has said he has seen the report and talked to the investigating officers. It is not possible to do. We are not going to release a police report, but my honourable friend knows the facts.


Mr Kozyra: My question is to the Minister of Natural Resources. The recent budget has caused concern in some areas as to its interpretation, especially as it relates to his ministry’s budget. That concern is whether the Ministry of Natural Resources budget is sufficient to properly manage Ontario’s resources. I wonder if the minister can inform and reassure the House of the government’s commitment to increased funding for natural resources.

Hon Mr Kerrio: I think the question is an excellent one because I am sure there are members of the Legislature who should be made aware of the fact that our budget included extra money --

Mr Laughren: The only minister whose budget was cut.

Hon Mr Kerrio: If the member for Nickel Belt listens, he will learn something.

The extra money for forest firefighting is included in that budget. We have a base amount of money for forest firefighting and then each year, because we are not able to calculate what the added budget is going to be, we put an extra $40 million into that forest firefighting budget, over the base.

In fact, the spending on regular programs last year was actually $536 million. In addition to the $570-million allocation for our regular programs in the 1989-90 budget, there is $36 million in forestry funding from the Ministry of Treasury and Economics. This includes a $15-million commitment representing Ontario’s share of the Canada-Ontario forest resource development agreement, which the federal government has, up until this point in time, not matched.

The biggest single problem out there is that while our government is increasing the expenditures on forestry, the federal government has in fact cut back, even in the face of the Auditor General’s suggesting that more money should be spent on forestry across Canada because of a past commitment that was actually not there.

We do have a serious sort of situation where we have a new minister who has a full ministry now, but Mr Wilson does not seem to be prepared to fund him to do the things that need to be done in forestry. Our Treasurer (Mr R. F. Nixon) has picked up the slack and has given me considerably more in my ministry to do the things we need to do to protect the forests of the future.

Mr Kozyra: The minister mentioned forest management and forest renewal, and that is a large part of his ministry’s mandate and is, of course, of vital concern to northern Ontario. Will the minister please inform the House how this 1989 budget will affect forestry and forest renewal?

Mr D. S. Cooke: Well, his budget was cut.

Hon Mr Kerrio: That is not appropriate, because the budget has not been cut but definitely increased. Again, if the member will listen, we will give him the details.

The government’s 1989-90 budgetary allocation of a total of $230 million to maintain and renew Ontario’s forests is an increase of 50 per cent over 1984-85. These new allocations certainly point out the commitment of this government to meet those requirements.

I of course will continue to pressure Ottawa to come up with its part of the program. But in the meantime I want to assure the people of this Legislature and of Ontario that we certainly are going to increase the budget of this ministry.

I want to tell the members also that there are $18 million from the softwood lumber tax going into the budget and that with the new funding, tree seedling production will be maintained at a level of over 160 million trees planted in Ontario. Young forest stands which are already growing will be tended this year with additional money. We will be putting in a great deal more money than had been anticipated because of the will of this government to do what needs to be done in forestry.

Members should remember to tie that together with millions of dollars being put into the new --

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.


Mr Reville: My question is for the Solicitor General. We read in the column by Walkom about the Solicitor General’s compassion: that she took in a foster child on two occasions; that she got a person out of a mental hospital and looked after him or her morally and financially for years. But the question of the member’s compassion is not at issue. It is a question of her credibility as Solicitor General.

Does she not realize even yet that her actions on the morning of 9 April have irreparably damaged her credibility as Solicitor General?

Hon Mrs Smith: I would agree that those parts of the column have no bearing on the case. The case is simple. I got a phone call in the middle of the night, the contents of which I have told you.

As I have reported, I went and spoke to the police officers and told them that this had nothing to do with wanting to interfere with justice, that they were to understand completely that I was there, because I had had this phone call, to inquire into the health of the young man and that I had no other interest in the case.

That is all I said, and I made sure that there were witnesses to my statement that I did not want to intervene in any way in the case itself.

Mr Revile: I think we have finally got to the nub of this matter. The Solicitor General says her compassion has no bearing on the case, but surely that is precisely what the problem is here. As a person who is used to being compassionate, she forgot that she was Solicitor General and, as Tom Walkom says, she forgot that she no longer enjoyed the luxury of being a compassionate mother and friend.

Does the Solicitor General not see that now?

Hon Mrs Smith: As I have answered many times, I went to inquire only about the wellbeing of the young man. I assured the police officers I had no interest in the case. I wished to do that in an honest and forthright way with witnesses, which is what I did.

Mr Runciman: Again, a question to the Premier about the Solicitor General’s misconduct: Will the Premier consider directing, through the Secretary of Cabinet to the Deputy Solicitor General or to the commissioner of the Ontario Provincial Police, to remove the gag order on the OPP to allow them to talk openly to members of the Legislature about the circumstances of the Solicitor General’s visit to the Lucan station?

There is no reason for the gag order regarding the Solicitor General’s visit because, according to the Premier, no crime was committed. Will he do that?

Hon Mr Peterson: There is no gag order anywhere to anyone, and I have read a number of people who have been quoted in this whole case.

Mr Runciman: I gave an example earlier that calls regarding this visit to the Lucan OPP station are being referred to the Deputy Solicitor General’s office, which is tantamount to a gag order. Again, will the Premier ask for the gag order to be removed?

Hon Mr Peterson: There is no gag order, as much as my honourable friend would like to see conspiracies under every little rock, it just is not there.



Ms Collins: My question is for the Minister of Labour. I have recently received a petition signed by 78 workers at the Stelco Steel Hilton Works. As the minister knows, the Employment Standards Act stipulates the maximum number of overtime hours a worker may work in a year. In most cases that maximum is 100 hours. In other cases, however, certain designated employees such as receivers and shippers may work 624 overtime hours in a year. Can the minister explain to this House the reasoning behind this discrepancy?

Hon Mr Sorbara: It is a very good question. I know my friend the member for Wentworth East has been working very closely with workers at Stelco and other businesses on this whole question of overtime hours so I am glad that she has had an opportunity to raise it here, as have some of the other members in this House, notably the laughing member for Hamilton East (Mr Mackenzie). I do not think there is anything partisan about it, but he does not have an exclusive on it.

If I could give some sort of historical background to the differences: Historically, permits allowing 100 hours per year have been granted. The member is right: There are certain occupations where excess hours of some 12 per week are permitted, bringing the maximum to 60 hours. Those include engineering, firefighters, full-time maintenance people, receivers, shippers, delivery truck drivers and their helpers and watchmen.

I know that you want me to wrap up this part of the answer, Mr Speaker, but I would point out that this has been the case historically since 1945. It is right in the statute and as we review the statute, we are going to be looking at some of those occupations.

Ms Collins: Could the minister indicate whether he is considering a change to this section of the act in the upcoming employment standards review?

Hon Mr Sorbara: Indeed, we are doing that, and I think probably the experience that we have had in our investigations at Stelco will help us as we review the whole question of hours of work and overtime in our Employment Standards Act review.

Mr Speaker, you will know, because we tabled the documents in this House, that the Donner Task Force on Hours of Work and Overtime, commissioned by my predecessor, now the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr Wrye), did study this question extensively. A number of representatives from the business community and the labour community studied those and reported to the ministry and to this House.

We are now looking at the question and using that as evidence and as authority for the question, and certainly I will be able to report further to the member as that proceeds.


Mr Kormos: I have a question of the Premier. I should say that the Premier said once and he said twice that I read the report, that I was shown the report. If he says it a third time, it will be a deliberate falsehood because he knows that I was not permitted to read the report. He knows that I did not see it. He knows rather, as was explained in this Legislature last week, that excerpts of it were read to me and that I was given précis of the report.

The question with respect to the report is, what is the Premier trying to cover up? What is he afraid of? Why will he not let the public see the report with appropriate deletions -- references to Whalen and whatever criminal investigation -- and he knows that that is not the case? What is the coverup here? What is the Premier afraid of?

Hon Mr Peterson: My honourable friend, in the interests of keeping this sort of pot stirred, has asked the same question on many, many occasions. Is there a rule, Mr Speaker, about repetitive questions? Because if there is no rule about repetitive answers I will have to give my honourable friend the same answer. There is nothing there to cover up. It is all there for my friend to see.

Mr Kormos: When can I see it and when can the other members of this Legislative Assembly see it? When is the public going to be allowed to see what went on in those early-morning hours when the Solicitor General (Mrs Smith) was intervening on behalf of close family friends, strong supporters and long-time allies?

The Deputy Speaker: The question has been asked.

Mr Kormos: Is this a secret police that operates, that prepares reports --

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The question has been asked.

Hon Mr Peterson: Could you help me out, Mr Speaker? Was there a question and if so, sir, what was it? The answer is no, but I reserve my right to change my mind if I figure out what the question was.

Mr Eves: I have a question to the Solicitor General. I must preface my question by saying I would not find this necessary if the Premier would simply agree to release the report so all members of the House could read the facts for themselves. Otherwise, we are going to have to get the facts, I guess, from them one piece at a time.

The Deputy Speaker: The question is?

Mr Eves: Can the Solicitor General tell us how she got to the OPP station in Lucan on the night of 9 April? Specifically, did she drive herself to the station or did somebody else drive her?

Hon Mrs Smith: I drove myself.

Mr Eves: Can the Solicitor General tell us whether she was in fact driving a government vehicle and whether she drove herself back home again or not?

Hon Mrs Smith: I was driving my own vehicle. I drove myself back home and did not speak to anybody else at that time.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The member for Brampton South has got the floor.


Mr Callahan: My question is for the Attorney General. The Attorney General will know that under the Young Offenders Act there is provision for alternative measures. Basically, a young person is entitled to admit his or her guilt, and if it is approved by the Attorney General or by the crown attorney, the charge can in fact be withdrawn upon the young person entering into some other alternative community service.

Considering the backlog of cases in courts, particularly in my riding, would the minister consider a similar or analogous type of alternative measure program for adults where, in the opinion of the crown attorney, the net result might be simply an absolute discharge, thereby saving the necessity of having a complete trial to deal with that particular issue?

Hon Mr Scott: I would like to thank the honourable member for the question. There has been some thought given in other jurisdictions and here to the possibility of a modified diversion program for adults, but to be frank, we have not contemplated an alternative measures program for adults in Ontario. The justification for alternative measures is based very much on the youth and immaturity of the offender, and it does not seem to me that a program based on that assumption would be appropriate in the case of mature, adult offenders.

Mr Callahan: I would like to perhaps place this in more human terms for the Attorney General. An instance of a particular person who --

Mr Philip: lf you are talking in human terms you are asking the wrong minister.

Mr Callahan: Do I have the floor, Mr Speaker?

The Deputy Speaker: Yes, you do, and please proceed.

Mr Callahan: The member for Etobicoke-Rexdale seems to think he has the floor for some reason.

I will give the Attorney General an example. It is fictitious, but in a sense it is real. I am not indicating the name of the person. In an instance where a young lady, married, no children, is involved with her husband in the business, has a child and then finds that she is no longer part of the business, the net result perhaps is that she goes out and, in order to attract attention to herself, commits a petty crime.

The Deputy Speaker: The question is?

Mr Callahan: In that particular situation, recognizing that the net result may very well be an absolute discharge, is it necessary that perhaps an entire day of trial might be used up, plus the fact it might result in section 16 of the Criminal Code applying in terms of its being pleaded by way of perhaps some form of insanity or some form of diminished responsibility --

The Deputy Speaker: The question has been asked.


Hon Mr Scott: I thank the honourable member for his hypothetical but real example, as he put it. On the assumption it is not hypothetical or fictitious, I simply say this: It seems to me a good case is made out in that example for an absolute discharge, which is not the same as making out a good case for a diversion or alternative measures program. There is no reason why, with crown counsel and defence counsel under legal aid properly instructed, this should take a day at trial. If there is proper disclosure before the event by both crown and defence, it should take about five minutes to agree on absolute discharge, which would then be ordered by the judge.

I think the example given by my friend does not point in the direction his question seeks to take us, but rather points to the wisdom of an absolute discharge.


Mr Reville: My question is for the Solicitor General. We now know the Solicitor General drove to the Lucan police station in her own car and drove back again. We assume she used her own telephone when she called up a couple of hours later. We know that on both occasions she asked only about the wellbeing of her young friend.

Does the Solicitor General not realize that if she had shown up and merely asked what time it was, or if she had merely said, “How about that Barfield?” it would have been a big occasion in the day of a Lucan police officer, and that as Solicitor General, arriving to ask a question of any kind has influence on those employees of hers?

Hon Mrs Smith: The member for Riverdale seems to have forgotten some of the facts, so I will repeat them and get him straightened out again. On the second occasion, I did not inquire after the wellbeing of Mr Whalen. I told them I had had a second call, wanted it on the record that I had had that call and that I had simply advised the young lady there was a process to follow and that I had no interest in the case.

Mr Reville: I am glad to have been disabused, that on the second occasion the Solicitor General’s speech to the Lucan police station was that a complaint had been made and that she wanted that on the record. Does the Solicitor General not realize that calling the Lucan detachment and saying, “It is the Solicitor General calling and I want you to know a complaint has been listed about the behaviour of the police officers in that detachment,” also has an influence on those very police officers?

Hon Mrs Smith: The police officer was asked to make a note on a piece of paper that I had had a call and nothing further.

Mr Runciman: My question is to the Premier, dealing with the 9 April events. The Premier is aware that the Solicitor General up to this point has not indicated any regret or remorse in respect to the incidents that occurred on that morning. In fact, she has indicated she may indeed do something comparable again in the future.

Up to this point, I do not believe the Premier has taken issue with that position. Does he believe what the Solicitor General did on that evening was improper conduct for a Solicitor General?

Hon Mr Peterson: We have discussed this on innumerable occasions and I have discussed my view of the situation. The question for me was whether this warranted dismissal or not. That was the question I had to wrestle with. I have shared my views with my honourable friend in that regard.

Mr Runciman: The Premier continues to avoid this issue and the message he is sending out, in respect to 130 members of this Legislature apparently, is that it is appropriate to do something comparable to what the Solicitor General did on 9 April.

Shortly after the 1981 election, a member of our caucus made a very innocent inquiry of a member of the judiciary and the Attorney General came down on our caucus very quickly and indicated that was inappropriate conduct. We had a standard to live by back then; apparently we do not now.

Is the Premier suggesting that the conduct of the Solicitor General on 9 April is appropriate for every member of this Legislature, all 130 of us, and that we can do something comparable and not look at problems from any jurisdiction, that this is okay activity?

Hon Mr Peterson: I think we have discussed this at great length and we will continue to discuss it if my honourable friend so desires; it is not a problem as far as I am concerned. Obviously, my honourable friend made a judgement in response to a call in the middle of the night. Many people would feel that is inappropriate, and sure, I wish this whole thing had not happened. I do not get great joy out of this situation. The question is, was there any interference in the course of justice? Was there any perversion of the system? That is the question, and then what attends therefrom.

I think I have shared my views with my honourable friend on that matter, but I want my honourable friend to continue to try, even though there is nothing new that he is bringing up, to continue to badger. It is okay with me and I do not mind responding in the same way.


Mr Campbell: My question is to the Minister of Correctional Services. A few weeks ago, I inquired of the Minister of Northern Development (Mr Fontaine) as to the status of the relocation of his ministry to Sudbury. I am asking the Minister of Correctional Services if he could provide the members of the Legislature with a similar update of his ministry’s main office relocation to the city of North Bay.

Hon Mr Ramsay: As a fellow northern member, I know of my friend’s interest in the northern relocation program and I welcome the opportunity to update my colleagues in the House on the move we are embarking upon to North Bay.

As the members will recall, in 1987 the Premier (Mr Peterson) made the announcement that my ministry would be moving to North Bay. That will bring 300 positions to that city, with a payroll of about $10 million annually.

The construction of a $22-million facility is well under way. Due to strikes last summer and weather delays, we will not be moving into the new building till the spring of 1990. However, I decided in March that we would advance the move of 148 positions into temporary office space in North Bay six months earlier than intended so that the people of North Bay would see our presence there and so that our people who had expected to move would be working in the city.

Mr Campbell: I thank the minister for that update, because part of the government strategy of moving these jobs to northern Ontario is the impact on the employment situation in those communities in northern Ontario. Could the minister outline the employment opportunities for residents of northern Ontario with his ministry’s relocation, specifically in North Bay?

Hon Mr Ramsay: The present number of people working in Toronto in our ministry who have stated their intentions to move to North Bay is 107. Thirty-three of those people are North Bay residents, who are commuting or are temporarily relocated in Toronto in order to fill those positions.

As we move up there, we will be advertising in the local media and hiring as we go along, so there will be tremendous opportunity for North Bay and area residents to work with the Ministry of Correctional Services.

The Deputy Speaker: New question, the member for Welland-Thorold.


Mr Kormos: The Premier --


The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr Kormos: It is incredible that I am trying to ask a question about a significantly important matter and Liberal backbenchers continue to cackle and carry on.


The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr Kormos: The people of Ontario are vitally interested in this. The Premier tells us time and time again that he believes the Solicitor General (Mrs Smith) did nothing wrong, yet public perception is clearly that her presence, as Solicitor General, at the police station with a close family friend may have had -- in the views of some people, must have had -- some influence on the conduct of the police officers.

The Premier has a secret report. Why will he not disclose the contents of that secret report to the public? He could merely delete the references to other criminal conduct, unless he is afraid of the contents of that report. Is he afraid of the contents of that report? If not, he should show it to us.

Hon Mr Peterson: My honourable friend is obviously running out of new questions, because he has asked the same one on many occasions today and yesterday. I said it is not a secret report in the sense that somebody is trying to cover something up. It is a police report, and my honourable friend understands that. So I say to my honourable friend that my answer is the same now as it was when he asked me this a few days ago.

Mr Kormos: When will the Premier share his information, which is contained in that report, with the public? Is it not essential that he share the contents of that report with the public if people are going to believe him and if people are going to believe the Solicitor General, because people do not believe them now?


Hon Mr Peterson: My honourable friend has drawn his own conclusions about what people believe and do not believe. He is entitled to his view on that subject, but I say to him that an independent investigation was held and the views are as I shared with him in this House, so I think my honourable friend will want to be careful about drawing conclusions about what everybody believes or does not believe.

Mr Runciman: Again, my question is to the Premier dealing with the Smith matter. Earlier, he indicated he does not believe there is a gag order in place with respect to the Ontario Provincial Police despite the experience I had last week.


The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Please proceed.

Mr Runciman: My staff just contacted both Sergeant Foley of the Lucan OPP and Superintendent Bob Guay of the OPP and both said they cannot answer questions on the Smith case. Would the Premier not suggest this is indeed a gag order? The police cannot even respond to questions from members of the staff of the Legislature.

Hon Mr Peterson: There is a very interesting irony here. The whole line of questioning has been about discussing things with the OPP. Now my honourable friend wants to talk to the OPP, for whatever reason that is, but I think he would be somewhat reticent in doing so because he would not want to be perceived to influence the course of justice. Let me tell the member that I do not tell the OPP who to talk to or what to say in any circumstances, nor will I.

Mr Runciman: That analogy will not wash with anybody. I do not know who the Premier thinks he is kidding. We are talking about trying to get to the bottom of the activities of the Solicitor General on the morning of 9 April, and this Premier, his minister and his government are stonewalling on this.

They will not give us appropriate answers in this House. Will the Premier, through his commissioner of the OPP, through his principal secretary, indicate that full answers are to be provided to members of this Legislature with respect to this matter? He has indicated there was no question of a crime being committed. Will he not open up and make the investigation available to members of the Legislature?

Hon Mr Peterson: The member can ask any question he would like in this House. We are very happy to respond in a forthright, open and fulsome way, as we have done. The member has asked the same question innumerable times and we have responded to the best of our ability.

Certain people have talked to the OPP, and I have no problem with their talking, whatever is appropriate in the circumstances, because they make their own decisions in that regard. My honourable friend keeps talking about tabling the report. He knows better in spite of the fact that he is not a solicitor or a lawyer. Police reports are not made public.

My honourable friend would like to read something into this, as is his wont. We have discussed his nature before in this House, but let me say the Attorney General (Mr Scott) and law officers of the crown say that police reports are not made public.

Mr Harris: Why was it appropriate to table the Keyes report?

Hon Mr Peterson: There was one exception, which I discussed with the member, but I can tell him that when the name of an accused is discussed, as it is in this case, and that matter is before the courts, it is not appropriate to jeopardize someone else’s reputation or criminal trial. I think my honourable friend understands that --

Mr D. S. Cooke: This is an investigation of your Solicitor General.

Hon Mr Peterson: -- in spite of the fact my honourable friend opposite does not.


Mr Callahan: The legal profession in my community --

The Deputy Speaker: To whom is your question?

Mr Callahan: To the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Because of the very rapid growth and transfer of real estate, the legal community in my riding, and for that matter the ridings of about four other members, is having difficulties at the registry office in Brampton.

One of the matters that might be of assistance to them would be a pilot project -- I am not suggesting that this should be commenced in Peel, but I am wondering if the minister would consider, as a pilot project, the incorporation of a lending institution or a branch thereof in one of the registry offices in Ontario in order to allow or facilitate the transfer of funds or the certification of cheques.

I can tell members that on a number of occasions there have been transactions that have been delayed, perhaps even those that have been frustrated, because of the difficulty in attempting to have these funds placed in a suitable certification for closing.

Hon Mr Wrye: The honourable member, as he so often does, makes a useful and interesting suggestion. I can share with him and with the House that one of the things we have been doing with the registry offices and land titles offices is beginning to see what additional matters can be placed in those offices. Often other parts and branches of my own ministry can facilitate the business community and the public in general in carrying on their business.

The honourable member now suggests that in addition to some of the tie-ins we have traditionally had, which is registry offices to the court facilities, and we have tried to do that where possible, we should look for a new tie-in; that is, registry offices to financial institutions.

I can say to the honourable member that in some cases, and he is certainly sensitive to his own community, the offices are already crowded and in some cases quite overcrowded, but I am willing to take a careful look at the honourable member’s suggestion and perhaps try it in a registry office where space is not so much an issue, and to explore the issue with my own officials and those of lending institutions.

Mr Callahan: The problem is exacerbated as well by reason of the fact that the money collected is significant in terms of its being land transfer tax, registration fees and so on, so much so that it requires the attendance of a Brinks truck, or whatever the equivalent of Brinks is, to transfer the funds from the registry office to the appropriate financial institution.

By way of supplementary, I ask the minister, in considering the pilot project or its implementation, to take that into consideration, along with the fact that it becomes very difficult for the staff at the various registry offices to provide sufficient coinage to allow the individuals who are searching in the registry offices to conduct their searches in an effective way.

Hon Mr Wrye: I know this is an area of business that my colleague and friend has a great deal of knowledge of, and I take his suggestion and proposals quite seriously. I can say to the honourable member that certainly in this day and age, we are at a time where the linkages between land registry and land titles offices and financial institutions ought to be perhaps a little more sophisticated than those we found in days gone by. Even without the growth we have experienced in Ontario, the growth in the volume of business has been really quite dramatic. Some of our traditional linkages may be proving, as we enter the decade of the 1990s, to be insufficient.

I can say to the honourable member that we will take a very careful look at that matter and I will report back to him directly.


Mr Reville: The Attorney General has been clucking and pecking like a chicken --

The Deputy Speaker: Your question is to the Attorney General?

Mr Reville: -- in his anxiety to get on in this, so my question is to the Attorney General. To give him an opportunity to speak out legitimately this afternoon, would he give this House his advice on how a report touching on the actions of the Solicitor General (Mrs Smith) could be tabled in this House without touching on the matters that are before the courts?

Hon Mr Scott: As the honourable member knows, I cannot give advice to private citizens.

Mr Reville: I regret that I waited all afternoon to discover that I was after all not the member for Riverdale but a private citizen. Seriously, as the legal adviser to everybody over there, the Attorney General must have had a lot of earnest conversations about this very popular report.

Is there not a way to delete those references to the person who is before the courts and make sure the rest of the information can be available to us all?

Hon Mr Scott: As the honourable member knows -- I did not intend the first answer to be facetious -- there is a long history of how parliamentary governments deal with police reports. That history, both in the United Kingdom and Canada, and indeed even in the United States although its constitution is a little different, makes it perfectly plain that you do not ever release a police report without the consent of all the persons who are mentioned in it, for the following reasons --

Mr Breaugh: Not ever?


Hon Mr Scott: Except with the consent of all persons mentioned in it. And one does not, because if it does not produce a criminal charge, then a very grave injustice may be done to any number of people mentioned in it, as police reports are often composed of material that cannot be demonstrated.

On the other hand, if there is a criminal charge, as there is in this case, in this instance there is a very real risk that the release of a police report will cause a mistrial.



Mr Kozyra: I have a petition that is in general for the Lieutenant Governor but more specifically, to the Minister of the Environment (Mr Bradley). It is regarding the proposed bleached chemi-thermal-mechanical pulp mill in the former Thunder Bay MacMillan Bloedel site. It consists of over 20,000 signatures. It reads as follows:

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

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

“We, the residents in the district of Thunder Bay, oppose any project that impacts negatively in any way on air quality, water quality, recreational quality, or lifestyle safety of the Kaministiquia River, Lake Superior or its watershed.

“Therefore, an environmental assessment hearing must be undertaken prior to any commencement of construction in the municipality of Paipoonge.”

I have signed my name to the petition.


Mrs Fawcett: I have a petition today from 94 constituents from the Cobourg area.

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

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

“We support the expansion of home care and visiting nurses services as the most cost-efficient mode of health care delivery. We therefore want our government to adequately fund the Victorian Order of Nurses.”


Ms Bryden: I have a petition to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It is on the subject of the profession of naturopathy and has been signed by 20 people, mainly from my constituency, Beaches-Woodbine. It reads as follows:

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

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

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

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

I have signed this petition.


Ms Collins: I have a petition:

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

“We, the undersigned, beg leave to present a petition:

“The following employees feel that part IV, clause 20(1)(a) and clause 20(1)(b) of the Employment Standards Act directly interfere with their rights as Canadians under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and request very strongly that this section be removed from the Ontario Employment Standards Act.”

I have signed this petition.


Miss Martel: I have a petition:

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

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

“We urge the Liberal government to scrap Bill 162, An Act to amend the Workers’ Compensation Act,

“Because Bill 162 contains the most significant changes to the Ontario system of workers’ compensation contemplated for many years and yet, as was confirmed through the public hearings on the bill, was developed without an adequate process of public consultation with the stakeholders; and

“Because Bill 162 represents an attack on injured workers and their families and all of those people who have fought over the years to achieve fairness and justice for injured workers and their families; and

“Because Bill 162 will eliminate the current lifetime pension for lifetime disability and replace it with a dual award system, combining lump sum and wage-loss awards, that has been rejected by injured workers, their advocacy groups, community legal workers and lawyers working on their behalf and by the trade union movement since it was first proposed for implementation in Ontario by the 1980 Weiler report and the Conservative government’s 1981 white paper; and

“Because Bill 162 virtually ignores the devastating critique and recommendations of the Majesky-Minna task force report on vocational rehabilitation that was submitted to the Minister of Labour and suppressed by the Liberal government until April 1988; and

“Because Bill 162 gives legislative form to the unacceptable and reactionary policy of restricting access to supplement awards announced by the Workers’ Compensation Board in 1987; and

“Because, throughout Bill 162, injured workers are made more subject to increased discretionary power at the hands of the Workers’ Compensation Board and made subject to ever more intrusive and demeaning assaults on their dignity, their privacy and their right to fair and just treatment.”

This was signed by four members of the Victims of Mining Environment in Timmins, commonly known as the gold miners’ wives. I agree with them entirely and I have put my signature to it as well.

The Deputy Speaker: I want to thank the member for writing a précis of the petition.


Mr Carrothers: I have a petition:

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

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

“Whereas we support the expansion of home care and visiting nurses services as the most cost-effective mode of health care delivery, and whereas the Victorian Order of Nurses will incur a further deficit of $3 million provincially in the 1989-90 fiscal year, if the government of Ontario fails to fulfil its promise to adequately fund home care services and, therefore, the VON may be forced to alter their home care services, we petition the Minister of Health to revise the funding formula for 1989-90 so that a secure funding base be established to reflect the increasingly complex care needs in the community case load, and to provide adequate compensation for the service providers working in the community setting, so that citizens of Ontario are not forced to seek more expensive health care in an institutional setting.”



Mr Cureatz moved first reading of Bill 29, An Act to amend the Teachers’ Superannuation Act, 1983.

Motion agreed to.

Mr Cureatz: This amendment to the act will add a provision permitting a refund of pension contributions to be made to the personal representative of a deceased contributor where the spouse or child of the contributor cannot be found. The provision authorizes the Teachers’ Superannuation Commission to make such a refund if it is satisfied that reasonable inquiries have been made to find the spouse or child and more than one year has passed since the death of the contributor. The provision is similar to section 37 of the Public Service Superannuation Act.


Mr Runciman moved first reading of a bill entitled An Act to amend the Executive Council Act.

The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the nays have it.

Call in the members.




The House divided on Mr Runciman’s motion, which was negatived on the following vote:


Allen, Brandt, Breaugh, Bryden, Charlton, Cooke, D. S., Cousens, Cunningham, Eves, Farnan, Grier, Hampton, Harris, Johnson, J. M., Johnston, R. F., Kormos, Laughren, Mackenzie, McCague, McLean, Morin-Strom, Philip, E., Pollock, Pouliot, Rae, B., Reville, Runciman, Sterling, Villeneuve, Wildman, Wiseman.


Ballinger, Beer, Bossy, Campbell, Caplan, Cleary, Collins, Conway, Curling, Daigeler, Eakins, Epp, Faubert, Fawcett, Fleet, Fontaine, Grandmaître, Kanter, Kerrio, Kozyra, Kwinter, Lipsett, Mancini, McGuigan, McLeod, Miller, Morin, Nicholas, Nixon, J. B., Nixon, R. F., Oddie Munro, Phillips, 0., Polsinelli, Poole, Ray, M. C., Reycraft, Riddell, Roberts, Smith, D. W., Sola, Sorbara, Stoner, Sullivan, Tatham, Velshi, Ward, Wilson, Wong, Wrye.

Ayes 31; nays 49.

Mr Harris: Mr Speaker, I would ask unanimous consent of the House to place a motion.

The Speaker: The request from the member for Nipissing is for unanimous consent to place a motion. Is there unanimous consent?

Agreed to.


Mr Harris moved that this sitting be extended to permit the Treasurer to move at this time government notice of motion 4 standing in his name on the Orders and Notices paper and that debate on the motion for interim supply conclude after each party has had up to five minutes to speak, at which time the Speaker shall put the question forthwith.

Motion agreed to.

Hon Mr Conway: I suppose, to be proper about this, we should revert to motions, so I would seek consent that we now revert to motions so the honourable Treasurer (Mr R. F. Nixon) can do as the motion of the member for Nipissing suggests he do.

Agreed to.

The Speaker: It has been agreed that the Treasurer may proceed with the government notice of motion.



Hon R. F. Nixon moved that the Treasurer of Ontario be authorized to pay the salaries of the civil servants and other necessary payments pending the voting of supply for the period commencing 1 June 1989 and ending 31 July 1989, such payments to be charged to the proper appropriation following the voting of supply.

Hon R. F. Nixon: Taking notice of the original motion that limits our discussion to five minutes on each side, I simply bring to the attention of the honourable members that this interim supply will involve the expenditure of an estimated $5.6 billion during June and July.

Since there was some concern about the timing of interim supply, it is a good occasion for me to say that although it is 31 May, the day before the beginning of the interim supply period, it still is a substantial inconvenience which is explained in the following way.

Some years ago, when our accounting was done with quill pens and cheques signed directly by the Treasurer, we could handle interim supply approved at the end of the month for the next following month. Now that we do it with all modern technology, it takes quite a bit longer.

For that reason, the computerized tapes giving the specific approvals for various sums, with the allocations, have to be made available to our financial agents and the banks usually two or three days before the end of the month so that the proper dispensation of the funds across the province takes place.

I have tried to convince my colleague the House leader of that, and I know he does his best to schedule interim supply so that the officials in Treasury do not have that slight increase in blood pressure as we get close to the end of the month. I can assure you, Mr Speaker, that they will be very glad indeed that the opposition members, recognizing their democratic duty, have returned to the Legislature in order to approve this important expenditure at this time.

Frankly, I appreciate the fact that these expenditures have been approved. They are routine, of course, but they amount on average to about $100 million a day. Fortunately, with the recent budget provisions, we will be able to handle that quite usefully and in the responsible way that the taxpayers have grown accustomed to in the last four years.

Mr Laughren: I am pleased to engage in this debate on the interim supply motion, although I must say that I and my colleagues will vote in favour of the motion not because of the performance of this government in recent days, weeks and months, and indeed since 1985, but because there is a growing awareness in Ontario that a dry rot is setting in.


Mr Laughren: The government members can heckle all they like -- they have the numbers so they can drown out any opposition member who wants to speak; I understand that -- but those of us who have been here a while understand how well the old Tory machine was able to use patronage to entrench itself. It was fine-tuned over 42 years. This government in four years has done as much to undermine the process as that government did in 42 years. In four years, this government has undermined not only the credibility of itself but also people’s respect for the process in the province of Ontario. That is more serious than the damage they are doing to themselves.

The latest fiasco, the Joan Smith affair -- who, I might add, is not here for some strange reason -- is in itself an important symbol of what has gone wrong with this government. The fact that the Solicitor General (Mrs Smith) herself has not understood that ministerial responsibility demands that she resign is more important than the act in which she engaged late that night.

We have seen examples when ministers did not seem to understand that they were responsible for the people who reported to them, even though that is a long tradition that has been honoured in parliamentary democracies. Not only does this government not seem to understand that vis-à-vis the Minister of the Environment (Mr Bradley), but it does not seem to understand that when the ministers themselves get involved in a contradiction of their responsibilities then they should have to resign. It has become ridiculous.

The contradictions in the story of the Solicitor General are truly amazing. The fact that the Solicitor General, the chief police person in the province of Ontario, would go down to the police station in the middle of the night and make an appearance on behalf of the son of a friend in itself shows a judgement that the Premier (Mr Peterson) should have recognized as a terminal judgement. The fact that the minister did not seem to understand she should resign and that the Premier should demand her resignation and accept it when it was offered speaks volumes about the integrity of this government.


There was a story in the Globe and Mail this morning which talked about another problem. That problem is that, for example, an Ontario cabinet minister received a $5,000 payment for a housing survey from a charitable foundation and also that there are others who received payments from the same charitable foundation, namely, Elvio DelZotto, president of the Ontario wing of the federal Liberal Party of Canada, and Willowdale Liberal MP James Peterson, brother of the Premier.

This government must understand the damage it is doing to the credibility of the political process and that by doing so it undermines the credibility of all of us in this province, not just the government members but all politicians in the province of Ontario.

It is absolutely ridiculous that the Solicitor General did not have the sensitivity and the judgement to understand that, following the incident at the police station in Lucan, she should have submitted her resignation to the Premier, and the Premier forthwith should have accepted that resignation. Then we would have been voting not just interim supply for the public servants of the province of Ontario but perhaps even an acknowledgement that government was governing properly; but in this case, it certainly is not.

Mr Brandt: I want to indicate that my party as well will support the motion for interim supply. We do so out of a sense of responsibility to very clearly indicate that we are not attempting in any way to be obstructionist or to hold up the business of the government.

We want to make it very clear to this government that over the course of the past few days there have been a number of situations related to the incident that occurred in the town of Lucan, north of London, that are deeply upsetting to our party and to all members of the opposition and I think, if looked at very carefully and in a very objective way by the members of the government party as well, should be upsetting to them.

The issue is really one of the integrity of this government. It is really one of very clearly demonstrating to the people of this province that when a person accepts the responsibility of being sworn in as a member of cabinet, it is absolutely, totally and completely impossible for that person to then act as an ordinary citizen on one occasion and as a cabinet minister on another occasion.

When the Solicitor General took it upon herself to travel to Lucan to intercede, as she did on that particular occasion, as the Solicitor General -- because she can be nothing other than that -- I say to my friends that is the influence of government used in an extremely inappropriate way. That is what concerns us on this side of the House.

There have been standards established over many years. The protocol with respect to how a cabinet minister must conduct himself or herself is very clearly understood. It means that in a situation such as occurred with our former colleague George Kerr, on a matter of principle and a matter of honour, you have no choice but to resign at that particular time if you have in fact conducted yourself in an inappropriate manner.

Those standards were established by George Kerr and many other cabinet ministers who, innocently perhaps, having made contacts that after the fact became well known as being inappropriate, did the honourable thing. The honourable thing was to resign at that particular time.

My concern, and what should concern the members of the government, is that the standards they are establishing with respect to contacts by cabinet ministers to various individuals throughout society have now been lowered very substantively. That is unacceptable to the members of my party and, I believe, to all members of the opposition, as it should be to the government party as well.

The Premier has indicated in the case of the Lucan incident that he personally has reviewed the police report. He has also said that all of the facts are there for people to see. The facts are not there, I say with the greatest of respect to the members of the government, because they have stonewalled that particular report. They have not made it available in any form whatever to the members of the opposition to determine whether in fact, in their eyes, there was any overt interference on the pan of the Solicitor General or not.

It is one thing for the Premier of this province to say “I have seen it.” it is still another thing for the members of the opposition to have an opportunity to peruse that document and to determine in their minds whether in fact that matter was handled appropriately and in a manner that would be acceptable to the members of this House.

For the Premier to constantly stonewall, to constantly hide behind a report which he refuses to release, and indicate that the facts are there for all to see really stretches his credulity to the extreme degree. Our party very frankly says to the members of the government that the Solicitor General has a direct obligation, a direct responsibility, to come completely clean on this issue. The only way that can be done, in our view, is with the complete release of that report.

I say by way of closing, since my time has just about come up --

Hon R. F. Nixon: Hear, hear.

Mr Brandt: I thank the Treasurer. We are here, after days of ringing these bells, in order to provide him with interim supply because we do feel we have a responsibility. But the government has a responsibility to conduct itself at a high level that is beyond the question of the people of this province with respect to the integrity of the government. That it has failed to do, and that will be with the government for some long time to come.

Motion agreed to.


Mr Kormos: Mr Speaker, may I rise on a point of personal privilege?

The Speaker: Personal privilege? We do not really have –


The Speaker: A point of privilege or a point of order?

Mr Kormos: A point of privilege, please. Last Thursday the Premier (Mr Peterson) deliberately misled me and he deliberately misled this House. Let me explain. In replying to a question from me --

Some hon members: Goodbye.

The Speaker: Order. I know it is --

Mr Faubert: Get him the standing orders and let him read them.


The Speaker: Order. I am sure all members are aware of many of the standing orders. Of course, one of them is that a member cannot accuse another member of deliberately uttering a falsehood. I know that all members are tired, and I am sure that the member would want to use some other language than that. Would you use some other --

Mr Kormos: Mr Speaker, the Premier lied to the House.


The Speaker: Order. Will the member withdraw?

Mr Kormos: I am sorry, Mr Speaker; I will explain, but I cannot withdraw.

The Speaker: I have no other choice but to name the member.

Mr D. S. Cooke: Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I have no choice but to challenge your ruling --


The Speaker: Order.

Mr D. S. Cooke: We are not going to have a member thrown out who tells the truth in this House.

The Speaker: Order. I have asked the member to withdraw. Will the member withdraw?

Mr Kormos: Mr Speaker, I can explain my comments; I cannot withdraw them.


The Speaker: Order. I have no choice but to name the member.

Mr Kormos left the chamber.

Mr D. S. Cooke: Mr Speaker, on a point of order --

Hon R. F. Nixon: There is no point of order.

Mr D. S. Cooke: If the Treasurer wants to be Speaker, he should apply for the job.

The Speaker: Order. With respect, I know many members have read the standing orders. I asked the member to withdraw and he said he would not withdraw. I named the member and the member has withdrawn for the balance of the day. It is as simple as that.

Mr D. S. Cooke: Mr Speaker, you made a ruling on a particular word that was used in the Legislature. There is ample opportunity and has been in the past. I do not agree with your ruling, and I challenge your ruling in naming the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr Kormos).


The Speaker: Order, please. I asked the table to check if there are any precedents for me to make a decision. I am advised that there is a precedent in this House where such a ruling has been challenged and voted on in the past. Do I understand that the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr D. S. Cooke) still wants that challenge to stand?

Mr D. S. Cooke: Yes, Mr Speaker. It is with a great deal of regret that I have to challenge your ruling.

Hon R. F. Nixon: Somebody should call you a hypocrite, but that’s not permitted.

Mr Mackenzie: You usually do find a way.


The Speaker: Order. The Speaker’s ruling has been challenged. Therefore, I will put the question to the House, shall the Speaker’s ruling be sustained?

All those in favour will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Call in the members.




The Speaker: If all members will pay attention, I have been advised by representatives of all three parties in the House that a vote will not take place before at least 9 am tomorrow.

I am therefore suspending the sitting, and the bells are deemed to be ringing until the sitting is resumed at 9 am, Friday, 2 June 1989.

The Speaker suspended proceedings at 1833.



The Speaker: It has become evident to me that a division will not be taken before nine o’clock next Monday morning.

I am therefore suspending the sitting, and the bells are deemed to be ringing until the sitting is resumed at 9 am, Monday, 5 June 1989.

The Speaker suspended proceedings at 1231.



The Speaker: It is evident to me that a division will not take place before 9 am tomorrow.

I am therefore suspending the sitting, and the bells are deemed to be ringing until the sitting is resumed at 9 am, Tuesday, 6 June 1989.

The Speaker suspended proceedings at 1800.



The House divided on the Speaker’s ruling, which was sustained on the following vote:


Adams, Ballinger, Beer, Black, Bossy, Brandt, Brown, Callahan, Campbell, Carrothers, Chiarelli, Cleary, Collins, Conway, Cooke, D. R., Cordiano, Cunningham, Daigeler, Dietsch, Eakins, Elston, Eves, Fawcett, Ferraro, Fleet, Fontaine, Grandmaître, Haggerty, Harris, Hart, Hosek, Jackson, Johnson, J. M., Kanter, Kerrio, Keyes, Kozyra, Kwinter, LeBourdais, Lipsett, Lupusella,

Mahoney, Marland, McGuigan, McLean, McLeod, Miclash, Miller, Morin, Neumann, Nixon, J. B., Nixon, R. F., Oddie Munro, Offer, O’Neill, Y., Owen, Patten, Pelissero, Phillips, G., Pollock, Polsinelli, Poole, Ramsay, Ray, M. C., Reycraft, Riddell, Roberts, Smith, D. W., Sola, Sorbara, South, Sterling, Sullivan, Sweeney, Velshi, Villeneuve, Ward, Wilson, Wiseman, Wrye.


Allen, Bryden, Charlton, Cooke, D. S., Farnan, Grier, Johnston, R. F., Laughren, Mackenzie, Martel, Morin-Strom, Pouliot, Reville, Wildman.

Ayes 80; nays 14.

The Speaker: That completes the business of the House for 29 May 1989.

The House adjourned at 1317.