Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

ESTIMATES

Hon Ms Lankin: I have a message from His Honour the Lieutenant Governor, signed by his own hand.

The Speaker: The Lieutenant Governor transmits estimates of certain sums required for the services of the province for the year ending 31 March 1992, and recommends them to the Legislative Assembly.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

PARLIAMENTARY PROCESS

Mr Daigeler: For the last three days the Conservative Party has amply demonstrated why politicians are held in such low esteem across the country. Desperate for public attention, they have hijacked the House with adolescent antics of introducing obscure bills and forcing the Speaker to read long lists of Ontario locations.

I do not like the Treasurer's budget any more than the Tories do. However, I accept that on 6 September the people of Ontario gave the NDP a democratic mandate to govern. Wasting the taxpayers' money by frustrating the parliamentary process for days on end is an abuse of democracy, whether it is done by the member for Welland-Thorold or the leader of the third party.

The NDP government is steering us daily deeper into a suffocating morass of fiscal irresponsibility. The country is in the midst of its greatest crisis since Confederation. Faced with problems of such magnitude, what does the Conservative Party leader do? He reads into Hansard an hour-long list of Ontario lakes and rivers.

Such obstructionist buffoonery is shameful. It is unworthy of the dignity and importance of parliamentary government. The public has long lost patience with mindless partisanship in the face of urgent policy problems.

The people of Ontario recognize the Tory plot for what it is: a clumsy attempt by the third-party leader to raise his own profile. I can assure members the people of my riding and elsewhere do not take kindly to such a flagrant perversion of our parliamentary rules.

EDUCATION WEEK

Mrs Cunningham: This week is Education Week in Ontario. Students, parents, teachers and communities are celebrating across the province in many different ways. For example, the London and Middlesex County Roman Catholic Separate School Board has a full week-long agenda. Students will take part in a folk dance festival, technological displays, writers, day workshops, Science Olympics and many athletic activities.

The London Board of Education has an interesting program this year. Instead of developing an actual agenda of events, students are inviting their parents and their neighbours to join them in the classroom. It is an opportunity for everyone to see first hand the quality of programs their children are involved in.

As students in London are celebrating this week with community and classroom events, students in Essex county are taking a different approach. In light of last week's events where a public school was transferred, students are demonstrating their commitment to the quality of their education by not attending classes and holding rallies.

It is unfortunate that these students are forced to participate in this fashion. Because of a transfer process that is confusing and without government leadership, Essex students are demonstrating in their own way that their education and schools are very important to them. It is about time that we took a look at that process. It simply is not working in Ontario.

HALIBURTON SCHOOL OF FINE ARTS

Mr Drainville: This year over 2,000 people from across the province, the United States and around the world will gather in Haliburton to partake in over 150 short courses offered at Ontario's largest summer school of fine arts. The school runs from 1 July to 2 August in the village of Haliburton.

It is important to realize that the Haliburton School of Fine Arts looks at education from a holistic perspective. The focus of the school is on the arts. To that end, Sir Sandford Fleming College, which operates the school, provides students with internationally recognized experts as teachers. This year the instructors include silversmith Lois Ethrington-Betteridge and Bronfman Award winner Susan Warner-Keane. But summertime is summertime, so students also take classes in wind surfing, calligraphy and music.

This school provides numerous benefits to both students and the community. The students are receiving a first-class education in the arts. The community receives many economic and cultural benefits which most rural communities can only dream of.

It is my hope that we can diversify the economies of rural communities through programs such as the Haliburton School of Fine Arts so that people in all corners of Ontario can enjoy these cultural and economic benefits.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr Chiarelli: On the question of new automobile insurance legislation, I ask the NDP government to show respect for this Legislature and for the people of Ontario.

On 30 March the Treasurer commented on new automobile insurance legislation by saying: "We want very much to get it introduced this spring. I think we are going to be scrambling." Time is short to introduce this legislation before summer, and yet within the last several weeks the minister responsible has been saying all options are still being considered.

This non-imperative but major legislation is being unduly rushed through. Millions of dollars are being spent on consultants' reports which the government refuses to make available to the opposition or to the public. Surely the government will not expect this new legislation to be rubber-stamped at second reading with a few hours of debate in June -- certainly not when the government refuses to share its technical papers, refuses to provide a draft bill in advance and continues to scramble with the drafting of a major bill.

The government is being given fair warning: Show respect for the opposition's right to information and study; show respect for the people of Ontario, who have the major stake in this very important issue.

1340

NURSES APPRECIATION WEEK

Mr Eves: This week is Nurses Appreciation Week, and I would like to take this opportunity to salute the 80,000 nurses across this province who have dedicated their lives to the health care system and the wellbeing of others.

Nurses remain at the heart and soul of our health care system. From Ontario hospitals to nursing homes, homes for the aged, public health units, Victorian Order of Nurses units and within industrial facilities, we all depend on nurses.

I am extremely pleased that the recent contract negotiations between the government and the Ontario Nurses' Association have led to an agreement which will recognize and reward nurses. However, there are many more areas where we can make improvements. Nursing responsibilities are growing with the recognition that they are capable of taking on added responsibilities and tackling the challenges that surround the growing advancements in medicine and technology today. Nurses continue to remain under pressure to update their education and yet cope with stressful working conditions that accompany shift work and some very high-stress critical care work indeed.

This week we are given the opportunity to show our appreciation to nurses across the province and I would urge all members of the Legislature to join with me in congratulating nurses for a job well done.

SAULT STE MARIE GREYHOUNDS

Mr Martin: Today I congratulate the Sault Ste Marie Greyhounds and hold up to the members their story as a hockey team, a hockey team that has suffered rejection and near-abandonment, a preamble to a brilliant success story.

The Soo Greyhounds epitomize everything good in Sault Ste Marie and indeed in northern Ontario. The Greyhounds have overcome difficult obstacles, but, with the support and courage of the community and team players, they have proven to be winners in our hearts and in this province. They are a definite reflection of a first-class city with a hardworking attitude, the type of team that, regardless of the hardships, continues to battle no matter what the future holds.

The Soo Greyhounds have given back to Sault Ste Marie some of the confidence, the pride and the determination we have lacked recently. The Greyhounds committed themselves to the community and helped to ease our pain through troubled times. Regardless of the eventual outcomes, the Soo Greyhounds will remain victorious, a saving grace in an unfortunate period.

I particularly would like to acknowledge the players, George Shunock and Ted Nolan. These people have invested their time and energy, hopes and dreams so that we may experience what they did last night, a win over Oshawa.

Congratulations to the Soo Greyhounds and to the community, and best of luck in the games to come.

OAK RIDGES MORAINE

Mr Beer: Today I ask the Minister of the Environment to take action to respond to the clear wishes of the council of King township and the township's residents to halt the proposed development by Ascot Estates on the head waters of the Kettleby Creek, which lies in the Oak Ridges moraine.

I hardly need to tell the minister how important it is to protect this watershed or how critical its preservation is to the greater Toronto area. The minister has received many letters on this issue from the mayor and council and residents of the township, as well as, most recently, a letter dated 2 May from Margaret Coburn, the chairperson of the Concerned Citizens of King Township.

The minister will also be aware of the strong and passionate appeal made by Toronto Star columnist Michele Landsberg to stop this proposed development.

In Margaret Coburn's letter she notes that two different councils since 1985 have voted unanimously against the Ascot proposal.

Last September, a decision was handed down by the Ontario Municipal Board overturning the clear voice of the township. As Michele Landsberg states, "The municipal board's decision was a travesty." In her view, the transcript of the board's hearings, which was made at the expense of the township, displayed "enough bias and ignorance to make your hair stand on end."

Simply put, the minister has said she will act to protect the Oak Ridges moraine. The proposed Ascot development is a good place to show she means what she says. The democratically elected King township council has said no to this development. They need her help and her direct intervention. Now the decision is up to her and she has a responsibility to act.

LEV LUKIANENKO

Mr Jackson: The winds of political change that have swept over eastern Europe have for ever blown away one party totalitarianism, which dominated the national scene of so many countries of the now crumbling Soviet empire.

Lev Lukianenko, a leading political figure in Ukraine, is a prominent participant in that continuing process of national liberation and self-determination. Born in eastern Ukraine, Mr Lukianenko became a lawyer at the Moscow faculty of law and started his legal career in L'vov. In 1961, he was arrested for drafting the constitution of the Ukrainian Workers' and Peasants' Union, which advocated secession of Ukraine from the Soviet Union in conformity with article 17 of the Soviet constitution. His death sentence was commuted to 15 years' hard labour and imprisonment.

Upon his release, he was forbidden to practise law and took employment as an electrician. In 1976, he became a founding member of the Helsinki Group for the Defence of Human Rights and its chief legal adviser. He was arrested again in 1977 for his writings and sentenced to 10 years of forced labour with an additional five years in exile. He was released in 1988. He returned to Ukraine and became head of its Republican Party. He was elected last year to the Parliament of Ukraine as the member for the city of L'vov. During the March 1991 referendum, he actively campaigned in support of the independence clause of the referendum question. Today, Lukianenko, the political prisoner, is a candidate for the presidency of a free future Ukraine.

It is my distinct privilege to welcome Lev Lukianenko, who has honoured us by his presence in this House today and is sitting in the Speaker's gallery.

[Remarks in Ukrainian]

QUEEN'S VENTURER AWARDS

Mr Malkowski: I am very proud to rise in the House today and tell members about a special awards ceremony that took place last Saturday. The Lieutenant Governor, the Honourable Lincoln Alexander, presented the Queen's Venturer Award to several members of the Scouts and Guides. This award recognizes that the Venturer is known as an individual with both character and skills to be of significant help to other people.

I am especially proud to have the opportunity to congratulate three outstanding young people who live in my riding of York East. They are Alexander Forrest, David Harker and Kathleen Jarvis.

I would like to add that in addition to receiving the Queen's award, my constituent Kathleen Jarvis acted as the valedictorian at the ceremony. She will also represent Canada in Washington DC on 16 May at a conference where she will talk about her achievements.

I am pleased when those honour Ed for hard work and community involvement live in the constituency that I represent. I am sure all members share the special pride that I take in recognizing the young people who set such high standards for us to follow.

VISITORS

The Speaker: Following along on the very kind comments by the member for Burlington South, I would like to ask all members of the assembly to recognize in the Speaker's gallery today Roman Lubrinsky, people's deputy of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic and member of the standing committee on foreign affairs. He is ably joined by a former member of the assembly, the former member for High Park-Swansea, Yuri Shymko.

Mr Ruprecht: Mr Speaker, on a point of order which is non-controversial: When important dignitaries arrive from other countries, you may wish to consider having the members properly informed so that appropriate comments can be made from all sides and from all political parties. I wish you would take that into consideration the next time we hear from the great Ukrainian community or from Ukraine, such as those who have arrived here today to create friendship between the Ukraine and Canada.

The Speaker: I am extremely sensitive to your suggestion and indeed I will do my best to ensure that we have an appropriate opportunity for all members to welcome our visitors.

1350

WRITTEN QUESTIONS

Mrs Cunningham: Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order under standing order 95(d): On 22 November 1990 I tabled Orders and Notices questions. The one I want to talk to you about today is number 309, which reads as follows:

"Would the Minister of Skills Development provide a list of consultants' reports commissioned by the ministry in fiscal years 1987-88, 1988-89 and 1989-90." I will reiterate that the date was 22 November 1990.

I am serious on this one. Standing order 95(d) states, "The minister shall answer such written questions within 14 calendar days unless he or she indicates that more time is required because the answer will be costly or time-consuming or that he or she declines to answer, in which case a notation shall be made on the Orders and Notices paper following the question indicating that the minister has made an interim answer, the approximate date that the information will be available, or that the minister has declined to answer, as the case may be."

Orders and Notices questions are supposed to be answered within 14 days, yet it has been almost six months since we tabled this question. An interim answer was tabled on 13 December 1990, but that answer predicted that the information would be available on 21 February 1991.

It has now been almost four months since the date the information was to be made available. The failure to answer Orders and Notices paper questions is also a breach of privilege under the Legislative Assembly Act, paragraph 45(1)6, which states that a breach of privilege occurs when there is a refusal "to produce papers before the assembly or a committee thereof."

As a member of the assembly, I feel I have a right of access to information that is essential for me to do my job as a representative of the people of Ontario.

Mr Speaker, it is your responsibility to ensure that the standing orders of this assembly are complied with. The government has shown blatant disrespect for our standing orders by not answering the question. I ask you to take the necessary steps to enforce the standing orders of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

The Speaker: The member for London North will be pleased to know that she has a valid point of order. No doubt her concerns have been listened to by the minister affected and one would expect a response in relatively short order.

I would mention to members that it is normally the practice to raise these types of concerns at the end of question period; however, it is certainly within your rights to raise them at other moments, as you have done.

Mr Carr: Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order, and I think it is urgent that we should address this at this time.

Under order 95(d), on 22 November I tabled an Orders and Notices paper question numbered 100, which read as follows:

"Would the Minister of Corrections list the three travel agencies with which the ministry placed the greatest portion of its travel business for the fiscal years 1987-88, 1988-89, 1989-90 and the year-to-date for 1990."

Standing order 95 states that the minister shall answer all questions within 14 calendar days unless he or she indicates that more time is required because the answer will be costly, time-consuming or because the minister declines to answer. A notification shall be made on the Orders and Notices paper.

The date of this information is 22 November, and the failure to answer the Orders and Notices paper question is a breach of privilege under the Legislative Assembly Act, paragraph 45(1)6, which states that a breach of privilege occurs when there is a refusal "to produce papers before the assembly or a committee thereof."

As a member of the assembly, I feel I have a right of access to the information that is essential for me to do my job as a representative of the people of Ontario and make sure they are complied with.

The government has shown blatant disrespect for our standing orders by not answering these questions. I ask that you take the necessary steps to enforce the standing orders of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

The Speaker: The member for Oakville South will be pleased to know that he has indeed a valid point of order, and no doubt the minister affected has heard his concerns and he should anticipate a response.

Mr Runciman: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I hate to spoil your day, but I have another point of order. I rise on a point of order under standing order 95(d). On 22 November, I tabled an order paper question which reads as follows. It is an inquiry to the minister.

"Would the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations state the current status of each consultant's report commissioned by the ministry in fiscal years 1987-88, 1988-89 and 1989-90."

Standing order 95(d) states: "The minister shall answer such written questions within 14 calendar days unless he or she indicates that more time is required because the answer will be costly or time-consuming or that he or she declines to answer, in which case a notation shall be made on the Orders and Notices paper following the question indicating that the minister has made an interim answer, the approximate date that the information will be available, or that the minister has declined to answer, as the case may be."

Order paper questions are supposed to be answered within 14 days, yet it has been almost six months since I tabled this question. An interim answer was provided, but that answer predicted that information would be available on 22 February. It has now been several months since the date the information was to be made available.

The failure to answer order paper questions is also a breach of privilege under the Legislative Assembly Act, paragraph 45(1)6, which states that a breach of privilege occurs when there is a refusal "to produce papers before the assembly or a committee thereof."

As a member of this assembly, I feel I have a right of access to the information that is essential for me to do my job as a representative of the people of Ontario.

Mr Speaker, it is your responsibility to ensure that the standing orders of this assembly are complied with. The government has shown blatant disrespect for standing orders by not answering this question. I ask you to take the necessary steps to enforce the standing orders of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

The Speaker: The member for Leeds-Grenville too will be pleased to know that he has indeed a valid point of order. I am sure the minister to whom his concerns are addressed has heard his remarks and he should anticipate a response.

Mrs Marland: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Under standing order 95(d) --

Interjections.

Mrs Marland: Maybe the government members are not interested.

Interjections.

The Speaker: As with each and every point of order that is raised at any time in the assembly, the Speaker must be able to hear the point of order that is being raised in order to determine whether or not it is a valid point. I would like that opportunity.

Mrs Marland: After being in this House eight months, the members do not know the standing orders.

I rise on a point of order under standing order 95(d). On 22 November 1990 I tabled order paper question number 117, which reads as follows. It is an inquiry to the minister.

"Would the Minister of Culture and Communications list the cost of all ministry publications, with details on how each was published and how contracts were awarded, including the cost of translation."

Standing order 95(d) states, "The minister shall answer such written questions within 14 calendar days unless he or she indicates that more time is required because the answer will be costly or time-consuming or that he or she declines to answer, in which case a notation shall be made on the Orders and Notices paper following the question indicating that the minister has made an interim answer, the approximate date that the information will be available, or that the minister has declined to answer, as the case may be."

1400

Mr Speaker, order paper questions are supposed to be answered within 14 days, yet it has been almost five months since I tabled this question. An interim answer was provided on 11 December 1990, but that answer predicted that the information would be available on 26 April 1991. It has now been approximately two weeks since the date the information was to be made available.

The failure to answer order paper questions is also a breach of privilege under the Legislative Assembly Act, paragraph 45(1)6, which states that a breach of privilege occurs when there is a refusal "to produce papers before the assembly or a committee thereof."

As a member of this assembly, I feel that I have a right to the access of information that is essential for me to do my job as a representative of the people of Ontario.

Mr Speaker, it is your responsibility to ensure that the standing orders of this assembly are complied with. The government has shown blatant disrespect for our standing orders by not answering this question. I ask you to take the necessary steps to enforce the standing orders of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario in order that the people of this province can know how much publications like this are costing the taxpayers at a time of recession.

The Speaker: You have a valid point of order. No doubt the minister to whom your concerns are directed has heard your concerns and you should expect a response.

Mrs Witmer: On a point of order, Mr Speaker --

Interjections.

The Speaker: While I sense a certain restlessness, it certainly would be appreciated if the member for Waterloo North would have an opportunity to place what she believes is her point of order.

Mrs Witmer: On 22 November 1990 I tabled order paper question 307, which reads as follows: "Would the minister responsible for women's issues provide a list of the number of individuals that have been turned away from rape crisis centres in fiscal years 1987-88, 1988-89 and 1989-90 by centre."

Standing order 95(d) states: "The minister shall answer such written questions within 14 calendar days unless he or she indicates that more time is required because the answer will be costly or time-consuming or that he or she declines to answer, in which case a notation shall be made on the Orders and Notices paper following the question indicating that the minister has made an interim answer, the approximate date that the information will be available, or that the minister has declined to answer, as the case may be."

Mr Speaker, order paper questions are supposed to be answered within 14 days, yet it has been almost five and a half months since I tabled this question.

The failure to answer order paper questions is also a breach of privilege under the Legislative Assembly Act, paragraph 45(1)6, which states that a breach of privilege occurs when there is a refusal "to produce papers before the assembly or a committee thereof."

As a member of this assembly I feel that I have a right to the access of information that is essential for me to do my job as a representative of the people of Ontario.

Mr Speaker, it is your responsibility to ensure that the standing orders of this assembly are complied with. The government has shown blatant disrespect for our standing orders by not answering this question. I ask you to take the necessary steps to enforce the standing orders of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

The Speaker: You have indeed a valid point of order. No doubt the minister to whom your concerns are addressed has heard your remarks and you should anticipate a response.

Mr Eves: Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order under standing order 95(d).

On 22 November 1990 -- we are in 1991 now, I believe -- I tabled order paper question 197, which read as follows, and which I think is fairly serious: "Would the Minister of Health table a list by hospital of the number of patients waiting for heart surgery."

Standing order 95(d) states, "The minister shall answer such written questions within 14 calendar days unless he or she indicates that more time is required because the answer will be costly or time-consuming" -- perhaps we could throw in there "embarrassing" -- "or that he or she declines to answer, in which case a notation shall be made on the Orders and Notices paper following the question indicating that the minister has made an interim answer, the approximate date that the information will be made available, or that the minister has declined to answer, as the case may be."

Order paper questions are supposed to be answered within 14 days, yet it has been almost six months since I tabled this question.

An interim answer was provided on 20 December 1990, but that answer said that the information would be available on 30 January 1991. It has now been approximately three and a half months since the date that the information was to have been made available.

Failure to answer order paper questions is also a breach of privilege under the Legislative Assembly Act, paragraph 45(1)6, which states that a breach of privilege occurs when there is refusal "to produce papers before the assembly or a committee thereof."

As a member of this assembly, I feel that I have a right to the access of information that is essential for me to do my job as a representative of the people of Ontario, not to mention the great number of people waiting on cardiovascular surgery lists throughout the province of Ontario.

Mr Speaker, it is your responsibility to ensure that the standing orders of this assembly are complied with. The government has shown a blatant disrespect for our standing orders by not responding to this and other questions. Mr Speaker, I would ask you to take the necessary steps to enforce the standing orders of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

The Speaker: To the member for Parry Sound, you have a valid point of order. No doubt the Minister of Health has heard your concerns and you should anticipate a response.

Mr Harris: I rise on a point of order under standing order 95(d).

On 18 December 1990 -- that was last year -- I tabled order paper questions 367 and 368, which read as follows: "Would the Premier prepare a list of all inter-ministerial committees that have been in operation prior to September 1990, including the terms of reference for each committee, the membership of each committee and whether or not they have prepared any reports or recommendations."

The second question asked the Premier to "prepare a list of all interministerial task forces and committees which are currently in operation, the terms of reference for each of these committees and whether or not they have made any reports or recommendations."

These are important questions because these are potentially vast hundreds of millions of dollars being spent without any accountability and without us knowing unless the government will provide us with the information.

Standing order 95(d) states, "The minister shall answer such written questions within 14 calendar days unless he or she" -- in this case the Premier -- "indicates that more time is required because the answer will be costly or time-consuming or that he or she declines to answer, in which case a notation shall be made on the Orders and Notices paper following the question indicating that the minister" -- or the Premier -- "has made an interim answer, the approximate date the information will be available, or that the minister has declined the answer, as the case may be."

Order paper questions are supposed to be answered within 14 days. That is so the opposition parties can do their job, do what we were elected to do, to have access to the information. Yet it has been almost five months since I tabled this question. An interim answer was provided on 2 April, but that answer predicted the information would be available on 12 April. It has now been one month since the date the information was to be made available.

Mr Speaker, the failure to answer order paper questions is also, as you know, a breach of privilege under the Legislative Assembly Act, paragraph 45(1)6, which states that a breach of privilege occurs when there is a refusal "to produce papers before the assembly or a committee thereof."

As a member of this assembly, I feel that I have a right to the access of information that is essential for me to do my job as a representative of the people of Ontario.

Mr Speaker, it is your responsibility to ensure that the standing orders of this assembly are complied with. The government -- in this case the Premier -- has shown blatant disrespect for our standing orders by not answering this question. Mr Speaker, I ask you to take the necessary steps to enforce the standing orders of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

The Speaker: The leader of the third party has indeed a valid point of order. No doubt the Premier has heard his concerns and he should anticipate a response.

1410

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

LAND REGISTRATION

Hon Ms Churley: In an effort to meet our government's commitment to cost efficiency throughout the public sector and to improve customer service, the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations will be consolidating a number of its land registry offices across Ontario over the next year.

The integration of these offices with existing nearby operations will be of particular advantage to many of our clients. They will benefit from more convenient locations, better access to complete records and more up-to-date facilities.

When the integration plan is complete, the government will save in the neighbourhood of $1 million per year in operating costs. As well, this consolidation of services will eliminate the need to spend as much as $8 million in replacement and renovation expenses to older offices.

Land title searchers will no longer suffer the inconvenience of sometimes having to visit two land registry offices in the county plus the sheriff's office to complete research. They will now find all the records for their county or regional municipality under one roof, and in an office situated in the same vicinity as the local sheriff.

Most of the offices scheduled for integration are currently located in communities without a sheriff's office.

Registry staff and their clients at these offices will also reap the benefits of new technology. Automation of land registry records will occur earlier at the new integrated facilities than it would have if the offices had remained separated.

Let me assure members that employees affected by the changes will be within reasonable commuting distance of their new offices. All classified employees will be offered positions at neighbouring offices or elsewhere in the ministry.

I am confident these changes will lead to faster and more efficient service for our clients and a better and more fulfilling workplace for our staff. At the same time, these changes will allow us to exercise fiscal responsibility to the advantage of all Ontario taxpayers. I am tabling a list of the 14 offices that are affected.

Letters and public announcements are being sent out today advising local community officials and clients of the changes.

FOREST MANAGEMENT

Hon Mr Wildman: I am pleased to announce today, during National Forest Week, a program that will be the foundation for a new system of forest management in Ontario.

In the past, this province's forest programs have focused mainly on timber production, with some consideration for other social, environmental and economic benefits. The program I am announcing today involves a different approach, a sustainable forestry approach.

Sustainable forestry is management that ensures the long-term health of forest ecosystems. It means managing for all forest values, protecting old-growth ecosystems, reducing our dependence on chemical herbicides, involving the public in forest management decisions, and enhancing our forests in the south.

In 1991-92 the Ministry of Natural Resources will spend a total of $10 million on a number of new initia-tives that will accelerate our progress towards sustainable forestry. These initiatives largely involve increased research on forest ecosystems and silviculture and greater public consultation on forest policy development.

We face several challenges in developing sustainable forestry:

We must protect and enhance our natural environment while nurturing a competitive forest products industry that provides long-term employment.

We must ensure there is a healthy forest that contributes global environmental benefits and which provides an array of social, cultural and economic opportunities now and in the future.

We need new information about our forests. We must improve our knowledge of forest ecosystems and alternative silvicultural systems through an increased commitment to research and development.

We must share this knowledge, because Ontarians from all walks of life need to be well informed if they are to help establish forest policy. In addition, we must give the public a real voice in what goes on in the forest. We must increase public participation in decision-making and community involvement and empowerment through new forms of partnerships.

We have already begun to act. On 18 April, I announced details of an independent audit of the province's boreal forest, whereby we can accurately determine the level of artificial and natural regeneration in harvested areas. Results of that audit will be available in mid-1992.

In addition to the audit, five other steps that I am announcing today will pave the way for establishing sustainable forestry in Ontario. First, over the next two years we will set our course by developing a broad strategy to guide forest management, one that sets long-term objectives and addresses key issues.

To create this forest policy framework, I will appoint an independent three-person working group by September to identify issues and consult widely to determine what Ontarians want from their forests. The working group will also examine how the public and interest groups can become more involved in forest policy decision-making. It will also recommend a comprehensive forest policy framework to me by the fall of 1992. Once this framework is in place, we will realign existing policy to conform to it, and change our forest management practices accordingly.

To promote the redirection of our provincial program, we will introduce the concept of community forestry, a management system that gives communities a role in decisions about local forests. We will conduct workshops for the public, present potential models for consideration, and work with communities to test several new models for management.

Another area where we can proceed is silviculture. We will develop a silviculture plan which will include research on forest ecosystems and how they function, as well as biological diversity, the dynamics of forest stands and alternative silvicultural systems.

We will also develop programs to ensure that the new knowledge is promptly applied in the field, and that our vegetation management practices are aimed at reducing our dependence on forest herbicides.

In line with that commitment, I would like to announce that in the first year of the new program the ministry will reduce by 20% the aerial spraying of herbicides across the province. But one fifth less than last year means that 80,000 hectares will still be sprayed. The program I am announcing today recognizes the need to systematically reduce our dependence on chemical herbicides by using environmentally sensitive alternatives as they become available. We can have a successful forest renewal program and apply more stringent standards on herbicide use.

We will also develop a policy for the protection of old-growth ecosystems that is scientifically sound and addresses both social and economic concerns. Guidelines will be in place for old-growth red and white pine by the spring of 1992, and a conservation strategy will be put into effect for old-growth ecosystems by 1993. In the meantime, significant old-growth red and white pine ecosystems will be protected from harvest.

In addition to these efforts, we will embark on a private woodlands strategy to promote sustainable forestry on private lands. We will co-ordinate policy development and program delivery with other ministries and agencies, including the ministries of Agriculture and Food; Industry, Trade and Technology; Northern Development and Mines; as well as the province's conservation authorities.

The goal is to establish MNR's private woodlands management program as a key contact point for the co-ordination and consolidation of all public inquiries and applications about private woodlands stewardship programs. This is the beginning of a move towards sustainable forestry, something that has been long overdue in this province.

What I have outlined today is a firm commitment by this government and the Ministry of Natural Resources to achieve sustainable forestry in this province. Our forests are important to the people of Ontario. They provide major environmental, social and economic benefits to the province and, if our efforts succeed, our forests will be a source of comfort and pride now and in the future for future generations.

1420

TOURISM AND RECREATION FOR THE DISABLED

Hon Mr North: I also have good news. Today our ministry launches the Open for Business program for the tourism and recreation industries. It will help remove barriers and change attitudes that keep persons with disabilities on the margin of community life.

This program will not only open doors a little wider; it will also open minds.

Our ministry has developed education kits that include a video and a workshop outline for staff as well as a guidebook on barrier-free design for operators of facilities.

By distributing these kits to the tourism and recreation industries we will be reaching hundreds of thousands of people. Our ministry will promote the program at our regional offices and through current programs.

We are also asking tourism operators to fill out access surveys about their properties. By 1992 the public will be able to get this information through our existing tourist publications and our consumer telephone information lines.

The Open for Business program will also have a national impact. For several years Ontario has had a leadership role on the federal-provincial committee on the needs of physically challenged travellers in Canada. We will share our findings, education program and our plans with other tourism ministers. Our long-range goal is to standardize services for consumers with disabilities all across Canada.

About 14% of Ontarians have disabilities. That is over 1.2 million people in Ontario alone. More than 90% live at home, not in institutions. It makes good business sense to reach that tourism market and it makes good common sense to ensure that our community recreation facilities, built with everybody's tax dollars, can be enjoyed by everybody. Working together, we can welcome people with disabilities into the heart of community life.

Many people contributed to this program. I would like to acknowledge the groundwork done by the previous government. Our government has built on that work and we are committed to putting the goal of accessibility higher on the public agenda than ever before in the province of Ontario.

The Open for Business program grew directly from consultations with facility operators, community groups and people with disabilities.

Some of the people who worked hard on this program are in the House today and I would like to introduce them. They are Mark Wilson, Alan Sunisloe, Larry Brown, Joanne Yale, John Southern, Shawn Kirton and David McFarlane.

I would like to acknowledge the hard work of Debbie Reynolds and the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation staff, who have done so much for this program.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS

Mr Curling: On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: This morning I learned from the Toronto Star that the Solicitor General had announced a tougher fire code law up in Markham.

I am appalled to know this. As a matter of fact, I am very disappointed in the minister. Even yesterday the acting House leader stood up in the House and made a point. Let me just quote from this because it is more accurate than I could ever put it: "I am sure that the member for the Conservative Party would remember that when this matter was dealt with" -- and he is speaking on behalf of statements made outside the House -- "his party and my party in opposition made a couple of points with respect to moving to orders of the day. The number one point was that we wanted to avoid the opposition parties having their right to ask questions taken away by the government, as the member has pointed out." This is the point I wanted you to listen very carefully to, Mr Speaker.

Also, as part of the standing orders, our rules very clearly allow the government ministers to make statements where the opposition parties have always said we should be making them, and that is in the House rather than out in the public without being held accountable to the Legislature. As critic for the Solicitor General, I think the privilege has been denied, Mr Speaker, and I would like you to rule on this.

The Speaker: The member may know that, unfortunately for him, he does not have a point of order. There is nothing to oblige ministers to being restricted to announcing policy within the House.

Hon Mr Farnan: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: With all due respect to the member from the opposition party, I would say to him that he has not read the speech I made in Markham yesterday, and how he can comment on a speech that he has not read, I fail to understand.

The Speaker: That is not a point of order.

RESPONSES

LAND REGISTRATION

Mr McClelland: I want to respond briefly to the statement made by the Minister for Consumer and Commercial Relations. We note on this side of the House that the announcement made by the minister was strictly an administrative matter and that it has in fact been in the works for some time, but it does raise a few questions that I hope the minister would certainly be prone to watch and be prepared to respond to.

We wonder on this side whether in fact the buildings that will be accommodating the transferred responsibilities will be able to handle the increased volumes. Will there be sufficient facilities in terms of parking and telephones and so forth for the client groups?

I also think that it is an issue to consider with respect to the inconvenience that it may cause to many clients of the group. I notice that the minister mentions on page 3 of her statement that she is assuring people that this will be within a reasonable commuting distance. It will be interesting to see how that subjective interpretation of what is in fact a reasonable commuting distance will apply to a variety of client groups.

I also note, from the information that I have, that I think the Lanark North office that is being transferred was opened less than a year ago. I wonder in terms of the rationale of transferring the facility of a virtually brand new office and wonder about the wisdom of that and the inconvenience that will add to the client groups. They will have to commute in some cases now well over an hour.

I note in closing, with some disappointment, that we have been here for about eight months with this new government, and there has not been one substantive announcement from the minister or the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations, and we are looking forward to that. We hope that this administrative statement she has made today will not unduly affect a number of people, as we suspect it might, and we want to raise the concern that there will be many client groups that will be inconvenienced by this. I hope the minister will take that duly into account.

1430

FOREST MANAGEMENT

Mr Ramsay: In response to the Minister of Natural Resources' statement today, a comprehensive forest policy in this province is both needed and long overdue, one that integrates both timber and non-timber values. The minister will know that there was only $6 million allocated to his operating budget this year. This 1.7% increase in his total budget is much less than inflation. We have to question whether this important initiative is adequately funded so that it has a chance of success.

Experts like Crandall Benson, as he knows, and Canadian forest service experts question whether the recently announced forest audit can be sufficiently funded for $1.5 million. In fact, some say maybe $15 million is needed. While a policy framework is critical, what ultimately matters is what happens on the ground. Why wait until September?

There is little emphasis on regeneration in this statement, yet according to his own ministry's documents there are 3.4 million hectares of not sufficiently regenerated areas. This is far greater than the 300,000 hectares that the Ministry of Natural Resources attributes to regeneration backlog.

The NDP always promised changes in cutting patterns, such as the elimination of clear-cutting or severe restrictions on the amount of clear-cutting being done. This concept has been supported by such groups as Forests for Tomorrow, and of course at the timber environmental assessment hearings it has stated this. Changes must occur if the government is going to rely on natural regeneration.

We are also very concerned about the lack of detail here of where the old-growth discussion paper is. What assurances is the minister giving that the old growth in the 10 study areas and elsewhere will be protected? What about those areas in the northwest? Where is the timber production policy discussion paper? The time lines for completion are a long way off. There is also little clarification on community forests. Members are aware of the interesting proposals from Geraldton and such groups as the Conservation Council of Ontario. I say to the minister, we need to get on to this work.

TOURISM AND RECREATION FOR THE DISABLED

Mr Kwinter: I would like to commend the Minister of Tourism and Recreation on implementing the Open for Business program, which he graciously acknowledged was initiated by the previous government.

This program will stimulate interest on the part of tourist operators in providing barrier-free access to tourism and recreational facilities. For the 1.2 million disabled citizens of Ontario and the millions of potential visitors, this will indeed be a welcome initiative. However, it would have made more business sense to support and encourage the tourist industry, which is the third largest industry in Ontario.

The 1991 provincial budget has been called a bitter blow by tourist operators. The budget makes no mention of tourism and increases taxes on small business, alcohol, cigarettes and gasoline, and all of these are going to have a negative impact on the industry.

FOREST MANAGEMENT

Mr McLean: I am pleased to reply to the announcement by the Minister of Natural Resources. I am pleased to see this announcement taking my advice; I see it has been well received -- the continuing commitment of the ministry to the proper and efficient management of Ontario forest resources.

We are pleased that the ministry is following up on the commitment to sustainable forestry in this province. Hopefully this new program will protect our valuable forest resources while at the same time promoting a competitive industry which will provide long-term employment opportunities. Close to 150,000 Ontario jobs depend directly or indirectly on the forest industry, and in northwestern Ontario three quarters of all manufacturing jobs are forestry related.

In summary, I look forward to the execution of this program and the promotion and protection of our valuable forest resources. The alternative chemical program should be a priority with the minister, and I hope that it is.

TOURISM AND RECREATION FOR THE DISABLED

Mr J. Wilson: I welcome the opportunity to respond to the statement today from the Minister of Tourism and Recreation. It was indeed a noble gesture, and the goal of a more accessible Ontario is a good one which I think all members of this House would join in.

But today the minister has told us he is going to survey and study and send out an education program to tourism and recreation small business people. My fear, with the tourism operators and the tourism industry in such a decline, is that they are not going to have time to read his educational material or to view his video. They are too darned busy right now trying to make a living in this province, and many of them have gone bankrupt in the last few months.

I also wonder why money, precious dollars, are being taken out of the minister's budget when this should be done by the minister responsible for disability issues. The minister should not be taking money that should be going to assist tourism operators out of his budget when there are other provisions in the government to provide this type of service.

Tourism is in a decline this year. Some 10% to 15% decline in the number of tourists visiting Ontario is predicted for 1991. The government's gasoline taxes and liquor taxes have had a direct impact on this important industry. It is not only the third-largest business operation in Ontario; it is the second-largest private sector employer in Ontario and it is extremely important.

Instead of today's announcement, the operators themselves would prefer to have heard the minister's position, for instance, on Sunday shopping. They are hoping that he will go to bat for them in cabinet on that issue. They want to know what his position is on cross-border shopping.

The slogan "Ontario -- Incredible!": The operators I talk to call it "Ontario -- Incredibly Expensive!" and that is what he should be addressing in her ministry when other ministries provide facilities for accessibility.

LAND REGISTRATION

Mr Runciman: I want to respond briefly to the decision of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations to close registry offices in small-town, rural Ontario.

This is an attack, an assault, on hard-hit communities in this province; an ill-thought-out and heartless assault, I might say. There has been no discussion, no consultation with these communities. I do not think the minister has had any discussion or consideration of the impact, the spinoff, the movement of lawyers out of these communities, the kind of damage it is going to do to the whole sector in terms of rural Ontario.

The Chairman of Management Board of Cabinet and her buddies in the public service -- she can give them an increase of $216 million and there are no comments about that. But this minister stands up and says, "We're going to get a saving of $1 million per year," and the sheep-like, socialist saps in the back benches of this government applaud while they are inflicting a $10-billion deficit on this province and having this kind of assault on small-town, rural Ontario.

Another element of this that is especially disturbing to the members on this side of the House -- unprecedented, I might say, at first glance -- is that 10 out of 14 of the communities being affected are in opposition-held ridings. It is very shoddy treatment of the loyal opposition in this province. I think it merits an investigation.

The minister is green. She is new to this job. She is following directions initiated by the former Liberal government. I do not think this government has thought this process out.

Interjections.

Mr Runciman: The government is having an assault. Government members are laughing about this injury they are inflicting on rural, small-town Ontario.

Hon Mr Cooke: We are laughing at you.

Mr Runciman: It is not a laughing matter. I want the government to reconsider this. It is not going to get any support from this side of this House, or co-operation, when it treats the real people in this province the way it is treating them now.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Well, I take it we are all relaxed now and certainly alert, awake and ready for question period.

ORAL QUESTIONS

PARLIAMENTARY PROCESS

Mr Nixon: I have a question for the Premier. I recognize that he is an expert in legislative obstruction from his record in opposition, but I just want to ask him if the situation now pertaining in the Legislature, which apparently is going to go on without limit, concerns him and if he has any plan to get the Legislature on a course of dealing with the business of Ontario in some direct and constructive way. Can he indicate what he intends to do about this situation?

Hon Mr Rae: I will say to the Leader of the Opposition, the thing that concerned me yesterday was the statement by the leader of the third party that he did not intend to let this Legislature deal with the budget, or I think to quote his words, he did not intend to let it pass. What concerns me is that the government does have a right to govern. I know it is difficult for other parties that have lost elections, but we do have a right to govern.

The Leader of the Opposition has asked, do we have any plans to deal with the listing of the lakes and the listing of private members, bills that have nothing at all to do with the order of business, which is the budget which was produced by the Treasurer last week and which we are ready to debate and to discuss any time, any place, in terms of the future of the province, but we would like to do it here.

I know that the House leader will be discussing with her counterparts the need for us to get on with House business. Obviously if the third party will not allow us to proceed, we will have to take steps to deal with that.

Mr Nixon: It is not at all clear, in spite of the enthusiasm of the leader's sycophants, what steps can be taken, because just as the leader of the government, when he was Leader of the Opposition, always did that kind of obstruction, which he was noted for -- I cannot even remember what it was about, except they did not even let us read the budget, let alone debate the budget, he may well recall.

But it seems to me that the members of the third party have clearly put this forward in response to the rules, and if I may be so bold as to make a suggestion, I think they may have the Premier -- how shall I put it -- in a way in which he is going to have to respond somewhat positively.

1440

I do not want to associate myself with the requirement of the third party that this be sent out to some committee. As a matter of fact, my budgets were always so well received there was scarcely any comment in this House, let alone the committee.

It seems to me our party is not an obstructionist party. In government and in opposition, we have felt that the government of the day should be able to put forward its plans, have them debated and have them settled democratically.

Might I simply suggest to the Premier, rather than that implacable, stonewall, macho response, that he say, "Certainly." I do not even want to associate myself with that thing, but why not send it out to a committee? Why not have people discuss it? We can continue the debate here, where it should occur. Why not just do that? I do not think it is a big deal.

The bills, Mr Speaker, you would be aware -- well, perhaps since you are getting uneasy, there will be an opportunity in a moment for me to consider. How about just sending it out? I do not want to recommend that, other than to say let's get on with the business.

Hon Mr Rae: Let me just say to the Leader or the Opposition that in praising himself and his role in government and opposition over many years, I will let him do that. He is doing it well. But I would just say to him that we on this side of the House, as the government, have produced a budget which we think the House should be able to discuss. We think we should be able to discuss that freely and fairly, and we think the people in the province want us to do that.

The Leader of the Opposition is walking a very fine line. He is saying, "Oh, no, we don't condone this obstructionism, but, please, why don't you just give in to it?" I think he ought to think it through.

What we are proposing to the House is that the budget should be discussed. We think it should go to committee and be discussed in the sense that the bills will go to committee. We think the budget bill should be there. The estimates are now published. The estimates are ready to be discussed.

I can only say to the Leader of the Opposition that we have every intention of proceeding and the House leader will be discussing with the other House leaders how we intend to do that.

Mr Nixon: In a sense, I am immodest enough to say that our party can act as an honest broker in this matter.

Hon Mr Hampton: Keep a straight face.

Mr Pouliot: Come on. You can even act as a broker.

Interjections.

Mr Nixon: In spite of all that crap, it is the truth, and I would say to members that there is no doubt that the budget bills, if we ever get to them, will go out to committee for review. Incidentally, in spite of what is going on in the House, the new gas tax is already being collected, the price of booze has already gone up and the price of cigarettes has already gone up.

Hon Mr Laughren: Just a little bit.

Mr Nixon: The Treasurer says, "Just a little bit," and I have heard of that defence in the past, but it just occurred to me that one of the simplest things is to do what the Premier has indicated he is quite prepared to do on almost every occasion, and that is to be open. Let's just send the document out to the committee for review. Hopefully the debate will continue here. I do not see that anyone has lost face. It could be that the leader of the third party has got his very attractive mug on the news a little more often, and no one objects to that. I would be the last to put any motives on his actions other than the very best.

The question is to the Premier and his rather truculent colleagues. It is not as if he is giving in to the hijacking of an airplane full of innocent NDP members, although that would be worth while. Why does he not just say, "Well, we can prepare to do that," and get the Legislature going on the business of the province again?

Hon Mr Rae: Those of us who were here earlier recall well the words of the member for Nepean. Listen to the words of the member for Nepean, describing the tactics of the Tory Party. I have not heard this from the Leader of the Opposition. The member for Nepean says, and this is a Liberal speaking, the Leader of the Opposition's own colleague:

"Such obstructionist buffoonery is shameful. It is unworthy of the dignity and importance of parliamentary government. The public has long lost patience with mindless partisanship in the face of urgent policy problems."

The people of Ontario recognize the Tory plot for what it is: a clumsy attempt by the third-party leader to raise his own profile."

I could go on. If the Leader of the Opposition aspires to the role of honest broker or pawnbroker or whatever kind of broker he wants to be, I suggest that he should negotiate between the member for Nepean and the leader of the third party. That is the kind of negotiation he should be interested in.

Mr Nixon: If the Premier is so obtuse that he cannot find help when it is proffered, then that is his problem. I leave him to the tender mercies of my colleagues to the big left. We will see how that works out.

MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY

Mr Nixon: I have a question again, in the presence of the Attorney General, but I would like to direct it to the Premier. On 29 April the Attorney General stated that he expected the RCMP investigation into the Solicitor General's matter, if we can put it that way, would be completed last week. Can the Premier report to the House the status of that investigation and the disposition of it?

Hon Mr Rae: I will refer the matter to the Attorney General.

Mr Nixon: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: If I may just simply add to the question, since the Attorney General indicated in response to my questions last week that it might not be appropriate if he received the report and that perhaps an independent investigator should have that responsibility, I thought perhaps I should put it to the Premier since he is the only one who can decide that.

Hon Mr Rae: The reason I referred the question, and I will stand by my referral, is that the Premier and the Premier's office have absolutely nothing to do with this question. These matters are determined exclusively by the Attorney General and have never been discussed by me with him.

Hon Mr Hampton: As of earlier this morning, we had not heard from the RCMP whether they had completed their investigation or not.

Mr Nixon: I know the Premier will be listening to this; at least I trust he will. The Attorney General is aware that because of information that he made public -- it came from the Attorney General's office -- his staff had known about the letter 10 days before it became public. Undoubtedly the investigation, if you want to call it that, or any questions into this event might very well deal with the Attorney General himself and his deputy herself and other law officers of the crown.

Hon Mr Rae: Nonsense; ridiculous; absurd.

Mr Nixon: The Premier did not want to answer this question. He is flopping around in his seat and saying that is ridiculous. I would simply ask the Attorney General if the RCMP have asked him about any of these circumstances or have got in touch with the Deputy Attorney General and asked her about the circumstances and if she has answered those questions. The Premier, who has nothing to do with this and does not want to know anything about it, seems to have very well formed and pronounced opinions.

If in fact the RCMP officers have talked to the Attorney General or to any of his staff about it, would he not agree that it is inappropriate that when they finally have the report ready, which was promised last week and is not ready yet, it should go to the Attorney General, who would be put in a position of reading the report and saying: "Yeah, that's what I said. Yeah, that's what the deputy said," rather than being given to an independent investigator who really should be named in this case?

1450

Hon Mr Hampton: First of all, to refer to the first question from the Leader of the opposition, I have not been contacted directly by the RCMP and to my knowledge the deputy minister has not been contacted directly by the RCMP. To my knowledge the only conversations that have been held between the RCMP and senior advisers in the Ministry of the Attorney General have been about facts which were turned over to them concerning letters and allegations of letters. I would say further that while the Leader of the Opposition wants to make certain allegations, to my knowledge the RCMP have not in any way indicated that they have an area of concern there.

Finally, the Leader of the Opposition knows full well that when it comes to law enforcement questions and administration of justice questions, those questions should come to the office of the Attorney General. In that sense, I have an independent role to play and I am trying my very best to fulfil that role. The Leader of the Opposition should understand that it would be improper in these circumstances for the report to go, for example, to any other cabinet minister's office, any other office in this government, and that it should come to senior legal advisers in the Ministry of the Attorney General.

Mr Nixon: The Attorney General, when he rather belatedly and awkwardly announced this investigation, indicated that it would be a full investigation into the incident, and he made it clear that no individuals were in any way suspect, that it was simply the circumstances. He indicated after that that he and his deputy were in fact a part of the incident, since she was directly informed 10 days before the letter arrived in a brown envelope in the Premier's office, although of course he was not involved with that in any way.

Surely the Premier would agree with my view that while the Attorney General has to have an independent position and, like all lawyers and attorneys general, tends to lecture the unwashed and unlearned in these matters, it would be very difficult for him to be independent of himself. Surely if the incident is going to be investigated, the Attorney General would be involved in it, and the Attorney General's deputy would, and surely he would see the value of at least committing to the House that the report would be made public. Can he do that at this time?

Hon Mr Hampton: I repeat my answer. All information was turned over to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police will conduct the investigation which they feel is justified in the circumstances. I have not heard from the RCMP either in my capacity as Attorney General or in my capacity as an MPP. To my knowledge, the Deputy Attorney General has not been interviewed by the RCMP. To my knowledge, the RCMP have been given all of the information, all of the facts. They will conduct the investigation that they feel is appropriate, and I wish the Leader of the Opposition would stop creating innuendo as to where the investigation might go or could have gone. The RCMP will decide what investigation should take place.

BUDGET

Mr Harris: I have a question for the Premier. I want to thank the leader of the Liberal Party for his efforts on our behalf. That is the party that introduced bell-ringing to the Legislature when the member for Renfrew North rang the bells in opposition as a tactic to bring something to the attention of the government. However, I appreciate that since they introduced those tactics to the House, they understand the problem when a dictatorial majority government tramples on the rights of the minority parties.

In that context, I have a question for the Premier. In the 20 November throne speech, the Premier said, "We will look for new and better ways to hear and respond to the voices of the people." That is from the Premier's throne speech. I have heard those voices of the people. They are not happy ones. They are furious with this government's budget; not just the tax bills, by the way -- and he is already collecting the taxes -- but the overall budget, and they want to be heard. Does the Premier not feel that it is time for him to live up to his statement in the throne speech that it is time to listen to the people?

We are not interested in individual hearings on taxes that the Premier is already collecting and that he will already have ordered his members, in his dictatorial way, to support, "Because we can't refund the taxes." We are interested in hearings on the overall budget. Why will the Premier not live up to his statement in the throne speech to listen to the people before he asks members of this House to debate this budget?

Hon Mr Rae: I am sure that the people who have been watching the leader of the third party read out the name of every lake in the province will make a decision as to who is being dictatorial and who is not. But let me say I have heard it all: The Leader of the Opposition presents himself as an honest broker and the leader of the third party announces that he has been hearing voices.

I want to say to the leader of the third party very directly, let us deal with the budget. We have presented a budget which we have asked the House to consider, which would normally be followed by a debate, which has been done in every other case in the history of the province in terms of presenting a budget. That has always been done.

The leader of the third party stated in the House just yesterday, "People know where I stand on the budget; I am not going to let it pass." That is what he said yesterday. He is not interested in listening to the voices of the people. He has already made up his mind. He has already said under no circumstances is he going to let it pass.

The Speaker: Would the Premier conclude his remarks, please.

Hon Mr Rae: The only thing that the leader of the third party's tactic is doing, the only thing his tactic is accomplishing, is preventing his own members and other members and members on this side from discussing the budget, which is what I think the people of the province would be expecting us to do rather than reading out the names of every lake in the province.

Mr Harris: I think the people of this province are well aware that the budget which was brought down is 180 degrees in the opposite direction from what this government promised them in the last campaign. The taxpayers of Ontario are angry. Yesterday the Treasurer learned just how furious the business community is. But their anger is not just about the individual budget bills; it is about the direction that this government has chosen; it is about this government's choice to try and spend its way out of this recession with $10 billion of borrowed taxpayers' money, a disastrous choice.

Clearly I have made up my mind. The Premier knows where I stand. What I am simply asking the Premier -- and we hear where he stands -- is to honour the rhetoric that got him elected. He promised a new style. He promised a new openness. He promised full consultation. Why now is he opposed to at least listening to the public before he proceeds with this budget direction?

Hon Mr Rae: The suggestion that we are somehow opposed to listening to the people is preposterous. It is absolutely preposterous. I would say to the leader of the third party that we are determined to do that. We are very interested in doing that.

The leader of the third party suggests that somehow as a result of the last election, as a result of his experience, he has some kind of exclusive pipeline to the truth and he is hearing the voice of the people, which voice no one else can hear, and only he has access to that group. When he says that he is not going to let the budget pass, that he is not going to let the House deal with the budget, that he knows better than anybody else, I would say to him that we have to have some respect for the people. We have to have some respect for what happened in an election campaign. We have to show that.

The Speaker: Would the Premier conclude his remarks, please.

Hon Mr Rae: I would respectfully submit that in the conduct which the leader of the third party has demonstrated so far in the House he has not shown an awful lot of respect for the democratic process.

Mr Harris: Let me tell the Premier that the only pipeline I have is to the record, his record, what he said then and now the new "What I say now." He promised he was different. He said this was a government that consulted.

In January 1991 -- let me read him another quote -- he said, this time in an open letter on the Constitution, "I can't promise to agree with every view, but speak to us and we'll be good listeners." The Premier said to the people, "Speak to us and we,ll be good listeners."

1500

What has changed? Why will he not listen now? Surely debate on this budget should not be restricted to members of this House. Clearly he has articulated -- so have I. Everybody knows where he stands. He is collecting the taxes now. We know where he stands. Everybody knows where I stand.

The Speaker: The supplementary.

Mr Harris: Is it not time we listened to the people? Is it not time we heard where the people stand? Why is the Premier so totally opposed to opening up debate on the total budget to the taxpayers of this province, the ones who are going to have to pay the price of this folly?

Hon Mr Rae: The party which is opposed to the budget debate is the party which is raising obstructionist tactics day in and day out. That is the third party, that is the Conservative Party of Ontario.

It is bad enough that the federal Conservative Party has singlehandedly reduced this province to the worst recession in 50 years. Now we have the prospect of the third party saying, "Once the New Democrats win an election, we're not going to let them govern, we're not going to let them have the right to govern," and we have the Leader of the Opposition saying: "Why don't you just give in to that kind of obstructionism? It's not going to do any harm anyway." I think the New Democratic Party, which was elected on 6 September --

The Speaker: Could the Premier conclude his remarks?

Hon Mr Rae: -- and sworn in on 1 October, has as much right to govern as the Tories did between --

The Speaker: Would the Premier take his seat, please. New question.

Mr Harris: Part of governing is listening to the people. The Premier promised that and he is not listening.

The Speaker: We were on to a new question.

CASE OF BRIAN RAPSON

Mr Harnick: My question is for the Attorney General. I would like to know why he has preferred an indictment of Police Constable Brian Rapson on a charge of attempted murder after he was discharged at a preliminary inquiry. What facts were relied on? What mistakes were made at the preliminary, in law or in fact by the judge? It is incumbent on the Attorney General to disclose this information to the public or the public will conclude that the action he has taken was only for political purposes. What facts and what law is he relying on? He should not tell me that he is hiding behind his senior advisers or the fact that it is in the courts and before the courts. That has nothing to do with it.

Hon Mr Hampton: Under section 577 of the Criminal Code the Attorney General of each province has the authority, in a given circumstance, to prefer an indictment following a preliminary inquiry. It is authority conferred by the Criminal Code. It is authority that is used, with great care and great consideration, only after the preliminary inquiry has been completed. That is what was done in this case. I took great care in reviewing the results of the preliminary inquiry and the decision of the judge in the preliminary inquiry, and I have the authority, under the Criminal Code, to prefer an indictment in these types of situations where I believe it is in furtherance of the administration of justice.

Mr Harnick: No one doubts the ability of the Attorney General to read section 577 of the Criminal Code and no one doubts that he has that authority. The public is entitled to know why he made a decision. I am asking him again, what facts did he rely on? I will put it to him that what he has done is no different than when a case is appealed. When a case is appealed, one sets out grounds for appeal. That is made public and it does not affect the right or the ability of a court to decide a matter.

I am asking the Attorney General to tell us what facts he is relying on in support of this, in a sense, appeal that he is taking. I think he owes it to the 6,000 members of the Metropolitan Toronto Police and he owes it to the police across this province and he owes it to the public. This is becoming a very usual thing --

The Speaker: We have the question.

Mr Harnick: -- to see the Attorney General hiding and not disclosing what he is doing to the public.

The Speaker: We have the question now.

Mr Harnick: The minister should come clean and tell us the facts.

The Speaker: Will the member take his seat, please. We have the question.

Hon Mr Hampton: The member of the opposition should know that as Attorney General I have two roles. One is certainly a political role. It is the minister of justice role to bring legislation into the House and to present legislation. The other part of the job is essentially a very apolitical part of the job, and that is to ensure that the administration of justice in the province is conducted fairly and appropriately.

I am sure that given what the member of the opposition has already said, and that he has already made up his mind in this case, he would like me to discuss the case in some detail and therefore prejudice the integrity of the system. The case in question is now a matter before the court. I will make no further comment on it other than to say that when the preliminary inquiry was completed I sat down with the assistance of senior legal advisers. We looked at the decision of the judge in the preliminary inquiry and we made the determination that a preferred indictment was the proper course in this case.

Mr Harnick: That answer, with all due respect, was dumb. The reason that answer was dumb is because every time a case is appealed in this province the notice of appeal sets out the grounds for that appeal. All I am asking the Attorney General to do is tell us the grounds upon which he is preferring an indictment against this police officer after he has been discharged at a preliminary hearing.

This Attorney General constantly hides behind "It's before the courts," or "I discussed it with my senior officers." What does he have to hide? It is incumbent upon him to show the public that justice is being done. The only way he can do that and the only way he can show that he is not making a political decision is to disclose the facts to the public and to the police officers in this province. I am giving him a third opportunity to stand up and come clean and make that disclosure.

Hon Mr Hampton: I would respond again that this is a matter before the courts and I do not intend to comment upon it further.

Mr Speaker, I would point out to you section 23(g) of the standing orders, which says that in a debate a member shall be called to order by the Speaker if he or she "refers to any matter that is the subject of a proceeding that is pending in a court or before a judge for judicial determination." I would suggest to you that is exactly the matter we have here.

1510

EDUCATION PROGRAM EVALUATION

Mr Beer: My question is to the Minister of Education. I want to deal with the minister's decision to cancel Ontario's participation in the national school achievement indicators program of the Council of Ministers of Education, Canada. I think it is important in addressing this question that we ask ourselves why we have national assessment programs, why we have national assessment tests and why, over the last number of years, the council has worked very hard to develop those. It is important to underline that what we are doing here is assessing our systems; we are not testing children. There are four reasons that I would like to just outline briefly.

First of all, we are carrying out these assessments because we want to compare how well the Ontario system is doing and how well students are learning.

Second, we want to stimulate reform and focus public demand for quality in education.

Third, we want to ensure that public confidence in our system is well placed and, most important, that the whole system, including government, is accountable for the system of education.

Finally, it allows us to use evaluation as a tool to improve instruction and our system, because the sad fact is that a third of all our youth are high school dropouts and 15% of high school graduates are functionally illiterate.

Given the value of these four reasons for carrying out national assessment, why would the Minister of Education of the largest province in the country conclude that Ontario should withdraw from national school tests and how does she propose to ensure that the education received by children in this province is both relevant and competitive?

Hon Mrs Boyd: We are very concerned that we be accountable to the taxpayers of Ontario and to the parents and its children, and that is one of the major reasons that we have decided not to participate in the national standards test at this time. We do not believe that it will give us the kind of information that the honourable member suggested we ought to have to improve our system.

It is not a curriculum-based kind of test. We asked if we could not work together with the other provinces to develop a curriculum-based test that would in fact help us to improve our system. A standardized testing system allows an outside body -- in this case two other provinces whose systems of education are quite different from ours in Ontario -- to determine what it is we ought to be teaching our students.

We are saying that what we need to do is make that determination here to test our system against the curriculum that we do, and we are doing that through our benchmarks program.

Mr Beer: I certainly hoped the day would never come when in Ontario we would be afraid of having other jurisdictions, whether within this country or outside it, to assess the way in which we are providing education.

I want to ask for a commitment from the minister. She must be aware of the important role that the Council of Ministers of Education plays in this country and indeed that Ontario was instrumental in founding the council some years ago.

The issues that she has raised are valid, and one accepts that those would need to be discussed in looking at an assessment system, but I think all those involved say those can be dealt with. It is essential that we in Ontario not threaten this particular initiative and, in particular, the role of the council itself because there are very few national institutions that work as well as the council. As the minister knows, this is one of the national institutions where the province of Quebec is a full partner, a full player, and indeed is very active in proceeding with this particular project.

The commitment that I ask the minister for is, will she commit today in this House to reopen discussions with her colleagues to ensure that Ontario can participate in this project, which is to begin in 1993, and will she, upon the successful conclusion of those discussions, report back to the House?

Hon Mrs Boyd: The honourable member suggests that there has not been a great deal of discussion that has gone into this. That is not so. In September, and again in November, my deputy minister attempted to get the kinds of issues that we have raised dealt with. I met with the ministers in December and again in February. We had very extensive discussions and my colleagues in the other provinces refused to deal with the three issues that Ontario raised. The first was the curriculum base, the second was the size of the sample and the demographics of the sample and the third was the necessity for us to consult with our partners in education, our stakeholders. They would not give on any of those.

We are in an observer status. We have the option of opting in if any of those questions are answered and if our colleagues are prepared to deal with them, but if they are not, no, I will not make that commitment.

Mrs Cunningham: I too have a question for the Minister of Education and will follow on the same lines that my colleague has been questioning her on.

We are all very concerned that in Canada today parents, students and the business community are very concerned about the quality of education. We in Ontario have been told more recently that our secondary school graduates in fact are improving in their literacy skills, in their numeracy skills. It appears that right now, even if we were to look at that aspect of the testing, we should not be particularly concerned about it.

We have an opportunity now Canada-wide, and I will say for the first time ever, to do something. I heard the minister say she had the opportunity to opt back in. One of the aspects is a pilot project for 1992. Will she get involved in at least a pilot project for Ontario, as the other provinces are doing for 1992?

Hon Mrs Boyd: We are involved in a number of projects, and the major one is the benchmarks project that I mentioned in the House last week. The basis of that is for us to determine within our curriculum base in Ontario what the standard of achievement ought to be for our children at the various levels and to measure the teaching that is being done and the learning that is being done against those standards, not outside standards provided by someone who is not involved in our system. We are already involved in that. The curriculum-based international science and math tests we do participate in because they are curriculum-based and because the sample is larger. So we are not averse to testing the teaching and learning of our students, but what we need to do is to make sure that is going to be valuable to us in making our system accountable in terms of the decisions we make in Ontario about the curriculum our children are learning.

Mrs Cunningham: I am really concerned with that answer. At a time in Canada right now when we have an opportunity to pull together, I think is the wrong time for Ontario, which has shown the leadership in the past, especially in education, to be the province that sits back and does not take the leadership.

I am very much aware of the testing and the standards work that is being done within the ministry, very much aware of benchmarks. I am very much aware of what we are trying to do in improving our quality of testing. But this kind of testing is geared to asking 13-year-olds, eighth graders, if you wish, 16-year-olds, the young people we are concerned about, the dropouts we refer to, who could leave our system not just in Ontario but right across Canada.

Surely to goodness in the leadership of the past Ontario thought this was important. Why do we not think it is important now to work along, for the first time ever? These discussions began in 1987-88. Why would we be opting out when the instruments have not even been put together? Why are we not having input and hanging in there and showing the leadership that we have shown in the past?

Hon Mrs Boyd: We are not participating because we could not get the co-operation of our colleagues in ensuring that our needs were met. We did everything we could over a number of months to try and say that we wanted to participate but that we would not participate unless some of Ontario's needs were met. The member should know that we can certainly show those efforts, both in the written presentations that we made and in terms of the discussions that were held.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr Morrow: My question is for the Minister of Labour. As the minister is aware, the number of fatalities in the construction industry increased by 12% in 1990. In the first few months of this year there is no sign of any significant improvement to these tragic figures. There are signs that, because of the recession, construction workers are being pressed into complying with safety regulations if they take a little extra time or cost money. What is the minister going to do to put a stop to these needless tragedies and better protect the lives of construction workers?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I agree with the member that we must do whatever we can to reduce the incidence of fatalities to zero. I am personally very saddened that the number of fatalities went up in 1990. I see the investigative reports on each and every fatality, and most of them need not have happened.

I can tell the member that we are in the process of bringing in new construction regulations in the occupational health and safety area and that it will be a major overhaul of the existing regulations. If they are enforced as we intend to, it should reduce the fatalities in the construction industry.

Mr Morrow: I have been told that many of the large construction companies are trying to limit how often their joint health and safety and workers, trade committees meet. I have also heard that some companies are harassing health and safety representatives on construction sites. In fact, I understand that there have been cases before the Ontario Labour Relations Board where health and safety representatives for workers have been fired for trying to enforce the law. Can the minister put a stop to this so that the health and safety representatives of construction workers can do their job of saving lives without fear of losing their employment?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: The member will know that I cannot comment on any cases that are before the labour relations board, but I can tell the member that we take a very dim view of employers in any sector who harass or intimidate the workers on the site and deny them their duties under the Occupational Health and Safety Act. If it is demonstrated to us that employers are using these kinds of activities, we simply will not tolerate them in the province of Ontario, and if they have disrespect for our health and safety laws, we are prepared to act.

1520

FOREST MANAGEMENT

Mr Ramsay: Earlier today the Minister of Natural Resources made a very important statement on the future of sustainable forestry in this great province of ours today. That was listed at a cost of $10 million.

There is a problem here, though, because, as we know, last week the Treasurer very generously gave -- if you can call it that -- $6 million in new dollars to the Minister of Natural Resources. There is a shortfall there compared to the new dollars allocated to the Minister of Natural Resources and this new program today. In fact, the Minister of Natural Resources, to whom I am asking this question, has already allocated $1.5 million for the forestry audit, which was well received a couple of weeks ago.

With the across-the-board salary increases of 6%, it would seem to me that the MNR cupboard is bare. I would like to ask the minister, where is he going to get the money and what program initiatives is he going to be cutting in the MNR in order to fund the new sustainable forestry initiative?

Hon Mr Wildman: The member should be made aware that the $1.5-million estimate for the forestry audit that was already announced, and, as he said, has been well received, is not part of the funding that is included in the sustainable forestry approach. That was being funded through the ministry's normal process previously.

The $10 million referred to is actually about $9.7 million. It is funded through new allocations and a reallocation of resources within the ministry. Obviously if we are cutting spraying, for instance, that is saving some moneys for the ministry, as are decisions with regard to funding of road construction for forest management agreements and others.

I can assure the member that the $10 million referred to is going to be allocated this year to sustainable forestry. We are serious about it.

The Speaker: Would the minister conclude his remarks, please.

Hon Mr Wildman: Part of it is new money and part of it is through a reallocation within the ministry's budget.

Mr Ramsay: The minister alludes to program cuts. To me, reallocation is really a code word for program cuts. If you are reallocating money, you must be decreasing the amount of funding to some programs or cutting others. It is the minister's prerogative to do that, and I accept that. The trouble is when those cuts and decisions of reducing program costs are not public and there is no discussion. That is where the problem is, and we would like to know where those cuts are.

Given that the minister has only had a 1.7% budget increase that obviously is very much lower than the rate of inflation this year, putting his ministry in a negative growth position, will the minister tell this House, where is he going to be getting this money? What programs of the Ministry of Natural Resources is he going to be cutting this year?

Hon Mr Wildman: Mr Speaker, as you will well know, the estimates for all ministries, including the Ministry of Natural Resources, are being tabled today. There is no secret about this. It is clear in the estimates what we are doing and where we will be allocating funds. That is there for all to see in the normal estimates process. I will be happy to debate the estimates with members of the House at the appropriate time.

I indicated in my previous answer some of the areas where within the forestry program we are reallocating funding. We are determined that we will change the direction of forestry in this province so that the next generation into the 21st century will indeed have a forest -- not just timber, but all of the values that we value in our forest -- to enjoy and to benefit from, unlike the approach that was taken by previous governments in this province.

TVONTARIO

Mrs Marland: My question is to the Minister of Culture and Communications. Yesterday this minister said he would investigate allegations into TVOntario's expenditures. They have spent $2 million renovating a building that they are planning to vacate in 1994. The renovations included a new boardroom, a new dining room and the library has moved twice. I think what is most interesting is that the chairman's office has an entire wall with nine televisions in it. The chairman says he needs this in order to watch what his competition is doing. I guess if he is doing that, he does not need the boardroom.

This is a public agency that solicited funds to the tune of $3.5 million from the public. Members of this Legislature in fact helped raise money for TVO, and none of these costs were included in the budget of TVO that was submitted to the government earlier this year.

Obviously, $2 million would go a very long way to help some of the artists the minister himself referred to yesterday who live just above the poverty line. What steps will this minister take to ensure that this mismanagement of public funds by TVO does not continue? I draw to the attention of the minister that there already is a report out on the plans for them to move, so that does not need an investigation.

Hon Mr Marchese: I want to say at the outset that I am very interested in ensuring that money that is spent by any of the agencies connected to my ministry is managed well and managed effectively. A number of allegations have been made, and to this end we will take this review, step by step, which I have done.

I have spoken to the deputy in order to be able to get all the information we need to address some of the questions that have been raised. I have asked the deputy as well to review the third-quarter financial report that has been given to them, to work with TVOntario to determine if further information is required.

What I can say is that I am looking at the complete renovation project to ensure ourselves that TVOntario has appropriate administrative control mechanisms in place and to make sure and identify if any corrective management actions are necessary.

Mrs Marland: The renovations have been completed, and quite a number of them were done even without an estimate or any cost controls. What the minister is assuring us is no assurance at all.

If this minister has some question in his mind about whether TVO wastes public funds, I draw his attention to this publication. He answered a question on an order paper question to me. This publication is celebrating their 20th anniversary. It is called Stay Tuned for the Future. This book cost $125,000 for 5,000 copies.

The Speaker: And your question?

Mrs Marland: This means $25 a copy for a book that was distributed free by TVO. I would suggest to this minister that he does not have to look very far to see a very concrete evidence of waste of public funds by TVO.

I ask this minister again what he will do to ensure that the money allocated to TVO is spent on quality programming rather than extravagant renovations, which have already been done, and flashy publications.

Hon Mr Marchese: The member makes a number of allegations as well about extravagant renovations that have been done. This is what I am doing: I have asked the deputy --

Interjections.

Hon Mr Marchese: She has raised several questions.I am attempting to address them.

In terms of the renovations, we are looking into that. I have asked the deputy to get all the required information to address that.

With respect to the publication, it is an agency of my ministry, a schedule 3. The board of directors obviously approved these kinds of publications. With respect to the publication, it is difficult for me to comment how much is appropriate to spend on a publication. They make those decisions on any publication they make, and I feel that they need to take that kind of responsibility in their decision-making.

1530

POLICE DRESS CODE

Mr Duignan: My question is to the Solicitor General. An article in today's Toronto Star suggests the province is considering revising the police dress code in this province. Would the minister inform the House as to the status of this review?

Hon Mr Farnan: The member is quite correct. Dress standards for police services do fall under regulation, and indeed this --

Interjections.

The Speaker: I, like many other members, am interested in hearing the response.

Hon Mr Farnan: All of these regulations are being reviewed by our external consultative committee. In this group we have the Municipal Police Authorities, the Police Association of Ontario, and the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police. We will also consult with the Association of Municipalities of Ontario and various other --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Each member in this assembly has the right to be heard when asking a question. Each person responding has the right to be heard. I have a responsibility to hear. At this point so far I have been unable to hear the response from the Solicitor General.

Hon Mr Farnan: For the benefit of the members who did not hear, I will repeat what I said. Dress for police services comes under regulation. Regulation is taken care of with the assistance of an external review committee.

Interjections.

The Speaker: If any individual member is intent upon shouting down another member, it would be necessary to name such member. I intend to hear the response, just as I intend to hear each question which is posed.

Hon Mr Farnan: This issue will indeed be tabled with the consultative committee, and in due course I will be bringing forward the results of not only the consultation with an external consultative committee but with other groups across the province.

Mr Duignan: My supplementary is again to the Solicitor General. Would the minister explain how this review of the dress code supports the minister's employment equity initiatives?

Hon Mr Farnan: Of course, I would hope that all members of this House would support employment equity within this province. As we look at ways of removing systemic barriers to groups within the province, whether these barriers be religious or cultural, I would expect the support of all members of the House to ensure that policing reflects the face of Ontario and that we have true employment equity. Indeed, a dress regulation will support, I believe, in the long run, employment equity within the province of Ontario.

FOREST MANAGEMENT

Mrs Sullivan: My question is to the Minister of Natural Resources, following his statement today on sustainable forestry. Last summer the member for St Catharines, who was then Minister of the Environment, referred several individual timber environmental assessments to the environmental assessment advisory committee for recommendations on individual EA bump-ups. The current Minister of the Environment has also agreed to the procedure for a type A review, and EAAC met in Timmins, Sault Ste Marie and Wawa in February of this year.

EAAC was expected to report to the minister on 15 March of this year. It has yet to report and I understand that it is unlikely that the report will be finished and delivered to the Minister of the Environment until some time next month.

The Minister of Natural Resources wrote a letter to a tourist operator in his riding on 4 December assuring him that the timber management activities in the area of this environmental assessment request would be frozen until a decision was rendered. Will the minister assure the House that he will extend his promise of last December so that the timber management activities, including road building, approved in the current work schedule would be put on hold until the EAAC report is made public?

Hon Mr Wildman: The member is correct in her description of the history except in her statement that the former Minister of the Environment asked for EAAC to hold hearings last summer. In fact it happened just a week before election day, as I recall.

Indeed, the hearings were held. As I understand it, my colleague the Minister of the Environment has been asked by EAAC for an extension of the time when it will make a report. The member, I think, is correct in saying that the report will probably come down by the end of this March. I have made assurances to the tourist outfitter who is interested in the particular outcome of this EAAC hearing that we will put things on hold. At this particular time I do not see any reason why we would change that assurance.

Mrs Sullivan: The minister is probably aware that new annual work schedules came into effect on 1 April of this year, and in the areas where he froze activity until the EAAC report was to be delivered. Despite his promise, despite his assurance today in the House, logging is taking place today in Jessiman township, and as well, old pine trees are being cut. Road building plans have been approved, new cutting licences have been issued since 1 April, and the cutting licences can be exercised immediately in Havrot and Foulds townships.

In light of the minister's sustainable forestry announcement today and the environmental assessment process which is under way, can the minister explain the inconsistencies of these activities and why he is allowing them to continue?

Hon Mr Wildman: I do not acknowledge any inconsistencies whatsoever. The fact is that we are committed to sustainable forestry. If the information that the member is presenting to the House today is accurate, I will review it. I will review it to determine that indeed we do comply with the commitment we have made for the EAAC process. We are certainly determined to protect the identified old-growth sites of red and white pine in the province.

It is unfortunate that the previous Minister of the Environment sat on those applications for over two years; otherwise the whole process could have been completed before this.

CORRECTION

Mr Harris: In question period today when I referred to the Liberal Party ringing the bells in 1982 and introducing bell-ringing to the Legislature, I indicated that the member for Renfrew North, I believe, was behind that. I was in error. The member for Renfrew North was not here. In fact, he was out of the country. It was the member for Brant-Haldimand, who was the House leader at the time and is the current leader of the Liberal Party, who as House leader led the charge, hijacked the House for three days, and rang the bells on a budget bill, I believe it was, in 1982. I apologize to the member for Renfrew North.

The Speaker: Thank you for correcting the record.

1540

MOTIONS

ORDER OF BUSINESS

Miss Martel moved that the House proceed to orders of the day.

Mr Eves: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: With respect to the motion that has just been made, I would ask the government House leader to confer with her colleague the Minister of Housing, because I am sure he would not agree that such a motion is in order. I would like to tell her what the Minister of Housing, then the House leader for the New Democratic Party, had to say about exactly such a motion on 10 April 1990:

"I am suggesting a process whereby we get to orders of the day. The government House leader is attempting to change the standing orders of the House by a motion, without even notice to the opposition parties and without discussion. I would suggest that the motion is out of order completely." The House leader at the time went on to say --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Just relax. Could I have the attention of the member for Parry Sound, please?

We have been over this ground on a previous occasion. If there is any new information which has not been brought to my attention, I certainly would be pleased to hear it, but otherwise we should move on.

Mr Eves: Mr Speaker, I did not know whether you had the advice of the Minister of Housing, who thinks that such a motion is totally out of order under standing order 29 and standing order 46.

Hon Miss Martel: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: It seems to me that you ruled on this very matter on Thursday and I would suggest we should get on with the business.

The Speaker: To the government House leader and all other interested members, it is a responsible position for the Speaker to entertain any new information which members may wish to bring to the Speaker's attention, and that is precisely what I have done.

Mr Sterling: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: You may recall that yesterday I raised a point of order dealing with a dilatory motion, as we are dealing with today. You indicated at that time that you viewed the previous rulings by Speaker Edighoffer on this matter, such that my motion would fall under rule 44(a).

One of the very salient points in the argument that I put forward was that what seems to be good for the goose is not good for the gander, and that is that a motion by the opposition parties to speed along the process to question period during orders of the day was not in order, yet a motion by the government House leader to speed the process on to orders of the day happens to be in order.

I do not think it is necessary, as I said yesterday, that a dilatory motion of this sort be necessarily exclusive to the period after question period, as I explained yesterday. I was wondering whether or not you would take this example as the exact example that I was looking for yesterday as to why the expansion of the ruling of a dilatory motion prior to question period is not necessary. I wanted to point that out because it was only yesterday that I raised it, and today we see the government House leader trying to take advantage of the rules for government purposes at the expense of the opposition.

The Speaker: The member for Carleton raised a point of order with me yesterday. That matter is still under consideration. I anticipate a response to him, I hope, tomorrow. The government House leader has moved that the House now move to --

Mr Jackson: A point of order, Mr Speaker: I simply want to suggest that you might consider the argument of fairness. I have only one petition to table today on whose behalf the individuals have travel led some distance to be in the House at the time the petition is read. I simply suggest to you that there may be an element of fairness in your ruling since there was no notice in this regard.

The Speaker: While we have a motion on the floor, certainly if the House gave unanimous consent, the member could introduce his one petition. Do we have unanimous consent to do so?

Some hon members: No.

Negatived.

1615

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

Ayes 59; nays 33.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

MORTGAGES AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

Mr Hampton moved second reading of Bill 40, An Act to amend the Mortgages Act.

Hon Mr Hampton: Today I am presenting for second reading the Mortgages Amendment Act, 1990, which will further protect the rights of tenants in Ontario, in particular tenants who may be evicted through no fault of their own.

It is a fact that many millions of Ontario residents are tenants, renting their homes from others. While some of these people may some day buy their own homes, others will remain tenants. The law now recognizes the right of tenants to secure tenure, and the ability of landlords to evict tenants from their homes is strictly limited by the Landlord and Tenant Act, the provisions of which have been reinforced in numerous court decisions.

However, there is presently a gap in that protection. If a landlord defaults on the mortgage on the premises, the courts have held that most mortgagees can evict tenants without regard to the Landlord and Tenant Act. Tenants in these circumstances are only protected if their tenancy agreement was in effect at the date of the mortgage.

In January 1990, the previous government announced that it would remedy this situation by ensuring that mortgagees of multiple-unit buildings would have to abide by the eviction provisions of the Landlord and Tenant Act. However, the legislation was not ready for introduction before the last election.

The Mortgages Amendment Act, 1990 goes far beyond what the previous government announced.

First, it binds all mortgages to the general eviction provisions of the Landlord and Tenant Act.

Second, it also binds all mortgagees in possession of the premises to all the other provisions of the act that apply to residential premises, such as the obligation to keep up the premises and not to interfere with the tenants' reasonable enjoyment of them.

Third, it extends protection to tenants of single-family homes, a group left out of the previous government's announcement. We are talking here not only about people renting condominium units or whole houses but also the more numerous group who live in converted basement or attic apartments and the like in these houses.

Special provisions apply to single-family homes to balance the interests of the tenants with the ability of mortgagees to resell the properties to recover the money owing to them. Essentially, the tenants can stay up to 60 days after the mortgagee has made a firm agreement to sell the property to someone who indicates that he intends to occupy the premises personally. Tenants will have an opportunity to test the purchaser's intention in court if they choose.

The protection given to tenants in premises that are not single-family homes applies as of 26 January 1990 as announced by the previous government. The protection to tenants in single-family homes applies as of 20 December 1990. The other provisions of the act will come into force on royal assent. In all cases the act will apply to existing, as well as future, mortgages.

This legislation helps to fill a gap in the law that has caused real hardship to some tenants in Ontario. I am confident that we will achieve a fair balance of all the interests involved. To further that, the Ministry of the Attorney General conducted extensive consultations with all parties involved in this matter and I am of the belief that we have achieved a fair balance of all the interests.

Mr Harris: I want to say a few things about this particular bill. When you put this bill into the context of the overall budgetary policy of the government, we believe that it will substantially limit the ability of the private sector to get mortgages, that it will substantially reduce the amount of affordable housing that will be made available and that it will substantially increase the deficit if the only people who are going to be building housing is the government. What this will lead to is housing being built at $30,000, $40,000, $50,000 a unit more than what the private sector is prepared to build it for.

In view of all that, and also the fact that the whole budgetary policy is one that will bankrupt this province, is 180 degrees in the wrong direction and is not at all what the people were led to believe, we think the Premier and the Treasurer, who is yapping, not from his own seat, ought to consider allowing the public to have its say on the budget and the impact that even this bill will have on it.

Therefore, I move the adjournment of the debate.

1655

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

Ayes 15; nays 73.

Mr Harris: I think the Premier needs a little more time to consider whether he is going to hear the public, so I move adjournment of the House.

1729

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

Ayes 16; nays 66.

Mr Ferguson: This act, which most members of the House are intimately familiar with, is going to serve those people in the province of Ontario most in need. I want to tell the members that is what this government is all about. Unlike some of the members opposite who wish not to have a debate in the House on the budget, this government is committed to passing legislation that serves people in need.

While the Tories grandstand, which prohibits us from passing acts like the amendment to the Mortgages Act, what the public needs to be reminded about is that they are hurting the people of Ontario by keeping important legislation from being debated and passed in this House, important legislation like Bill 17, which provides for the automatic collection of support payments by way of deduction from wages. It is estimated that $334 million is outstanding, which they are preventing being collected by those who deserve it.

They are prohibiting Bill 70 from being passed. This is the employee wage protection program, which provides for protection of workers in the province of Ontario who are laid off. It is their fault. They will have to answer to the workers of Ontario as to why they are holding up this legislation.

They are not fooling anyone. The people of this province know exactly what is taking place in the Legislature of Ontario today, that they are holding up democracy and hurting the people of this province.

Mr Harnick: I will have many things to say about this bill, but as a preliminary comment, this is a bad bill because it does not exempt all single-family homes. Because of that, it is a bad bill.

I think we should all reflect on that, and I would move adjournment of the debate for that purpose.

1802

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

Ayes 12; nays 61.

The House adjourned at 1803.