role="main" class="main-container container js-quickedit-main-content" id="main-content">

February 9, 1988

34th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L037 - Tue 9 Feb 1988 / Mar 9 fév 1988

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

PERINATAL CARE

SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION

ABORTION

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

FUTURES PROGRAM

SUBSTITUTE FOR ROAD SALT

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

DRINKING AND DRIVING

COUNTY GOVERNMENT

RESPONSES

COUNTY GOVERNMENT

DRINKING AND DRIVING

COUNTY GOVERNMENT

ORAL QUESTIONS

RETAIL STORE HOURS

USE OF PRESCRIPTION DRUGS

RETAIL STORE HOURS

ABORTION

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS

LANDFILL SITE

INJURED WORKERS’ MEDICAL REPORTS

TRADE DEVELOPMENT

ROUGE VALLEY

EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES PROGRAM

SUBSTITUTE FOR ROAD SALT

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD

PETITIONS

INCOME TAX ASSISTANCE

RECREATION TRAIL

NATUROPATHY

RETAIL STORE HOURS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

MACHIN MINES LIMITED

PROW YELLOWKNIFE GOLD MINES LTD. ACT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

MEMBERS’ CONFLICT OF INTEREST ACT /

LOI SUR LES CONFLITS D’INTÉRÊTS DES MEMBRES DE L’ASSEMBLÉE

MEMBERS’ CONFLICT OF INTEREST ACT /

LOI SUR LES CONFLITS D’INTÉRÊTS DES MEMBRES DE L’ASSEMBLÉE

ONTARIO AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE BOARD ACT

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

Prayers.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

PERINATAL CARE

Mr. Morin-Strom: Mr. Speaker, when the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan) states categorically that no one is more than an hour and a half away from quality health care here in Ontario, she does not know what she is talking about. She is certainly not talking about northern Ontario. When it comes to neonatal intensive care, the situation is now critical.

Doctors caring for Chantal Gagné in Timmins tried to find a place in hospitals across Ontario and just could not do it. Finally, Chantal was flown to Sault Ste. Marie and admitted to Sault Ste. Marie General Hospital an hour before her premature baby was born. Our most advanced hospitals simply were not available, and even in the Sault, doctors had to bend the rules in order to admit Mrs. Gagné into a severely overcrowded neonatal unit.

The Sault’s neonatal unit, along with nine others in the province designated for caring for critically ill infants and their mothers, has been battling shortages of funding and especially shortages of critical-care nurses.

The Minister of Health knows that Ontario is short at least 1,100 nurses, with northern Ontario particularly hard hit. Nurses have been leaving the profession and leaving the province. Meanwhile, the government has avoided the issue, awaiting disaster.

Surely it is time for the minister to come up with better funding and better rewards for nurses, and it is time to ensure that a standard of quality health care is accessible to mothers and infants right across this province.

SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION

Mrs. Marland: I am standing today in this Legislature to speak on behalf of the thousands of parents in the region of Peel who have school-age children. Their opportunity for education in acceptable accommodation is not being met.

Last week the Minister of Education (Mr. Ward) met with Chairman Margaret McKee of the Peel Board of Education and other representatives of the board, and Chairman Bob Hall and his trustees and staff of the Dufferin-Peel Roman Catholic Separate School Board. This meeting was requested by me in June 1987, seven months ago, because the solution for funding in this high-growth area has not been found. After waiting seven months for this meeting at the political level, I found the meeting to be a complete waste of time.

The Dufferin-Peel board has 23,000 of its 53,000 students in portables. Notre Dame Secondary School has 27 portables, and the students line up for the washrooms after they walk through the snow to the main building. This school was built for 500 students and it now has 1,172. They have five lunch periods in order to fit into the cafeteria, and the first lunch period is at 8:30 in the morning. Other classes are using the stage area in the auditorium. They are using the library for classrooms. The students have never been in proper classrooms. Many of the students graduating this year will have never been in anything but a portable.

This situation is intolerable. It is unacceptable. We need the opportunity for equality in accommodation in the region of Peel.

ABORTION

Mr. Dietsch: In the wake of the Supreme Court of Canada’s judgement, rendered January 28, striking down

section 251 of the Criminal Code of Canada, we as members of this assembly and legislative assemblies across this country are obviously faced with great challenges. I, with many others in this House, hold strongly to the view that life is precious and, indeed, sacred. Recognizing the complexities involved, I encourage our federal colleagues to respond immediately, to bring forward legislation to provide protection for the unborn.

I do not ask my colleagues in this House to put aside their convictions or compromise their integrity. Many, both inside and outside this House, have deeply held feelings and beliefs on this issue. It is imperative that all parties constructively address the needs of those in our society who require assistance. I believe that we can successfully meet the challenge of better educating young people in the area of human sexuality and that we can provide better support mechanisms in our community for those in need of counselling. A better-educated society in this regard would serve us all well.

The initiatives put forward to provide holistic service by the introduction of women’s health centres are a step in the right direction. We need to emphasize the alternatives to abortion now more than ever. I trust that we can and will work together in this House in a spirit of co-operation to resolve this challenge.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr. Swart: No one should be fooled that the Liberal government of this province will eliminate high auto insurance rates for young people. Although we have had all kinds of government promises to do that, and age classification will be excluded by the bill, the government simply proposes to replace age classification with a “years of driving experience” classification.

Young drivers who have been licensed for fewer than seven years, or even up to 14 years, will pay the same kind of unreasonable, excessive rates they are now paying. The only difference is that the rates of young men and women will be equalized, with young females having huge increases in picking up the savings to the young males.

What a travesty of justice, particularly to young women, when the Liberal government promised to apply high rates only for a bad driving record. Of course, it is all political. The government does not want to spread the $300 million that it will lose from the young drivers as additional premiums over the great numbers of good adult drivers.

Let me say that the whole idea that some group or groups have to pick up the 10 per cent shortfall that will result from putting young people on the same basis as everyone else is stupid. Overwhelming evidence to the all-party auto insurance committee clearly demonstrated a saving to a public system not only would absorb that 10 per cent shortfall but also would leave another 10 per cent to reduce rates to everybody.

Let there be no doubt that it is this Liberal government’s decision and it alone that is going to shift unreasonable rates from one group of innocent people to another. That is not our way of doing things in this party.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Mr. Eves: Later today, we will be dealing with Bill 1,

An Act to provide for greater Certainty in the Reconciliation of the Personal Interests of Members of the Assembly and the Executive Council with their Duties of Office. The

short title of the bill, although easier to remember, is no more accurate. Therefore, I will be moving an amendment this afternoon to change

section 20, the

short title of the bill, from Members’ Conflict of Interest Act to Members’ Disclosure Act.

This bill is not conflict legislation. It does nothing to address the issue of conflict. It does not prohibit members of the cabinet from making personal contracts with the government; it does not require divestment; it in no way prevents a cabinet minister or his or her family from making personal gain at the expense of the Ontario taxpayer.

There is a member of cabinet whose family owns some office buildings that are currently leased by the government. Surely the Legislature cannot condone this. There is a member of cabinet whose family currently has very lucrative construction contracts with the government. Surely we cannot condone this. There is currently a cabinet minister with a $20-million forest management agreement. Surely the Legislature cannot condone that. There is a member of cabinet whose family has substantial business dealings with this government. Surely we cannot condone any act that permits this.

This is not the toughest conflict legislation in Canada, as the Premier (Mr. Peterson) likes to say. It is merely a disclosure act which enshrines in legislation the ability of a cabinet minister to reap potential personal gain from the public purse.

FUTURES PROGRAM

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Yesterday, the third-quarter financial review came down on this government, and amazing as it may seem, the Ministry of Skills Development has already underspent its budget this year by $27 million for the Futures program. The reason given in the document is that there has been a failure of young people to take up the program. It is true that there is a 50 per cent drop, as a matter of fact, and all members should know it.

It is a real disaster of a program, which is actually counting as neutral outcomes kids who have been incarcerated during the period that they are in the program. They are suggesting that the success story is a kid who leaves the program because it is not financially beneficial to stay in it, and takes a job above minimum wage when the child is still illiterate and is not capable of being adaptable within our society afterwards.

We have a Minister of Skills Development (Mr. Curling) who is entirely incompetent. Perhaps it makes no difference that he is in the Caribbean this week rather than being here.

We have a program that is failing thousands of children in this province: native children -- the government has only spent $75,000 this year on children on northern reserves; francophone kids who are not making use of this program in the numbers we know they should be; and inner-city kids from around this province who are being left high and dry by a government that was supposedly committed to making them capable of operating in a sophisticated society such as we have today.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry for 15 seconds.

SUBSTITUTE FOR ROAD SALT

Mr. Villeneuve: Yesterday, at the Rural Ontario Municipal Association convention, the Minister of Transportation (Mr. Fulton) was asked on two occasions about the use of a corn-derived substance as a replacement for existing road salt. The minister was not even aware of what the questioners were talking about.

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES

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

Mr. Speaker: The Lieutenant Governor transmits the supplementary estimates of certain additional sums required for the services of the province for the year ending March 31, 1988, and recommends them to the Legislative Assembly. Signed by His Honour Lincoln Alexander.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

DRINKING AND DRIVING

Hon. Mrs. Smith: I want to bring the House up to date on my ministry’s efforts to win the war against impaired driving.

As members know, the Premier (Mr. Peterson) promised during the election campaign to make the Reduce Impaired Driving Everywhere program a year-round, province-wide effort. Today, we have taken another significant step towards achieving that goal.

Letters have gone out to every municipal police force around Ontario, asking them to submit proposals for receiving special one-time RIDE funding. This funding program begins this spring and offers one-time financial assistance to municipalities which want to establish or enhance RIDE enforcement activities. Municipalities will be able to apply for funding in either 1988 or 1989 to cover costs, such as staff overtime, equipment purchases and the promotion of enforcement activities. My ministry will devote $2 million to this program over the next two years, and we hope to start dispensing this money by the end of April.

I should add that this is just part of my ministry’s RIDE initiative. We will be purchasing new equipment and enhancing the capabilities of the staff at the Centre of Forensic Sciences to deal with RIDE-related issues, like breathalyser training and evidence. We are well on our way to creating special six-officer RIDE teams from all 16 Ontario Provincial Police districts. These 96 officers will be dedicated solely to RIDE and will make the year-round, province-wide program envisioned by the Premier a reality. The annualized pricetag of these efforts will be approximately $6 million, but it will be money well spent.

Anyone who has doubts need only look at the statistics the OPP recorded from RIDE checks and regular patrols during this winter’s holiday season. Between November 15, 1987, and January 9, 1988, OPP officers checked 369,403 motorists and charged a total of 1,683 with alcohol-related driving offences. During the 1986-87 holiday season, OPP officers checked 357,167 drivers and charged 1,812 of them with alcohol-related driving offences.

I should add that fewer 12-hour licence suspensions were issued during this winter’s Christmas-New Year period: 1,999 compared to 2,938 the previous year. The same statistical story is unfolding elsewhere. In Metro Toronto, for example, RIDE units checked 187,228 motorists during the recent season of Christmas, compared to 167,621 the previous year, and found 10 fewer impaired drivers: 28 compared to 38. Those statistics are a clear indication that programs like RIDE are having the desired effect on holiday-season revellers.

If we are checking more drivers and finding fewer offenders, it can only mean one thing: Programs like RIDE are convincing people it is just plain foolish to take a chance by drinking and driving. I am delighted that my ministry’s new initiatives will allow us to hammer that point home year-round. Any step that reduces the tragic toll exacted by impaired driving is a step worth taking.

The people of Ontario have made it abundantly clear that they support our efforts to reduce drinking and driving. All over the province, community groups have devoted long hours to the struggle to change public attitudes. These groups have our gratitude and we hope these initiatives will encourage them to work even harder.

COUNTY GOVERNMENT

Hon. Mr. Eakins: I would like to inform members of the House today about my review of county government in Ontario.

As members will be aware, an advisory committee was formed to study the current composition of county councils, their voting systems, a possible role for them in waste management and other services, and the relationships between them and the lower tier.

The committee was chaired by the member for Niagara South (Mr. Haggerty), then parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. The other members of that committee were Doris Brick, reeve of Ennismore township and 1987-88 president of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario; Al Bouwers, mayor of Osgoode township and a director of AMO; Ron Eddy, reeve of South Dumfries township, chief administrative officer of Middlesex county and director of AMO.

The committee conducted consultations with different municipal associations, organizations and a wide cross-section of local and county municipalities. It completed its consultations and study late last year and submitted its report last November.

I would like to express my deep appreciation to the chairman and members of the committee for their valuable insights into a most complex area of local government. I released the report last week and copies have been sent to all municipalities within the county government system for their comments as the next stage in the consultation process.

The committee has pointed out some of the difficulties, for instance, in achieving balanced representation in counties where municipalities range in size from those with only a few hundred electors to those with as many as 30,000. The committee has also noted a wide range of perceptions among municipalities and their representatives as to the kind of reforms they would like to see.

In view of these findings by the committee, I feel it very desirable to enlarge this last phase of the consultation process to cover these issues.

I would like to inform members that I have asked a committee with experience in municipal issues to undertake this task. The group will be chaired by the member for Oxford (Mr. Tatham) and will include the member for Cornwall (Mr. Cleary), the member for Northumberland (Mrs. Fawcett), the member for Grey (Mr. Lipsett), the member for Prince Edward-Lennox (Mr. MacDonald), the member for Prescott and Russell (Mr. Poirier), the member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. M. C. Ray) and the member for Lambton (Mr. Smith).

Members of this committee will visit all parts of the province within the county government system to discuss the advisory committee’s report directly with councils and interested individuals. They will also examine the issues connected with the smaller and separated municipalities as well as individual counties. I have asked this committee to suggest, on the basis of its direct discussions, a complete package of reforms covering all aspects of county government and responding to the advisory committee’s findings and recommendations.

This approach will have several advantages. It combines the final phase of consultations on the advisory committee’s recommendations with the study of the other areas recommended by that committee for separate review. It will deal with county government reform as a comprehensive package rather than piecemeal. It will benefit from direct contact with the communities affected by any proposed reform, without proceeding on the basis of centralized perceptions.

That, briefly, is our objective with all municipal reform, which I have made a personal priority, namely, to provide for fair and reasonably uniform representation for the interests and needs of communities of varying sizes and capacities and to establish the framework for strong and self-reliant institutions of local government, fully responsive to the needs of their electorates.

RESPONSES

COUNTY GOVERNMENT

Mr. Breaugh: I want to respond to the rather unusual announcement by the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Eakins) today. It is true that he had a group of people studying county government in Ontario and that they reported last November. Oddly enough, the report was not released until about two weeks ago, I think. It unveiled a number of perplexing problems with county government, a system that has worked for a long time, but which also kind of evolved on its own and has inherent in it some rather vexing problems.

The response to those findings has been to establish another committee. Normally, of course, this would go to a royal commission, an outside task force, a consultant or something like that, but I guess things are backed up, because now the minister is announcing today an unusual phenomenon, one that I regard with some concern: that is, to strike a committee which is, and it is carefully worded in the statement, a committee of members of the Legislature. There is only one problem with this committee. This committee does not have anybody but government members on it.

It will tour Ontario purporting to be a committee of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, except that there will be no opposition members there. It is an interesting twist to it all.

I ask the minister to pause in implementing that committee. It is one thing to have a group going around from one of the three political parties saying, “We are here on behalf of the New Democratic Party and we want to find out what you think.” That we are accustomed to. I believe the next step, where the minister says it will be a committee of the Legislature but only government members will be on it, has now been taken. Even with the pangs that happened last fall with the election results, they did not produce a one-party state in Ontario yet. The government is taking us that next step.

I am going to ask the minister to reconsider that structure. I believe that to be inappropriate. It is one thing if the minister wants to send around a group of Liberals saying to people, “We represent the Liberal Party.” That is fair game, but he should not be sending around a group of members of the Legislature that does not adequately reflect the Legislature itself. In my view, that report should be referred to a legislative committee, which should then do its job. That would be a normal process for us to use. I want the minister to reconsider this new technique he has announced today. I believe it to be totally inappropriate.

DRINKING AND DRIVING

Mr. Hampton: I want to address, just for the moment, the announcement that has been made on the Reduce Impaired Driving Everywhere program today. I think it is very important to note that almost everyone in this House, if not everyone, supports the RIDE program. We are well informed as to the effectiveness of it, but I think it is certainly noteworthy to say that only $2 million is being devoted by this government here today to what is supposed to be year-round enhancement of RIDE.

In some people’s minds, $2 million may be worthy of a press release or worthy of capturing press attention, but it is hardly enough money to do the job for all of the municipal police forces we have across this province. In fact, it will not do the job at all. It will not even start to do the job. To pretend that $2 million will do the job is to distort the facts out there.

I say good. The RIDE program is an excellent program. We agree with its effectiveness, but to say that it is going to be somehow greatly enhanced by the tune of $2 million is a complete distortion of what is needed.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: How much is needed? How much do you want?

Mr. B. Rae: The Premier asks, “How much is needed?” Perhaps he should look at the commitment he made in the election campaign on August 24, 1987, when he announced a $15-million program over the next two years. Today he is announcing a program that is worth about half that and so he asks how much is needed.

I will tell the Premier how much is needed. The amount that is needed is the amount he committed himself to providing in the election campaign. If it was good enough for the voters in the election campaign, it is good enough for the citizens of Ontario in 1988 when the time comes due to pay his bills. That is when it is due and that is the amount that is required.

He also announced in the election campaign that he was going to be introducing a measure with respect to liquor companies, asking them to set aside revenues for advertising. He has not announced anything with respect to that particular plan.

If he asks what it is we are asking him to do, all we are asking him to do is what he committed himself to doing when he wanted the votes of the people of Ontario. When he got their votes, he forgot about them. That has been his record on this issue and on every other issue he has confronted since September 10, 1987.

Mr. Cureatz: I would also like to respond to the statement of the Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith) this afternoon on the continuation of the RIDE program. I have nothing but the highest regard for the Solicitor General. I congratulate her on bringing forward this statement and, as she has done, congratulate all those offices and people that have been involved in the RIDE program across Ontario.

I can think of myself who, interestingly enough, participated in an interesting debate on free trade here over the Christmas holidays. That very night on my way back through Colborne to our then home, I say to the member for Northumberland (Mrs. Fawcett), I was stopped by the Ontario Provincial Police. Happily enough, I passed the test. It was a cold winter’s night at about midnight. The officers were out there. They were freezing cold but they did a stalwart job, and we must congratulate all of those who participate in the program.

Interjection.

Mr. Cureatz: The interesting thing, though, I say to the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh), is that once again this government is doing the old trick of taking credit for a program that was brought forward by -- who else? -- a Conservative government. If the Conservatives cannot take credit, then at least the Liberal administration should give credit to all members in the assembly, who have been very supportive of the RIDE program, and not come out with a statement indicating we are beholden to it, that it was the one that was blessed with coming up with this idea in terms of drinking and driving.

The interesting thing -- and I give credit to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. B. Rae) and I follow up on his remarks -- is that the minister says right on page 1 -- and I say this to the Premier (Mr. Peterson), if he can focus his contact lenses over here -- that it is a one-time funding.

We have the old trick again of ministers coming out with a wonderful statement in terms of what they are going to do. Do members know what is going to happen? After one year has gone by, all the local police forces in Ontario are going to have to go back to their own property taxpayers to get funding so that they can continue with the RIDE program, a program that should be continued through the Legislative Assembly and through the government of Ontario, as the Leader of the Opposition has indicated.

We would like the minister to come back again and in another few months come out with an announcement, let us say by next Christmas, indicating that the funding for the RIDE program will be a continuation to the police forces year after year and not a one-time shot where the local police forces are then going to have to come back year in and year out to their own taxpayers.

COUNTY GOVERNMENT

Mr. McCague: The statement from the Minister of Municipal Affairs would certainly not have been characteristic of his thinking prior to his entrance into this Legislature, but as uncharacteristic as it is, I have to agree with my colleague from the New Democratic Party.

Interjections.

Mr. Breaugh: Hold it. I may want to retract something here.

Mr. McCague: We agree from time to time.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. McCague: I think the Liberal Party has gone to a new low in saying in a statement that it has appointed a committee of the House and then naming -- what is it? -- eight Liberal members of this House. It says right in the statement “committee of...the House.” The minister was careful to avoid that part when he said it verbally.

This is no more than a little geography lesson for a few back-benchers who have no work at all. The minister knows without having his first study what the problems are out there. He has had the first study. Now he wants eight more people to go around and tell him again.

Why does he not start listening to the people on the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, the Rural Ontario Municipal Association, the Ontario Good Roads Association and all the municipal associations and get on with the job, instead of stalling until after the next election?

ORAL QUESTIONS

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. B. Rae: I have a question of the Premier. I want to go back and talk about Sunday shopping again and just say I wonder if the Premier can explain again the battle of the headlines and the very different stories that we get, depending on when the Premier is speaking.

For example, today the headline is very clear. It says, “Won’t Give in to Sunday Shopping Foes, Peterson Says,” on the front page of the Toronto Star.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: Couldn’t you blow it up and put it on cardboard?

Mr. B. Rae: I would like it to be as big as possible because it contrasts so dramatically with the headline in the Toronto Sun of August 5, 1987, which again was just as the election campaign was starting: “Sunday Closing OK with Preem.” Again, it comes from the Queen’s Park bureau of the Toronto Sun.

Mr. Goldstein writes: “Premier David Peterson said yesterday --

Interjections.

Mr. B. Rae: Perhaps members would wait for it – “he has no plans to make major changes to Ontario’s controversial Sunday closing law.

“Peterson said he believes Ontarians generally support the concept of a common pause day, as an all-party committee of the Legislature recently concluded.”

That is what he said during the election campaign.

Mr. Speaker: Question?

Mr. B. Rae: I would like to ask the Premier, are there two people who are impersonating David Peterson? What is going on here? Why is there one position good enough for an election campaign and then a flip-flop as soon as the election is over when it comes to this issue?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I regularly find people trying to impersonate me and I do not blame them for so trying, but let me say, Mr. Speaker, it is not easy to do, as you can imagine and as you personally know from experience. You would substantiate that. But I think we have gone through all this discussion on why the government took the position it did, and I think that eventually my friend will end up quite comfortable with it.

Mr. B. Rae: This is a matter of integrity. The Premier cannot do this on every issue. The Premier cannot get away with this. There has to be a question of accountability here.

He had precisely the same facts before him in August as he did in May when his members sat on that committee and voted in favour of the compromise that was agreed to in that committee in terms of a common pause day. He had exactly the same facts before him right throughout the election.

If it was good enough for the people of Ontario during the election to say that he did not intend to change the law with respect to Sunday closing, if a common pause day was good enough as the message that he wanted to take to the people when he wanted their votes, why is it not good enough today in January and February 1988, when he has changed the position and has taken away the common pause day for the workers of Ontario?

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

Hon. Mr. Peterson: My friend is quite entitled to make his speeches, but I think we went through the discussions in cabinet and caucus and a variety of other places and came to the conclusion that the suggestions that were made in the select committee on retail store hours were not workable and just created more exceptions and more difficulties. Then the cabinet took the position that it did on this matter, and I think it is a sensible conclusion to this matter.

Mr. B. Rae: If it was a difficult question and something upon which the Premier had a different opinion, why did he not express that opinion all throughout 1986, when the issue was before the Supreme Court of Canada, when the Supreme Court made its decision clear and said it was perfectly constitutional for Ontario to protect the common pause day and that it was perfectly proper, understandable and reasonable for the Legislature to want to protect that? In fact, Chief Justice Dickson said the reasons for doing that, for providing that protection, are self-evident.

The government’s members on the committee said they supported a common pause day. The Premier said it was good enough for the election campaign. Why is it not good enough for the people in February 1988, when he has his majority? Why is it not good enough now for the people to have a common pause day if it was good enough to take to the people back in the election campaign?

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

Hon. Mr. Peterson: What my honourable friend does not understand and does not realize, based on the experience of Christmas and the reaction of certain retailers and the problems that were inherent, is that things have changed in that regard. We very seriously went through the report of the select committee and came to the conclusion that, frankly, it was unworkable, and then we were charged with the responsibility of making decisions on the basis of that.

I think that, based on what happens in other provinces where it works extremely well, my honourable friend’s fears are misplaced in this regard. Just so often he makes these judgements, and I can understand his always wanting to go backwards rather than forwards in these matters. But with regard to the conclusion that was come to that allows municipalities to make the decision, mindful of the fact that municipalities make the decision six days a week now -- mindful of all of that -- I think we have come to a very sensible conclusion in dealing with this issue.

Mr. B. Rae: If the Premier thinks there is some sort of a correlation between Christmas and the election of a majority government, then --

Mr. Speaker: Order. New question to which minister?

USE OF PRESCRIPTION DRUGS

Mr. B. Rae: I have a question for the Minister of Health.

I have a letter to the minister dated January 18, 1988, signed by Dr. George Carruthers, who is professor of medicine and chairman of the division of clinical pharmacology at University Hospital in London. As the minister will know, Dr. Carruthers was for some time the chairman of the Drug Quality and Therapeutics Committee. The minister will know that this letter is Dr. Carruthers’s letter of resignation from that committee.

He has resigned, he says: “...it is because we see the enormous and inappropriate waste of our tax dollars; it is because we despair of the folly of polypharmacy in the elderly that we raise these issues. That your ministry should ignore our entreaties to improve the current system we find disturbing and frankly incredible.”

As the minister consults her file folder, I wonder if she might tell us, why would Dr. Carruthers have felt it necessary to resign as a protest against what he describes as an “absurd special authorization system which squanders millions of dollars annually, in large part for drugs which have little or no proven therapeutic activity”? Why would Dr. Carruthers have had to resign to make effective his protest?

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

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: Let me respond to the Leader of the Opposition by saying that I have not had an opportunity to meet with Dr. Carruthers. I understand that the Deputy Minister of Health met with the Drug Quality and Therapeutics Committee to discuss our concern regarding the whole issue of drug utilization from a quality-of-care point of view, and I was sorry that I received that letter prior to having an opportunity to meet with Dr. Carruthers.

Mr. B. Rae: The minister should know that on January 15, Dr. Carruthers met with the deputy minister as well as with a number of other members of this committee, and he says to the minister in his letter of January 18, which is now some weeks ago: “I shall not belabour the details of the meeting. In brief, we were advised that there was little likelihood of change in the current system.” I would remind the minister that this is a system which cost the government $489 million in 1986-87 in terms of her health care budget.

He lists six points that he says he has raised on a number of occasions and has received no satisfaction that the minister is going to take them seriously. They are all contained in the letter, but he describes two or three in particular that I want to raise with the minister: “The universal ridicule of the Drug Benefit Formulary, which barely deserves the title ‘formulary,’ a list of medications which includes ineffective, toxic or excessively expensive drugs.” Then he goes on to mention, and I will repeat it because it really is important, “the absurd special authorization system which squanders millions of dollars annually.”

This doctor, who is chairman of the committee, is accusing the ministry of squandering millions of dollars. What is the minister’s reply?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: As I have stated before in this House, we are very concerned about the issues raised around quality of care, particularly for seniors. We released recently a utilization review of world literature and have said that this is in fact a very complex issue. Earlier, in response to a question from the member’s colleague, I said I would be interested in the views of members of this House so that we could ensure the distribution of drugs for the purpose of quality. We are looking, at this very point in time, at all of the very complex issues that surround the Ontario drug benefit plan and the formulary, and I would appreciate the views of the member opposite.

Mr. B. Rae: My views are going to be the views of many who have come to the minister, and they are that there is a serious problem here and it is one that is being addressed directly by Dr. Carruthers. The problem is that he felt sufficiently strongly about it and got the message from the minister’s own deputy that the government was not listening to what he was saying. He talks directly about the folly of polypharmacy in the elderly. When I spoke to the doctor today, he said, “All I am talking about is the overdrugging and the overuse of drugs by the elderly,” many of them being what he describes as “ineffective, toxic or excessively expensive drugs.”

He says it is a widespread practice that many physicians are prescribing drugs which have little or no effect, which do not do what the drug companies say they are going to do and which are of no benefit to the patient. If, as Rosemary Speirs said on the weekend, the government is so determined to do something, why would Dr. Carruthers have felt he had to resign because the government was not listening? Why would he have put himself in that position?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I think it is very important for us to understand that this is such a complex issue, regarding not only the dispensing, the distribution and also the quality of care that results from the drug program, that I do not think any one individual has all of the answers. The deputy minister went and spoke to the DQTC to get its views as we look at this whole issue.

As I have said before, I would ask the members opposite. I believe this is going to be an issue that will require some public debate and I would suggest that the response from any one particular individual or any one group is an important part of the overall debate.

I am sorry I have not had an opportunity to meet with Dr. Carruthers and I hope I will have a chance to meet with him in the near future.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Brandt: I want to return to the Premier on the question of the Sunday shopping issue.

I am sure the Premier is aware that the Coalition Against Open Sunday Shopping represents some 300,000 people. Sean O’Flynn, who is the secretary-treasurer of the Ontario Federation of Labour, represents some 800,000 workers in Ontario. The president of Idomo, who has been running ads in the newspaper, has represented now some hundreds of retail owners and thousands of workers in Ontario who are in the retail sector.

We have four leaders of the largest Christian churches; those denominations represent millions of Ontario citizens. We have the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, which voted against the Premier’s position 70 to three. The Rural Ontario Municipal Association last night indicated it was in disagreement with his position.

In light of this tremendous amount of objection to the position he is taking on Sunday shopping, would the Premier indicate whether it is still his position that this matter should simply be shuffled off to the municipalities, which will result in wide-open Sunday shopping in Ontario? Is that still his position?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am mindful of those people the honourable member lists who disagree with what we have done. It is not a question of shuffling off the responsibility. It is a question of extending the present responsibility that municipalities have, which regulate store hours six days a week, as the honourable member says.

My honourable friend recites a list of people who disagree with it and he is quite right, but there are a number of people who do agree with what we are doing. Let me give an example. The member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry (Mr. Villeneuve) said the store hours should be loosened to meet local wishes. He said, “I think local municipalities should and must have a good deal of say in the matter because that is where the action is.” So we have a lot of very thoughtful, progressive people who agree with this government on this matter.

Mr. Brandt: I do not know how many petitions the Premier has received from that long list he has read out of people who are in support of his position, but I would like to point out to the Premier that I have received in my office some 8,000 petitions, headed up, “Now it’s time to tell your MPP that you are against Sunday openings.” I will not take them all out, but I think the Premier can look at the numbers I have here.

I have an entire box beside me with signatures of 8,000 people, in addition to the list that I have read, all of whom are opposed to the Premier’s position. The Premier has taken a position which is simply not in concurrence with the mainstream of thinking in Ontario. Why will he not change his mind on this?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I say to my honourable friend that, first, I can understand how good it must make him feel to get some mail these days, and I can understand his wanting to tell everybody about that. He has a view, being a member of the former government which sort of governed by polls and responses and moved the line of, shall we say, least resistance on all occasions. But this government has struck forward, and there are many people besides his colleague the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry who agree with this government.

I can give another example. This is in the Windsor Star. It says: “Windsor-Riverside MPP David Cooke, a prominent member of the New Democratic Party says, ‘I am not absolutely convinced myself that Sunday shopping is something that should be halted. An argument can be made that there would be an increase in part-time jobs, particularly for students.’”

Let me tell you something else, Mr. Speaker; you will be interested in this, because this is typical, and he revealed the secret of the NDP: “It was last debated by our party 12 years ago.” That, my friends, is the problem with the New Democratic Party; it has not moved forward in 12 years and it will not in the next 12 years.

Mr. Brandt: Now the Premier has two, apparently. Let me just say with respect --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I would like to hear the final supplementary.

Mr. Brandt: It certainly is, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to say to the Premier that when you are in opposition you get mail from some very interesting places. In addition to the 8,000 petitions I have just indicated to the Premier that have come from the average citizen right across this great province, I have another 8,000 petitions which have come to my attention and were sent to my office from the city of London, where the Premier used to live. These 8,000 people have indicated they, too, are in opposition to his position. I would be happy to share their names individually with him, but I do not have them all recorded yet.

I want to tell the Premier there is an absolute avalanche of opposition to his position on this question. Will he do the right and proper thing and preserve the seventh day in this province, as it has been historically over the years, and give the people a rest from a full week of commercialism? Will he do that?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: My friend is suggesting perhaps that this is somehow going to destroy the family unit. He believes that. Has it been destroyed in Point Edward in his own community, in his own constituency where it is wide open under a tourist exemption now? Has the family unit been destroyed in Point Edward?

I ask my friend how he can stand and articulate and suggest a policy that suggests these different points of view and indeed does not take into account some of the differences that exist. Right now, as he knows, some stores are closed Saturday, some Sunday. There is no evidence in Alberta, Calgary, Vancouver or Montreal that this is destroying the family unit. I do not think my friend can present that evidence here at all.

I think it takes into account the diversity of this province, the different nature, the different communities, be they Point Edward or Sarnia, Niagara-on-the-Lake or Sault Ste. Marie. Should they so desire, they can make their own decisions. He stands and wants to make the decision for everybody right across this province. I say, let us recognize the diversity of this province, let us recognize municipal autonomy, let us recognize that each municipality is different and let us have some respect for the municipal politicians to make these kinds of decisions.

Mr. Speaker: Order. New question, the member for Sarnia (Mr. Brandt).

Mr. Brandt: The Association of Municipalities of Ontario recognizes the diversification of this province and voted against the Premier’s plan 70 to three.

Mr. Speaker: And the question is to which minister?

Mr. Brandt: I have another question.

Mr. Speaker: To which minister?

Mr. Brandt: To the Premier. I was pointing at him. I thought he knew that I was.

ABORTION

Mr. Brandt: Another issue of importance to this province on which the people deserve to know where the Premier stands is the whole issue of abortion and the access with respect to abortion and the rights of the unborn.

We have heard from the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan) on this question. We have heard from the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney). Four years ago the Premier was troubled by this question and indicated that he had some concern about the numbers of abortions. Three years ago he proposed that the Ontario health insurance plan pay for a woman who had to travel more than 300 kilometres for an abortion.

What is the Premier’s position today on this question, since he failed to respond to my question with respect to the same issue yesterday? Where does he stand on the issue?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I stand exactly with the Minister of Health and the Attorney General (Mr. Scott). who articulated the position of the government yesterday.

Mr. Brandt: Let me suggest to the Premier exactly what some of his back-benchers have been saying in regard to this issue, since he quoted one of my back-benchers relative to the issue of Sunday shopping. I think it is interesting, if I may quote the member for Etobicoke-Humber (Mr. Henderson), quoted in the Globe and Mail as saying: “Legislators cannot fully jettison the responsibility to guard whatever rights we assign to unborn children. The right to live and die should be included in that list of rights.”

One notices that there is no mention of federal or provincial legislators. It is a shared responsibility, as I suggested to the Premier yesterday. That is the position of our party. Could the Premier please tell me whether he agrees that it is in fact a shared responsibility?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I want to answer this seriously. The answer is I do not. I think the Attorney General answered that question very clearly yesterday. I do not want to be provocative because it is a serious issue. The member recognized that in his own letter to the Prime Minister. I understand that and I think he would understand that and I cannot understand his change of position.

Let me just say this. I read the

article of the honourable member and if the member talked to all the members of this House there would be different shades and complexions of opinion on this matter. This is one of the most profound moral questions of our day, not just today, but it has been for many years and will be, I believe, for many years into the future as well.

The Supreme Court of Canada has pronounced on the legality of a particular federal statute. That is under the Criminal Code and that is what we have to deal with today in as sensitive and thoughtful a way as we possibly can.

I recognize, and the member recognizes inside his own party, the different opinions on this and I say to you, Mr. Speaker, and through you to the honourable member, I respect the individual positions of individual members of this House who reflect, I think, the broad community, but I believe that the minister and the Attorney General are dealing with this in a sensitive and thoughtful way within the confines of the federal law.

The member admitted yesterday in his letter to the Prime Minister that the legislation with respect to the so-called rights of the foetus versus the rights of the mother are exclusively the prerogative of the federal Parliament. That is a matter the federal Minister of Justice will be dealing with, possibly on the advice of the attorneys general; I do not know, but I can tell the member that the responses from our ministers, who I believe have conducted this discussion in a most thoughtful and indeed, shall I say, nonpartisan way, will reflect as best they can the views of our community to help come to a successful resolution right across this country.

Mr. Brandt: By way of my final supplementary, for the clarification of the Premier and this House, let me point out to the Premier that in the context of the letter I wrote to the Prime Minister I made it abundantly clear that the responsibility of the federal government related to the Criminal Code and did not relate whatsoever to the question of health procedures in this province, which are the purview and the responsibility and the mandate of the Minister of Health. I made that very clear in the letter I wrote to the Minister of Health, from which the Premier is not quoting. He is quoting specifically out of one letter relating only to the Criminal Code.

I ask the Premier again, in light of the fact that many of his back-benchers, including the member for Chatham-Kent (Mr. Bossy), whose speech at his own annual meeting of a week ago I could quote to the Premier, indicated that this is a shared responsibility and that this matter should be shared by the members of this Legislature in terms of determining the rights of the unborn in this province and that it is not exclusively and singularly the right of the federal government, will the Premier and his government put forth a nonpartisan position so that we can, in fact, take a position with respect to the protection of the unborn in this province? Will he do that?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I think the honourable member is not characterizing this debate quite properly. There are some things that are under the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal government, as the member said in his own letter. I will read it for him: “The federal government is the only body that can enact legislation that would encode protection for the unborn child in the Criminal Code.”

So we are dealing under the context of the Criminal Code; that one provision of the code was struck down, and now the federal government, on the advice of some of the Supreme Court justices, will be dealing with that very sensitive question, to which, I say to the member frankly, I do not know the answer, and I do not know whether my honourable friend does, about where the rights of the mother collide with the rights of the foetus and at what age period or how many weeks into the pregnancy. Those are questions the federal Minister of Justice will be dealing with.

There are other matters that are under our jurisdiction, there is no question about it: the question of access, the question of payment, the question of where procedures are performed. The minister has said to the member that she is consulting widely with the Ontario Hospital Association, members of the profession and the College of Physicians of Surgeons of Ontario on these questions, but our responsibility is to make sure that every single person in this province has access in a humane and sensitive way to legal medical care, and that is where this government sits on the matter.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr. Swart: I want to preface my question to the Premier by reminding him of a couple of other promises he made before the last election. Three days before that election, he said in Cambridge, “We have a very specific plan to lower insurance rates.” He said to students at Brock University in St. Catharines a few months earlier, “I am all in favour of government-run auto insurance if it can be proved that the system would be cheaper and not subsidized by government.”

Given that the evidence at the all-party hearings on insurance demonstrated conclusively that there will be further substantial rate increases in auto insurance this year in addition to the 4.5 per cent that the government already awarded the insurance companies and in spite of the rate review board --

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Swart: -- and I proved that public plans in the west are far more efficient, with no subsidization, cheaper rates and a better product --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Swart: Will the Premier now, even at this late date, abandon his silly plan for a rate review board and instead proceed to implement a public plan as he promised at St. Catharines?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: No.

Mr. Swart: I guess there are none so blind as those who will not see, even though they have made promises. Now we have increased rates when the Premier promised lower rates. Now he is reneging on a public auto plan when he promised one, on conditions that have now been substantiated.

Is it not true that all Bill 2 and the Premier’s program do is pay his election debt to the insurance companies for their election support? Quite simply, he and his government have been --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am not sure where my honourable friend was during the campaign, but I think this matter was fully litigated --

Mr. Swart: You deliberately misled this House, and you know it.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the member for Welland-Thorold withdraw those words?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Will the member for Welland-Thorold withdraw --

Mr. Swart: They’ve got their hands so deep in the insurance companies’ pockets, their knuckles are dragging on the ground.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the member for Welland-Thorold withdraw? I have no alternative but to ask Mr. Swart to remove himself from the chamber for the balance of the day.

Mr. Swart left the chamber.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. There are other members who would like to ask questions.

POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS

Mrs. Marland: My question is to the Minister of the Environment. David Edwards, who is the leading authority in his ministry on polychlorinated biphenyls, has said that PCBs have the same toxicity as Aspirin. Can the minister tell this House if that is now the ministry policy, and is he now taking PCBs for his headaches?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I have not seen any particular comments of that kind and I think it would be unwise for me to comment on something that I have not seen. I know that a previous Minister of the Environment once said that the only life that would be affected by it would be if a rat ate the pavement or something. I certainly disagreed with that at that time and still do.

Mr. B. Rae: Why is there asphalt on your lips?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I do not know what to say after the Leader of the Opposition intervened, but I will try to answer it.

Mr. Speaker: Would you try? All right. Thank you.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I think one would recognize that some considerable research has gone on that would indicate there are legitimate concerns which have been expressed about PCBs. There have been a number of scientific studies which have indicated that, at least in laboratory tests that have taken place, they have been detrimental to the health of certain animal life.

Certainly, the member would know the manner in which we have dealt with PCBs, the very careful manner in which we have always attempted to have them stored appropriately until such time as there is a destruction mechanism. On that basis, I think the member would know my long-standing view that PCBs are substances with which we should be concerned. It is my intention to continue to take all appropriate action to ensure the public is protected from them.

Mrs. Marland: This minister himself has referred previously to the toxicity of PCBs and called them a toxic menace. I am also pleased to hear him say that he has always seen to it that PCBs were stored in a proper location because my supplementary is to ask him about that location which is now provided as a storage site for PCBs in the flood plain of the Don River. I might add that if that flood plain does flood in the spring, it will wash right out into Lake Ontario from which we have thousands of people obtaining their drinking water.

The question is, when the minister allowed the approval for this site, was there any public input? Were they invited to comment? Were alternatives considered? Was there an environmental assessment? Why did he do it?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: If the member were sensible about this, she would know there are PCBs right across Ontario. She knows darned well that Ontario Hydro for years utilized PCBs in this province for the purposes of a coolant and that all over Ontario there is secure storage of PCBs. That is a regulation we have in effect. It is a regulation that has been emulated by some other provinces. It is a regulation which in fact has drawn a lot of favourable comment from those who are following Ontario’s lead in this regard.

I am always happy to look into any specific instance that members of the House bring to my attention, but to pretend that this would be the only quantity of PCBs there is in the province is interesting. I will tell the member where the worst example of the storage of PCBs is in this province. It is going to cost the taxpayers of this province a heck of a lot of money, because her government left the largest quantity of PCBs in Canada sitting in Smithville and it is going to cost the people of this province millions of dollars to clean it up.

Mr. Harris: You are going to move it to the Don Valley. What a hero.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: You check Smithville.

Mr. Harris: We will move them from there to the Don Valley.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: You check Smithville.

Mr. Harris: Your answer is the Don Valley.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. There are other members waiting to ask questions.

LANDFILL SITE

Mr. Owen: I too have a question for the Minister of the Environment. In my riding, in the township of West Gwillimbury, is located a landfill site which has had a fairly lengthy career and certainly a very controversial one. Last summer, I had the opportunity to walk this site, and while it has a magnificent view towards the Nottawasaga River and Georgian Bay, the immediate view is a vision of what should not be done in the management of a landfill site. It used to be owned privately and has now been taken over by the township.

My question to the minister is, what is the ministry doing to determine the extent of problems developing from the bad management at the site? Who is going to be looking after the cost of whatever the study or the appraisal is going to result in? In other words, is the township going to be stuck with it or is the --

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

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The site, as the member has correctly pointed out, was previously owned and operated by York Sanitation and was later purchased by Waste Management Inc. and its Canadian landfill division. Subsequent to that, in 1966, the township of West Gwillimbury purchased the landfill site from Waste Management Inc., and the township now has assumed the responsibility for maintaining the integrity of the site as the new owner of that site.

The Ministry of the Environment, as the member has asked, has required that West Gwillimbury township have consultants who will prepare a report outlining the impact of the existing facility and the potential impact of the proposed new area. That is a method which we follow on a regular basis. This was required because of the encroachment of the landfill on to the adjacent lands that the member has made reference to.

The failure to maintain the required 50-foot buffer to the east and poor operation have been matters of great concern to us. A number of requests from the township to resolve this matter --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Supplementary.

Mr. Owen: I would like to ask, first of all, does the minister have any idea when the study might be completed and available to us and to the community to determine how bad the situation is? Is there any determination as to who is going to look after part or all of the costs that are probably going to be facing us?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The member makes reference to the operation of the landfill site, and I can tell him that the certificate of approval certainly did include the establishment of a comprehensive ground-water and surface-water monitoring program, which I think people in the area were looking for; a program of remedial action to protect all site boundaries from the unacceptable offsite impact; a new entrance; scales and operating plans; an inspector on the site. I think that is exceedingly important.

The ministry presented a draft certificate of approval for the review of the concerned residents so that they would have input. The new provisional certificate of approval was issued on October 19, 1987. Of course, if there is not compliance with that certificate of approval -- and we hope that it will be implemented as soon as possible -- the ultimate, when there is not compliance with that of course, is that the investigations and enforcement branch of the Ministry of the Environment has, under Bill 112, the prerogative of conducting an investigation and ensuring --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

INJURED WORKERS’ MEDICAL REPORTS

Miss Martel: I have a question for the Minister of Labour concerning the office of the worker adviser, which is under his ministry. The minister will be aware that the office of the worker adviser was established mainly in response to the overwhelming number of Workers’ Compensation Board appeals that MPPs were handling. Even with this office in place, there are many of us who are still handling a tremendous number of appeals on behalf of injured workers.

The minister will also know that in order to fight the appeals we require up-to-date medical reports from general practitioners or from orthopaedic surgeons, and unfortunately, in Ontario the practice of extra billing for these has not ended. Annually -- and members of the House should be aware of this -- the ministry provides a sum to the office of the worker adviser to pay for these medical reports. Last year that sum was approximately $50,000. I am wondering when I and other members of this House can expect money from the ministry to pay for these medical reports as well.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: It is an interesting suggestion. The question really does go, certainly, beyond simply the expenses that MPPs or constituents of MPPs might be incurring to the whole functioning of the office of the worker adviser.

My friend the member for Sudbury East is right, of course. It is two years ago now since the office of the worker adviser was set up, and it is very busy indeed right across the province. Notwithstanding that, many of us in this House, many of the 130 members who are here today, have a fairly substantial case load of workers’ compensation claimants who come to their MPPs for advice and oftentimes assistance in conjunction with appeals.

What the member is suggesting in her question is that some source of funding be provided through the ministry to pay for medical reports. It is a suggestion, frankly, that I have not heard before, but it is certainly one I will consider. I will have to do an assessment of the extent to which members are incurring those expenses.

Miss Martel: We could easily end the problem if the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan) would stop the extra billing, but I do not expect that to happen.

Given that a number of regional offices now have a backlog of anywhere from three to six months, which is the situation in Sudbury, given that the injured worker who has had his benefits terminated cannot afford to pay $100 for an orthopaedic surgeon and given that MPPs’ offices do not have a budget for this, I am wondering if the minister can give us some kind of time or date when this assessment can take place so we can continue with the business of trying to service injured workers in our own ridings.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I hope my friend the member for Sudbury East can get her facts straight. This is certainly not an issue of extra billing. Medical bills that arise in conjunction with a claim against the Workers’ Compensation Board are separate and apart from the Ontario health insurance plan billing system. It simply does not have anything to do with the Minister of Health or anything that would touch on the whole process of billing through OHIP.

The member suggests that there should be a system of providing ongoing funding for claimants to pay for those costs. It is not an issue that has been brought to my attention before, and I cannot tell the member the extent of the problem across the province. Certainly, there is some backlog in some offices of worker advisers, and we are going to be looking into that backlog to ensure that claimants who come to the office of the worker adviser are handled in a speedy and expeditious fashion.

TRADE DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Sterling: I have a question of the Premier. I would like to welcome him back from Europe, although we are not exactly certain what he achieved there in terms of multilateral trade.

If the Premier is so concerned about encouraging multilateral trade in Europe, why has he not appointed a new provincial agent in France, a position which he knew was going to become vacant as far back as 1986? And does he not now regret the closing of the Brussels office?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: We have an acting agent who is doing an excellent job. Everybody who has been through Paris tells me that. In fact, the member was over there visiting Europe last year on behalf of the government, and I am sure he would agree with the very same thing because he travelled about there.

Interjections.

Mr. Sterling: I am not an agent general.

Interjections.

Mr. Sterling: Yes, that is right. I am not even a general.

In November 1986, we raised with the then Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology the fact that he did not have a new assistant deputy minister for industry and trade development or expansion. The then minister, the member for Quinte (Mr. O’Neil), told us in November 1986, in his words, “In fact, the advertisement is in the newspaper this morning.” That was 15 months ago.

Last week, more than a year later, we were advised that they were advertising this position as it was still vacant. If trade development is such a high priority with this government, can the Premier tell us why, after more than a year, this very key position has not been filled?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: We have a very active trade policy group that is working around the world. As a matter of fact, trade is virtually at record levels.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: My honourable friend appears to be applying for the job as agent general. He would not be the first in his party, but we can very happily interview him, along with the many others. I am sure his merits will be quite outstanding to all the people who interview.

In fact, we are pushing very hard on the trade fronts in the Pacific Rim, as the member will know. His honourable leader joined us in the Pacific Rim a year or so ago, and as I recall he enjoyed the trip very much. Every time I saw him he appeared to be enjoying the trip, I must say. That is the kind of initiative we need. I appreciate the help of the honourable interim leader of the Progressive Conservative Party in that trade mission to the Pacific Rim.

We are running trade missions now in Europe, and the honourable minister is in India -- on this day, I believe -- establishing new links between Ontario and the emerging world. I believe that this province has the capacity to be one of the great multilateral traders and build on the great strengths we have, not only for the benefit of the people of this province but right across the free world for the benefit of those people with whom we trade.

My honourable friend is quite right to bring up these matters, and I appreciate his support.

ROUGE VALLEY

Mr. Faubert: My question is to the Minister of Government Services. Many residents of Scarborough and most community groups, including many in my riding of Scarborough-Ellesmere, have expressed concern that development of the tablelands outside but adjacent to the Rouge Valley system could harm the ecological systems of the valley and damage historic sites and wooded areas. Their position is that this would prevent future generations from enjoying this unique area. Some recently raised the further concern that the decision has already been made in principle that these tablelands will be developed for housing.

Can the minister advise this Legislature whether such a decision has been made?

Hon. Mr. Patten: I would like to thank the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere and inform him that the cabinet has not made such a decision.

He should be aware that the Scarborough council has agreed to or is in the process of submitting a proposal for some rezoning that would keep this land open or for recreational purposes. That process involves a proposal to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. When that proposal comes forward, everyone will have a chance to respond accordingly.

Mr. Faubert: I would like to thank the minister for clarifying that. I am aware there are many competing interests and concerns the minister is confronting in making a decision on this matter. However, can the minister assure this Legislature that he will consider the ecological effects on the Rouge Valley that any development of the tablelands may bring about?

Hon. Mr. Patten: I can assure the member that all parties that have an interest in this particular piece of land will be heard and all interests will be considered. I think we have demonstrated our interest and concern for the environment and that we are committed to the planning process which will assure full consultation.

EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES PROGRAM

Mr. Allen: I have a question of the Minister of Community and Social Services. According to that ministry’s own estimates, over 100,000 able-bodied on welfare are missing out on employment opportunities to get off welfare because the employment opportunities programs of the government are of insufficient scale to include them. On the other hand, some 15,000 who do manage to get on them are not able to stay at work but go back to welfare because they cannot survive in the low-wage, dead-end jobs the minister’s program leads to.

What is the minister going to do to provide adequate employability programs that will get the able-bodied, those in need of training, etc., off welfare rolls and into decent and well-paying jobs?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: Our ministry, in co-operation with the Ministry of Skills Development, is involved in a number of training programs. The honourable member will be aware that we are currently co-operating with the federal government in a two-year employability program specifically for those people who are currently on either welfare or family benefits. That is a joint $100-million program -- $50 million from the province and $50 million from the federal government.

This provides job-developer opportunities at the local municipal level. It even provides opportunities for recipients to start businesses of their own. It reinforces some of the programs this ministry already has in place; for example, the social service employment program whereby single mothers can, for up to one year, work in one of the various social service programs in their community and be supported with respect to employment. The member is aware we have the work incentive program, which enables people to get out into productive employment and be supported financially.

The member is aware we have programs for the children of recipients of social service, both for after school and for the summertime.

Those are the ones available in our ministry. The Ministry of Skills Development is responsible to a larger extent for the broader community. I want to reinforce, however, that the employability program between the two levels of government is a clearly targeted program whereby we are redirecting resources that would normally go --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Supplementary.

Mr. Allen: The minister knows that even with the best success of all those programs, he is probably still not going to reach more than 25,000 of the people I alluded to. Let me refer specifically to the community economic development program, which is part of that employability package. Four lines or so were devoted to that in an announcement on July 31. The next significant thing that happened was on December 10, when 23 people from across the province, a preselected group, were given the complex guidelines that were necessary and given a panic button deadline of January 22 in order to respond with programs that could amount to $1 million in scale.

Obviously, either the minister has preselected the group that will respond to that program or else that program is going to go undersubscribed. Is that the effective and imaginative way he plans to go about getting people off welfare in these new programs and into substantial and well-paying jobs?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The honourable member did put his finger on part of the difficulty. The program I am describing and that he has referred to is a two-year, time-limited program between the two levels of government. The purpose of it was for us to explore jointly a number of possible ways of assisting people who are on social assistance. It is a short time period and we have put out a number of proposals working directly with the municipalities, sometimes working through the federal government’s employment offices and sometimes working through our offices.

Because of the time limit component to it, we did ask a consultant to try to pinpoint for us those communities and those kinds of potential operations that would be more likely to succeed in the very short run, or that would at least have a reasonable chance of success in the short run. So if we can jointly with our funding partners at the federal level decide to go forward to a longer-term run, we would have some successes that we could show them.

The member refers to the fact that we asked people to come up with a proposal within a month. We had a couple of communities -- his own, for example, in Hamilton -- that said they needed a little more time. They were given a little more time, and those proposals are now coming forward.

I have no way of knowing for sure whether the time line that we have suggested in terms of demonstrating their ability will be sufficient. It is a program whereby we are going to try a number of initiatives.

SUBSTITUTE FOR ROAD SALT

Mr. Villeneuve: I have a question for the Minister of Transportation. The minister will be aware of a couple of mistakes he made yesterday when answering questions at the Rural Ontario Municipal Association convention, when he said he did not know that corn could be used to provide an environmentally safe substitute for road salt. In fact, his ministry has been testing CMA, calcium magnesium acetate, for years and has published reports that if corn were to be used to produce the acetate in CMA, then the cost could decline substantially.

Is the government of Ontario willing to commit itself to get rid of road salt in favour of CMA, which is environmentally safe?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: It has been a very informative afternoon. Earlier we learned who or what was eating our asphalt roads, and now I have learned that corn is the ingredient in calcium magnesium acetate. Perhaps had the member availed himself of the ROMA convention yesterday, he would have heard the question asked of me from a member from eastern Ontario.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: It was a good answer, too.

Hon. Mr. Fulton: I gave an excellent answer. Thank you.

The fact is that I did refer to calcium magnesium acetate, but I really was not deeply involved in the chemistry that brought that product on the market. I apologize that I was unaware that corn was the aggregate in that product.

1f the member had been aware of questions last year, we dealt with this very issue in looking at that product as a substitute for salt. The fact of the matter is that

whereas salt is in the price range of $30 to $35 per ton, CMA at the moment is in the range of $1,045 per ton. The magnitude is in the hundreds of millions of dollars to this province. At this time, while we will continue, as we have, exploring other options and alternatives to the use of salt on our roads and highways, we certainly are not in a financial position to eliminate the salt and go with the new product, which in any event is not in the supplies required for Ontario’s needs.

Mr. Villeneuve: The minister is right when he says calcium magnesium acetate has probably been too expensive in the past. But I am sure that he will know now that if CMA is produced from corn, it can be done for 12 cents a pound, a cost which would save taxpayers money due to considerably less corrosion and structural problems being caused by calcium.

If industry had a clear commitment that CMA would replace salt, more economic manufacturing would be possible. Will the minister now pronounce himself in favour of an environmentally safe product and give a signal to the industry that CMA will he used in the not-too-distant future?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: Certainly, we will continue to pursue a less environmentally sensitive product than salt. One of the problems is, as I stated in my first answer, that the availability of the product is inadequate for our needs and the lowest base price that I am aware of is more in the range of $500 a ton. If indeed our needs could be met, it is still in the order of 15 times the cost of salt; but certainly the member has my undertaking and my ministry’s undertaking, as the member to his right can attest.

We have been exploring and experimenting with many products for a continued period of time. Obviously, it is in our best financial interest as a ministry, and certainly in this government’s interest, to reduce the outlay for those purposes. It is certainly in the interests of the motorists, the municipalities and everyone else with whom we are financially involved across this province. Certainly, the member has my commitment that we will continue to pursue an alternative.

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD

Mr. Hampton: My question is for the Minister of Labour. The minister should know that there is an incredible backlog of hundreds of cases at the Workers’ Compensation Board office in Thunder Bay. One of those cases, but I would suggest not an unusual case, is the case of a Gordon Gallinger of Atikokan, who has been fighting with the board’s bureaucracy since 1975. In that time, he has seen three medical specialists who all confirm his disability.

Over a year ago -- a year and a half ago in October -- he was told by the board’s bureaucracy that he would be assessed for a disability pension within one year. As of last Friday, we telephoned the board to see when the assessment was going to be, and it said maybe in nine or 10 months. Does the minister think it is fair that an injured worker should survive on a poverty-level income for two years while the board’s bureaucracy decides if it can assess him? Does he think it is fair, and what is the minister going to do --

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think the question has been asked.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: Obviously, with the time expired in question period, I do not want to get involved in a lengthy answer and I could not provide details to my friend on the specific case. My friend should know that there are well over 400,000 cases that are dealt with by the board every single year. He will also know that in the current regime we have a system whereby pension assessments and supplements are under very substantial review.

I hope in the spring session we will be bringing in reforms so that those sorts of reviews can happen more expeditiously, a better system for people who suffer permanent but partial disabilities. If my friend likes, I will make inquiries about the specific case and then, if he likes, I can get back to him privately.

PETITIONS

INCOME TAX ASSISTANCE

Mr. Pouliot: I have a petition signed by well over 600 people in the riding of Lake Nipigon:

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

“We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario to impress upon the federal government the immediate need to address the inequities and shortcomings in the qualification process for income tax assistance for residents of remote northern communities.”

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Possibly, we should just wait until there is a little less commotion.

RECREATION TRAIL

Mr. Pollock: I have a petition to the Lieutenant Governor and the members of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

“That we are in favour of the former Canadian National Railway line known as the Marmora subdivision being developed as a recreation trail.”

It is signed by 303 in favour and one opposed.

NATUROPATHY

Mrs. Stoner: I have six petitions with a total of 65 signatures dealing with the subject of naturopathy.

The petitions “call on the government to introduce legislation that would guarantee naturopaths the right to practise their art and science to the fullest without prejudice or harassment.”

Mr. McGuigan: I have a petition:

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

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

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

“And

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

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

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order once more. Thank you.

Mr. Revile: My petition is in the same style as that of the member for Essex-Kent. It is signed by 50 residents of Metro Toronto and is forwarded through the chiropractic and naturopathic clinic at 320 Danforth Avenue. It has the same request to the Legislature.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mrs. Marland: I have a petition to the Premier (Mr. Peterson), which says:

“The undersigned objects to your decision to pass the responsibility for seven-day retailing on to the municipalities and also objects to the inevitable increased costs and the elimination of the opportunity for a common pause day for families.”

This petition is presented through the collection facility of Lansing Buildall at several of its branches. There are in excess of 900 in this particular group.

Mr. Speaker: I listened carefully. Was that addressed to the Lieutenant Governor in Council?

Mrs. Marland: Actually, it is addressed to the Premier.

Mr. Speaker: Oh, well.

Mrs. Marland: Is it possible to ask the Premier to forward it?

Mr. Speaker: You may send it to the Premier.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

MACHIN MINES LIMITED

Mr. Kanter moved first reading of Bill Pr34,

An Act to revive Machin Mines Limited.

Motion agreed to.

PROW YELLOWKNIFE GOLD MINES LTD. ACT

Mr. Kanter moved first reading of Bill Pr38,

An Act to revive Prow Yellowknife Gold Mines Ltd.

Motion agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

House in committee of the whole.

MEMBERS’ CONFLICT OF INTEREST ACT /

LOI SUR LES CONFLITS D’INTÉRÊTS DES MEMBRES DE L’ASSEMBLÉE

Consideration of Bill 1,

An Act respecting Conflicts of Interest of Members of the Assembly and the Executive Council.

Etude du projet de loi 1, Loi concernant les conflits d’intérêts des membres de l’Assemblée et du Conseil des ministres.

Mr. Chairman: Are there any questions, comments or amendments, and if so, to which sections of the bill? I ask the members at this point, since I would like to address a complete list of any of the sections they may want to amend at this moment, please. I think it will make it easier for the chair to be able to proceed with the revision of the bill.

Mr. Eves: I have one amendment, and one amendment only, that we are proposing to

section 20 of the bill.

Mr. Chairman:

Section 20, thank you. Any other members?

Mr. Sterling: I would have proposed many amendments to this bill. However, during the committee hearing our caucus presented over 20 to 25 different amendments to different sections, and in a bill like the Members’ Conflict of Interest Act, where we had understood the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) was going to listen to amendments with some reason or objectivity, we had expected that there would have been some acceptance of at least a few of the amendments. We were rejected in every case, on every amendment.

Therefore, our caucus has decided to introduce only one amendment at this time because we feel the Attorney General is not receptive to change, not receptive to reason, not receptive to objectivity, even though this is the kind of legislation which should be forged and made by all parties in this Legislature.

Therefore, it is with some regret that I do not present those amendments again for inclusion at this time.

There were some good amendments put forward, not only by our party but also by the New Democratic Party, and very few were accepted. There were various minor ones accepted, but there were none of substance accepted by this government. Their attempt at appearing to listen to reasoned argument, even to listen to the unofficial commissioner of complaints, the Honourable John Black Aird -- even his reasoned amendments or suggested amendments fell on the deaf ears of the Attorney General.

Therefore, we are facing this particular part of the procedure and trying to save the time of the House only so that we will not bore members with good reason which will not be accepted by an arrogant majority government.

Mr. Offer: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: With respect to the particular amendment which has been indicated, I am wondering if that is an amendment to

section 20 or if it is more properly

section 21.

Mr. Eves: Quite right, Mr. Chairman. I have just been given a copy from the table, and I see that, as the bill has been reprinted, it is now

section 21. So the amendment will be with respect to

section 21.

Mr. Chairman: Do other members wish to list at this moment other sections to which they would like to present an amendment or on which they would like discussion? I understand, therefore, that the only amendment concerned is on

section 21. Is that correct? Fair enough. In that case, shall sections 1 to 20 carry?

All those in favour will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Sections 1 to 20, inclusive, agreed to.

Les articles 1 à 20, inclusivement, sont adoptés.

Section/article 21:

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Eves moves that

section 21 of the bill be amended by striking out “Members’ Conflict of Interest Act, 1988” in the first and second lines and inserting, in lieu thereof, “Members’ Disclosure Act, 1988.”

M. Eves propose que l’article 21 du projet de loi soit modifié par substitution, à «Loi de 1988 sur les conflits d’intérêts des membres de l’Assemblée», aux première et deuxième lignes, de «Loi de 1988 sur la divulgation exigée des membres de l’Assemblée».

Mr. Eves: As my colleague has already indicated, we are moving only one amendment in committee of the whole. I do not believe in taking up the entire Legislature’s time with the many amendments our party and the official opposition moved in committee, which were defeated, as my colleague has said, by the majority members on that committee, the government members in many instances.

It was pointed out by government members throughout the debate on this bill in committee that, for the first time, we had disclosure legislation. In fact, the Attorney General on numerous occasions in committee, when he was talking about the bill, did not refer to it as “conflict-of-interest” legislation. He referred to it as “disclosure” legislation and “this disclosure act.” For the first time we will have provisions with respect to “disclosure” in the province of Ontario.

All that is quite right. The Attorney General is quite right in that regard. In fact, he is so right that we have moved this amendment with respect to

section 21 because, in effect, that is all this bill really does. It definitely does require disclosure by members, and members of the executive council, of potential conflicts and what their interests are so that all other members of the public, and members of the Legislature, can see where potential or perhaps actual conflicts do exist.

But there is nothing in this act, as we have indicated on several occasions in committee, in the Legislature and here again this afternoon in the House, prohibiting members of the executive council from entering into very direct agreements, arrangements and contracts with the province of Ontario. If we read and interpret the act correctly -- and if we do not, I wish some other members of the House would enlighten us -- there is nothing that requires a cabinet minister to divest his or her interest where a conflict exists.

They merely have to state that they have a conflict. They obviously cannot participate in any vote or discussion with respect to that particular matter, but once they have done that it is fine to fill their pockets with the taxpayers’ money as long as they have disclosed their conflict. We, in our party, believe -- and I believe the official opposition does as well -- that surely there has to be a much higher standard among members of the executive council than that.

In this province in the past, it is interesting to note, even when there was no conflict-of-interest legislation but merely guidelines -- for example, in the Bill Davis government years -- this type of activity could not have taken place. There are several cabinet ministers sitting over there today who, with all due respect to them, would not be able to be cabinet ministers in a Bill Davis government because of the fact there is no divestment required here. Under this potential legislation, Bill 1, cabinet ministers can have contracts directly with the province. As long as they disclose that conflict, it is fair ball.

For example, you can be a cabinet minister, have a forest management agreement and make $20 million of the taxpayers’ money. As long as you disclose that interest, that is fine. You can own an office building in a numbered company and lease it to Ontario. As long as you disclose it and do not take

part in those discussions as they come up in cabinet or wherever and do not vote on the same, that is fine too.

I do not really think that is what the average member of the public out there looks at or thinks of when he is thinking about conflict-of-interest legislation. I am sure most members of the public would be shocked. If we look at some of the goings-on at the federal level in recent months, and indeed at the provincial level as well --

Mr. Callahan: Is something happening up here?

Mr. Eves: The whole point of this act, the reason we have this act in the first place is because there were a couple of cabinet ministers in this government who found themselves in difficulty, so now we are going to write a conflict-of-interest act. That was the whole point of this act in the first place.

Originally, it started out to cover members of the executive council. Then the government decided maybe we should expand this to members of the Legislative Assembly as a whole. We in our party do not find anything wrong with that concept. In fact, we think that is great, but surely there has to be a higher standard or degree demanded of members of the executive council who are making the day-to-day policy and operational decisions of a government.

Surely there has to be a higher standard of conduct expected of those members of the executive council than of ordinary members, because they have access to very confidential information which ordinary members of the Legislative Assembly do not have. They also make decisions and have powers which members of the Legislative Assembly, as ordinary members, do not have.

Along with that responsibility, along with that power and that access to confidential information, surely goes the responsibility of delivering it properly and prudently. The perception is as important as anything, that Ontario is entitled to government without conflict of interest and without cabinet ministers lining their pockets at the expense of the Ontario taxpayer.

Surely, if you are going to be a member of the executive council, as you had to do during the Bill Davis years, if you are going to accept that appointment you know ahead of time that you are going to have to divest yourself of any holdings you may have which bring you into conflict with the government and which end up, as a net result, with taxpayers’ money in your pocket or that of your family or your associates. I think that is crucial. That cuts right to the quick of this whole issue.

This act is really nothing more than a disclosure act. It really does not do much about conflict of interest per se. That is why we in our party are moving that the

short title of this act be changed from the Members’ Conflict of Interest Act to the Members’ Disclosure Act. We quite agree with the Attorney General; we think it is a disclosure act, as he referred to it many times in committee. We think that is basically about all it does.

It does not go far enough. We would have liked to see many amendments made which we moved during committee and some amendments the official opposition made, as well. We think they would have greatly strengthened this act.

There are other jurisdictions in Canada which have tougher conflict-of-interest legislation right now. Surely, if we in Ontario are moving now to enshrine in legislation conflict-of-interest guidelines, we should be making them as strong as possible, not making them stronger for ordinary members but weakening them for members of the executive council.

There are other deficiencies in this act. Those comments I will reserve and others of my colleagues will reserve until third-reading debate, which I understand will, by agreement, take place this afternoon as well. I will not take up more of the committee’s time other than to point out the fact that we feel very strongly that this indeed is a members’ disclosure act as opposed to a true piece of conflict-of-interest legislation.

Mr. Breaugh: I want to speak briefly to the amendment that has been proposed because it is a matter that we did discuss at some length during the course of the committee hearings.

The government makes an argument that the cornerstone of what it is trying to do with this legislation is disclosure. I would agree, and my caucus agrees, that is one of the important parts of a conflict-of-interest bill.

I am afraid I would like to accept the amendment, but I cannot. The conclusion I came to during the course of the committee hearings is that, if anything, this bill is not a disclosure bill. This bill purports to put on the public record, so that the public can see and understand, where the possible conflicts might arise in a cabinet minister’s stock investments and the business interests that he might have.

It does not do that. Here is, I think, one of the fatal flaws in the bill. It purports to be a bill which provides the public with information about its elected officials and it does not do that.

Let me just quote one example, because there has not been much attention paid to the disclosure statements that were filed by this cabinet now in office after the last election. There is a reason that no one is writing a whole lot of news stories about those disclosure statements. There is not very much information there.

One can get a rough cut at who has some interest in some areas, but try this on for size; pretend for a moment that you are not a member of this Legislature or you may not have a whole lot of investments of your own and you have heard that the cabinet in Ontario files and makes public its private interests and that you, as a private citizen, now have a right to find out what those interests are, and you read the public disclosure statement made by the Premier (Mr. Peterson).

Here it is. He has interests, shares, in a private company, 729252 Ontario Inc., London, Ontario. If you are into investments, if you happen to know who owns this numbered company, you might just have received some information. If you are an ordinary citizen in Ontario or a member like me, this statement tells you absolutely nothing -- not a thing.

It says the Premier has a residence in London, that he has a registered retirement savings plan with a self-directed portfolio, Industrial Growth Fund. He has bank deposits. He has Canada Treasury bills. He has Canada savings bonds. He has participation in the following underwriting syndicates of Lloyd’s of London: Marine syndicates 228, 321, 334, 406, 741, 851, 888; nonmarine syndicates 43, 90, 435, 799; aviation syndicate 312; motor syndicate 533.

This is what is on the public record as being information about the holdings of the Premier of Ontario. I contend that this is not a public information process. This is a public disinformalion process. This does not tell the public in Ontario anything about any of those numbered companies. It does not tell the public of Ontario anything about the size of the investments that might be there.

We had interesting arguments in committee as to whether the amounts were relevant. There was some disagreement, I should tell you, in the committee over that. I argue that there is a difference between someone who has a dollar’s worth of shares in a company and someone who has $100,000 worth of shares in a company. I am not interested that you give me the specific dollar value, which may be difficult to do, but I am interested in some classification system that would indicate that this person is a heavy hitter in the stock market or just dabbles on Friday morning.

I think there is a distinction to be made there, just as I would say there is a distinction between what I own, which is 100 shares in a food co-op in Oshawa that does not exist any more, and somebody who has 100 shares in a large food chain that is currently in operation.

Those are distinctions which I think ordinary people make. They want to know these things, and they want it written in language which is clearly understood by them. This should not be a law that is written so that the lawyers understand and no one else does. It should not be a law written in such a way that an investment broker could understand it, but no one else in our population stood a chance.

It is interesting that in the course of our discussions in committee, one or two little amendments were accepted; one, for example, which said that if it were a private company, you could give a better description. There was general agreement that there could be a better description where it was a publicly held corporation and you knew what its activities were.

But I want to put on the record this afternoon that in my view the disclosure provisions of this bill are nonexistent, that this bill provides for disinformation rather than information and that this provides an occasion to cover up your holdings rather than reveal them. I believe that to be a fraudulent act. I believe it is fraudulent to say to the people of Ontario, “We now have public disclosure of our cabinet’s investments,” when in fact you put it out in a form the public cannot possibly understand.

There are some other things I find unsettling. The original idea was that there would be a public statement of assets and liabilities. I think what we were searching for as a consensus in committee was certainly not the American model because, members may know, in many jurisdictions in the United States when they talk public disclosure they do not jack around; they mean all your bank accounts, a full investigation by the federal income tax people and an investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. They mean the Securities and Exchange Commission takes a look at what you have and all this goes on the public record.

The Americans seem to live with that. Sometimes they withhold portions of that. Under certain circumstances only a select group of people gets to see the information. But when they talk disclosure down there, they do not jack around with the process. They put it all out on the table and everybody has access to it. There are a few limitations to it, but very few. Our system is exactly the opposite.

In reading the statements that are made public by this cabinet, I kept finding something really unusual. Under the

section named “Liabilities,” a large number of people put down that they have absolutely no liabilities. They do not owe anybody anything. Either we have one of the wealthiest cabinets in the country or there is more misinformation under way here.

Where I come from it is normal that a person in my position would have a house; but it is rather unusual that the house would be completely paid for, so you owe a mortgage on something. There are a few people who pay cash for their cars these days, but not many. For most of us who live in this country, we know assets and liabilities. We have perhaps not much understanding of stock investments. Maybe we do not know a whole lot about growth funds, but we do know that we own some things and here is what they are and this is roughly what they are worth; and we owe money for these other things, and those are our liabilities.

It may well be true that there are members of our cabinet -- the Premier is one example -- who have absolutely no liabilities, absolutely no debts anywhere; but I really find it hard to believe. It may be true, but I do find it difficult to understand that there would be absolutely no moneys owing anywhere, of any amount. If you said there were amounts owing of less than $5,000 and that was your classification system, I would agree that was probably not worth bothering with, except to note it.

If you look at it, it is interesting how this matter of conflict of interest keeps coming back into the political cycle in Canada. It simply will not go away now. In the federal government, although this sounded like a theoretical exercise when we were going through it in committee, the latest scandal in the Mulroney cabinet has to do with liabilities, has to do with loans and mortgages and the circumstances under which they were arranged and the amounts.

I would contend that if there were a minister in the Mulroney government who this morning was found to have forgotten to disclose a liability of a $1,000 mortgage on his house, people in Canada would look at that a whole lot differently than they would on what we now know: that a minister of the crown had liabilities in the order of a quarter of a million dollars and that he lived in a condominium that was financed through one of those loans. The circumstances make the difference and the amount makes the difference.

As we go through our political process on conflict of interest, each time we turn around we see a new problem that goes from the theoretical to reality in a hurry. I was very interested in what the Parker commission had to say on this kind of thing. The one thing that struck me about all the $3 million worth of words that the Parker commission put into effect on the Sinclair Stevens inquiry was simply this: “No matter what you do, it must be done in clear, straightforward language.” That was the essence of the argument. You could not obfuscate this thing; you could not cover it up.

In my view, that is precisely what this bill does, and that is why I cannot support this amendment, as much as I would like to.

I wish this bill did cause disclosure in Ontario but, in my view, it does not do that at all. It produces piles of paper. These are the disclosure statements from the current cabinet. What amazes me is that there are whole sheets in here with absolutely nothing on them.

Here is one from a minister of the crown where, included in the member’s statement -- this is a version of a public document that was put out. There is the sheet, the official filing paper of this member’s statement and it says, “Other Matters.” It has the member’s name at the top and there is not one other word on the whole sheet of paper.

Perhaps the purpose of the exercise was to create bulk, in which case it has succeeded. There is a lot of bulk in all this but there is very little fibre in it. There is very little in the way of real information. It strikes me still that the vast majority of what the government repeatedly calls the cornerstone of its legislation, that is disclosure, remains hidden.

In committee we went through the delicate argument, and I believe it is a delicate argument, of distinguishing between any member’s private interests and what should rightfully be made public. I think we agreed that there is no need here in Ontario law to put together a disclosure clause in this type of legislation that has everybody’s bank account as a matter of public record. I do not think that was anybody’s intention. Nobody moved any amendments like that. We spoke against it in committee, because we did not think that was relevant.

Surely, between that extreme, which perhaps would be the American model -- as a matter of fact I know would be the case in some American jurisdictions, where the bank accounts of every single member of the Legislature would be a matter of public record. I believe that is a substantial invasion of privacy, but I do think it is possible to do some kind of classification system and I do think it is possible to provide relevant information.

I go back to what looks to me to be more than coincidence. I know there were good intentions on the part of the commissioner. I believe there were good intentions on the part of the government when it drafted this bill. But the end result was to hide more information than it made public. I believe that is morally wrong.

It would not be so wrong if the government did not go about touting the fact that it had a public disclosure process. The previous government never said anything like that, never said it was going to tell us who owned what or what the assets and liabilities were. They never made that promise. So you could not really fault them when they never made that information available. But this government makes a big deal out of being open, out of providing a disclosure process that is public and provides the public with information.

The tragedy is that it does no such thing. It hides the information. It adds the air of authenticity by striking a commissioner. It chooses one of Canada’s public servants, John Black Aird, to be the interim commissioner. By lending his name to the process he adds a great deal of what people would call respect, authority and legitimacy to the process.

I think it is unfortunate that at the end of this process we have a disclosure process which gives us no information at all, which hides information. It really struck me, in looking through the statements, that if the government was to devise a system whereby members of the cabinet could hide their assets, that is what we would wind up with. If they were trying to start out and devise a process that would keep from the public any pertinent information, that is what we have.

I would like to support the amendment that is being put forward by my colleague this afternoon, but I cannot because this is not a process. This bill does not provide the public with information about anybody’s assets or anybody’s liabilities.

We did listen to the arguments. Some of this stuff I find fascinating, to tell the truth. I think it is fascinating, as the Attorney General, who is not with us this afternoon -- and perhaps that is an indication of the amount of respect he has for this bill in the Legislature. I listened to the Attorney General in committee repeatedly saying, “Well, if it is a publicly traded company, nobody knows its assets.” He kept talking about Inco. Nobody knows the assets of that corporation, and in fact even though you might be a shareholder you cannot go to the annual meeting and find out what its assets are.

I think I could tell members what Inco has. I may not be able to tell them all of it, but I think I could tell them some places in Ontario where they have mines and where they have assets. I think if I were a shareholder in that organization, I would want access to an annual report which told me what they were doing with my money. I think that is a reasonable expectation, and I think most people would want it. It might be right that technically you cannot force them to disclose all the investments they have made all over the world.

The Attorney General did accept the amendment which said a private corporation could have its assets limited, but he led a spirited defence that maybe no one knows what that numbered corporation has as its assets or liabilities. Somebody ought to know. How else will you detect when a conflict of interest occurs if you do not know readily what the investment really is all about?

I found a bad taste in my mouth after we had gone through this process, because I think we made the arguments clearly in committee, both opposition parties did, and I do not think they were given in a spirit of meanness. I think they were given in a spirit of openness to try to point out to the Attorney General, who is a very intelligent man, that there is a problem here. He cannot call this a public disclosure system when it is put in a language that the public does not understand. So I cannot believe for a moment that he did not get the message. I cannot believe for a moment that he did not understand that.

This again is something that I really find sad. He began the process in committee by saying, “The government recognizes that this is not about a conflict-of-interest bill that satisfies only the government side.” He began by talking to me privately and publicly saying, “This ought to be done by consensus.” But every time someone pointed out a part of the bill that should be changed, he said, “But consensus means what I want, not what you want.” That is a different form of consensus than I have ever heard of.

I will make this argument briefly now and perhaps a little more later on. The problem is, the government is incredibly stupid if it really believes that it can pass a conflict-of-interest bill which makes its members all smile but which the opposition parties do not accept. It may think it gets itself off the hook by saying, “We have filed with the commission this much paper;” but there are people who actually read this much paper and there are people who actually ask, “What does all this junk mean?”

The credibility of the government is on the line. It cannot say, “This is about public disclosure,” and then not disclose anything. It cannot say this is about the behaviour of all members of the Legislature when the opposition parties look at this bill and say, “It is wrong;” and the government says: “We do not care what you think. We are not about to take your amendments. We are not about to take into consideration any points which you want to make.”

It may be true. I have heard the old Attorney General, bless his soul, say this on other occasions. This is probably the kind of legislation that should be done in a minority parliament, where whether the government wants to or not it has to listen to some opposition amendments.

Mr. Sterling: Do not bet on it.

Mr. Breaugh: I do not see any difference today than I did three years ago, to tell the truth. I see the same arrogance rolling out of a government with a big majority that I have seen here many times before. It is true that in here, in this House, when the votes are called, the government does not have to listen to us at all. It is true that in here the government can design conflict-of-interest legislation which meets its own political, personal preference and pays no attention to anybody else, but in the long run that is a pretty risky business.

I want to point to our federal colleagues to point out what can go wrong with a huge majority, where a government is so insensitive that even on a bill like this it says, “We have no time for what the opposition says.”

Now it is true, I will give them this much: the public out there today probably does not care about this bill, and the people out there today are probably not lining up at the Clerk’s office to get a look at these disclosure statements; but I will tell members, when it goes wrong, they are going to be there. The press are not hounding members this afternoon about conflict-of-interest legislation; but when something goes wrong, they will be. And when it goes wrong, government members are not going to be able to look over here and say: “Well, listen, all the members agreed that this bill was a good idea.

All the members agreed that this was workable legislation. All the members agreed that this thing was doing what had to be done.” It does not do that.

When the government members get in trouble -- and I did not say “if,” I said “when” -- they will look over here and they are going to find some very angry people. Then they will go outside to the press gallery and they will again find more angry people. And eventually they will face the population, who will indeed be very angry. You see, they may not remember all the fine points; they may not remember every detail in a law like this. It probably is of no interest to them.

But maybe, just maybe, the government should have gone down to Ottawa and talked to Brian Mulroney, because I do not remember a time in Canadian politics when we have ever had this much attention paid to conflict of interest.

I am reminded as I read the Parker commission report on Sinclair Stevens that in the end Sinclair Stevens said: “I didn’t do anything wrong. They have a wrong definition of ‘conflict of interest.’” We, the people of Canada, spent $3 million. At the end of the process, the guy is found guilty on 14 counts, and he walks around saying, “I did not do anything wrong.” Give us a break, folks. There has got to be some sanity in this process somewhere.

You see, there is a government with a huge majority. There is a government that started off very much as this government did: no problems, big majority. It should be able to do things without any difficulty at all. Then, one by one, the wheels kept falling off the cart. Members cannot convince me or anybody I know that that little wagon can be put back together again by the time the next election rolls around. What is more, in the process I believe they have done incredible damage to the whole political structure in Canada.

I saw the Prime Minister of Canada in a press conference in one of those little scrums in the hall -- I think it was probably about Wednesday or Thursday of last week -- the Prime Minister of Canada, with a huge majority, standing in the halls of Parliament saying: “I raised hell with my cabinet. I read the riot act to them.” Fine; I expected him to do exactly that a long time ago. But he is sitting there with one of the hugest majorities in the history of the Canadian Parliament. He has had repeated scandals and he is standing there in the halls of Parliament saying, “I cannot do anything about this.” Well, I do not think that does any of us any good.

It is late in the day, and I am not going to argue on this clause any longer. We have had our say. We tried to warn the government that they are doing things the wrong way; that they can pass it, but they are not going to get themselves out of trouble. This whole process of saying that they have a public disclosure process at work when in reality they have not is morally wrong, and they should be ashamed of themselves for trying to put this one over on the people of Ontario.

Mr. Sterling: I would just like to respond in some way to the concern of the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) over this amendment. In my view, the title of this bill should be “An Act to whitewash Future Cabinet Conflicts Totally and in Every Way.” That is really what this act is all about. It sets up a phoney disclosure system, it sets up a toothless tiger as a commissioner and then it declares in the title that it is a conflict-of-interest act.

Trying to find a title to describe properly what this act really does is a difficult task in itself. That is why my colleague has brought forward this particular amendment, first to point out that it is not a conflict-of-interest act. That is the most important point. Number two, it is a disclosure act, but it is a very, very weak disclosure act, as the member for Oshawa has pointed out.

Number three is that this act is much worse than the status quo. I would much prefer the existing situation because, as you know, Mr. Chairman, even if this Legislature in its eminent wisdom wants to look into a matter after the commissioner has looked into an alleged conflict of interest, we eliminate that possibility within the act. It is the first act I have ever seen in my 11 years as an MPP in this Legislature where we have tried in legislation to limit what we could do here in the Legislature in the future. It is a shameful act in that regard, more than any other way.

We expect the amendment not to carry because we know the government side wants to go out to the public so it will, hopefully, get headlines tomorrow that will say, “Conflict of Interest Act Passed by the Ontario Government,” “All Conflict Problems Resolved in Ontario,” etc. There will not be any conflicts of interest in this province in the future because they set up a system to whitewash everything that is going to happen in this Legislative Assembly in the future. It will not matter whether a minister is doing business with the government. It will not matter what he does in the future. He will not be disqualified from sitting as a member in here in the normal situation.

I mean the joke