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

June 26, 1986

33rd Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L040 - Thu 26 Jun 1986 / Jeu 26 jun 1986

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

PARALEGAL AGENTS ACT

ONTARIO INSTITUTE FOR STUDIES IN EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT

PARALEGAL AGENTS ACT

ONTARIO INSTITUTE FOR STUDIES IN EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT

AFTERNOON SITTING

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

TAX PAYMENTS

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

TWO-WAY HAT

TOURISM ADVERTISEMENT

INSURANCE RATES

ATTENDANCE OF MEMBERS

SOVIET REACTOR

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

WHEEL-TRANS LABOUR DISPUTE

ALLEGED CONFLICT OF INTEREST

MARINE AWARENESS PROGRAM

RESIGNATION OF MEMBER

ORAL QUESTIONS

EXTRA BILLING

RENT REVIEW

ALLEGED CONFLICT OF INTEREST

STABILIZATION PAYMENTS

ALLEGED CONFLICT OF INTEREST

EXPOSURE TO ASBESTOS

PRISON FACILITIES

ALLEGED CONFLICT OF INTEREST

INSURANCE RATES

COURTHOUSES

EXTRA BILLING

COURTHOUSES

VISITOR

PETITION

NATUROPATHY

REPORT BY COMMITTEE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

MOTION

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

INSTITUTE OF CERTIFIED MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS OF ONTARIO ACT

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT

CITY OF BRANTFORD ACT

CEDARHURST GOLF CLUB ACT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

SOVIET REACTOR

ORDERS OF THE DAY

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

PARALEGAL AGENTS ACT

Mr. O'Connor moved second reading of Bill 42,

An Act to regulate the Activities of Paralegal Agents.

Mr. O'Connor: It is an honour for me to speak today on the bill I introduced to this House on May 22, 1986, that is, Bill 42,

An Act to regulate the Activities of Paralegal Agents.

For the past year, it has been apparent to me and to many members of this assembly that regulation of the growing business of paralegal agents is fundamentally necessary. Let us make no mistake. The number of paralegal agents practising in this province is growing weekly. If the situation is not regulated, it will be out of control very quickly.

The government, by its abdication of duty, is permitting anybody to set up shop as a paralegal agent. In allowing this condition to develop, the government's failure to act allows the antics of a few to blacken the reputation of hundreds who are honest, competent and hard-working men and women, practising in an area to which they bring a unique expertise.

The Independent Paralegal Guild of Ontario, formed last fall as an interim measure to enhance the integrity and credibility of independent paralegals and to provide some protection for the public, recognizes the need for such regulation. It has requested the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) to introduce legislation to establish paralegals as a regulated profession.

The failure of the Attorney General to act is somewhat surprising in the light of statements attributed to him in the March 22 edition of the Globe and Mail. It is indicated he said, "The legal profession has created an all-or-nothing situation, where the client either gets Cadillac service with a lawyer or goes on foot by himself, when in truth Buick service with a paralegal might be entirely adequate and far better than what he will do on his own."

I note the presence of the Attorney General in the House, applauding his own remarks.

The Deputy Speaker: But not in his seat.

Mr. O'Connor: Not in his seat yet. I take it he is not officially here then.

Some three months have passed since the Attorney General made this statement. It is apparent that the government has no intention of acting immediately to meet this issue. This is particularly surprising, after listening to the Premier (Mr. Peterson) this morning on CBC radio telling us his government faces its problems and does not practise the politics of delay. Is this not curious, given the situation existing in the House this morning?

This issue is not something that can be passed off as a case of the previous government's failing to act. Undeniably, this is an issue that has arisen solely since this government took office. The responsibility is its alone. It has taken a responsible opposition to fill the void.

I am a lawyer, as are the Attorney General and the leader of the New Democratic Party. As such, we have all acknowledged the need that paralegals are serving. We must go forward from this point today to ensure that the legal profession does not bury its head in the sand and hope that the problem will just go away. The Attorney General has suggested he might bring in his own legislation in this area later this fall rather than immediately. With all due respect, I suggest this is an ultimate cop-out.

On May 4, the president of the Independent Paralegal Guild of Ontario, Brian Lawrie, who has carried the fight from the beginning on this issue, said of paralegals, "We are here to stay." I suggest that paralegals, whether the legal profession likes it or not, are here to stay. To oppose this bill, saying that legislation may not be required, is blatantly to ignore reality. The Attorney General may as well stand on the beach and try to roll back the waves, for he will meet as much success in that endeavour as he has in hoping the paralegal dilemma will simply go away.

We know legislation is required now. We know our responsibility as legislators is to ensure the protection of the public. It is time to put aside partisan differences on this issue and to work together to see that the necessary protection is forthcoming. We should pass this bill through second reading today, get it into committee where we can hear the concerns legitimately expressed by everyone who has an interest and then make the necessary amendments.

We have an obligation to the people of this province to enshrine their right to competent, affordable access to the justice system. In this regard, I might quote from the Attorney General's remarks on Tuesday of this week when he introduced legislation to amend the legal aid tariffs and Legal Aid Act, when he said we must mark a new beginning in our quest for equal access to justice in Ontario. This bill, regulating the activities of paralegal agents, will provide for a large measure of that affordable and equal access.

Let me outline some of the provisions of the bill. A paralegal agent is defined as anyone, other than a lawyer, who attends for a fee, on behalf of someone else in a court or a tribunal where the citizen's rights are determined. Excluded from the definition are paralegals acting under the supervision of a lawyer. The courts and tribunals included are primarily those where this Legislature and the Parliament of Canada have, by legislation, already permitted nonlawyers to represent clients. These include provincial offences courts, small claims courts, landlord and tenant tribunals, immigration appeal matters, coroners' inquests and so forth.

The intent of the bill is to regulate and to control the burgeoning paralegal agent population for the protection of the public. The bill creates a governing body of two benchers of the Law Society of Upper Canada, five paralegal agents and two members of the public appointed by order in council, whose initial function will be to establish proper education and certification standards and to oversee the administration of rules, regulations and registration.

Section 6 of the bill requires the carrying of liability insurance, as is the requirement for all lawyers in the province.

There is a provision for the disciplining of members in exactly the same manner as provided for lawyers under the Law Society Act. The discipline committee hearing complaints against paralegals will be comprised of a majority of benchers and one less than a majority of paralegal agents. The penalty set out for offences against the act are severe enough to discourage those who would try to take advantage of an unsuspecting public.

10:10 a.m.

This Legislature has created the profession of paralegals itself by permitting agents to attend in lower courts and tribunal proceedings. At present, the government employs some 39 full-time provincial prosecutors and several part-time prosecutors to handle minor cases such as Highway Traffic Act and Liquor Licence Act offences.

In a recent judgement before the district court, in the case of Regina versus Brian Lawrie and POINTTS Ltd., His Honour Judge Garth Moore upheld the acquittal of the two accused for practising law without a licence and made some interesting remarks. I will quote from the last several pages of that judgement. He says:

"I mean that the various acts of the Legislature I have referred to above permit agents to appear and act and represent others in provincial courts and, in some cases, surrogate and district courts. This legislation does not just permit an appearance in place of a defendant. It also permits an appearance with and for a defendant. No prohibition or restriction was brought to my attention which prevents the same person appearing as agent for a different person on numerous occasions or even receiving remuneration for so doing.

"The Legislature has thus created a new trade or calling; that is to say, the calling of paralegals. At present, it would appear from my observation that the control, supervision and discipline of such agents cannot be found in the provincial statutes, and to paraphrase a popular saying of the day, I am suggesting that the province get its acts together and so provide."

What Judge Moore was suggesting is exactly what this bill intends to provide. I might offer another interesting quote, that being from a recent editorial in the Toronto Star published on June 4, 1986. The editorial was headed "Room for Paralegals." I will read several paragraphs as follows:

"It is unreasonable for the society," being the Law Society of Upper Canada, "to declare war on paralegals, who can offer useful assistance in a variety of areas where full legal qualifications aren't necessary and lawyers don't normally work.

"Wouldn't it be far more sensible for the society to use its knowledge and resources positively -- say, by helping draw the thorny line between those areas where lawyers' services are really required and those areas where they are not?...

"Consumers may also want to watch closely, and ask whether the protection the law society is so forcefully asserting is really intended for them."

I point out to those who oppose passage of this bill or seek to delay such legislation that paralegals would not exist in the province if there were not a viable market for their services. The Attorney General acknowledged in his address to the Osgoode Hall law school annual lecture series just recently that there are instances where their services are entirely adequate.

I wish to thank the many members of the Progressive Conservative caucus who have, on behalf of their constituents, supported this initiative. In the face of some pressure to delay this bill, they have stood on the side of the average citizen, knowing that the rights of the majority must be paramount.

The members of the New Democratic Party have, in this issue, once again demonstrated their concern for the rights and protection of the consumers of Ontario. I am particularly pleased by the comments of the member for Ottawa Centre (Ms. Gigantes), as reported in the press yesterday, that they intend to support the bill en masse.

I believe that, in the best interests of the people we represent, we can put aside our partisan differences and co-operate in the matter before us. The people directly affected by this bill -- the consumers of Ontario, paralegals and the legal profession -- must have the opportunity to come before a legislative committee to express their concerns and offer suggestions for improvement.

We acknowledge by the very existence of the committee system that draft legislation is never perfect, and we as legislators can always benefit from public input. Let us go forward from here today determined that, after today, we will begin the steps necessary to ensure fair access to all by competent, affordable, skilled agents practising in the justice system in Ontario.

I will reserve the balance of my time for reply and will conclude there.

Ms. Gigantes: I rise in support of Bill 42. I do so in a way that is not typical for me, I believe, in that my support for Bill 42 is a kind of wishy-washy support. I am going to support it so that we can take it to committee and look at many of the issues, which, as the member for Oakville has mentioned, were brought to the standing committee on administration of justice in its consideration of Bill 7 by Brian Lawrie. Those issues are interesting and are issues of the time in terms of the justice system and they deserve a good, hard look. The vehicle of this bill provides us with the mechanism for doing that.

In its essence, it is both a progressive and a conservative bill. It is, as the sponsoring member, the member for Oakville, points out, an attempt to provide a kind of consumer protection in a situation where justice services and representation in our justice system are normally now available only through the services provided by a self-regulating group, the lawyers of Ontario, organized through the Law Society of Upper Canada and providing a service in a way that many would describe as a monopolistic format.

However, the bill in itself is an attempt to regulate services that have grown up very much in a free private enterprise way. It provides this regulation through the operations of the very body that operates the monopolistic provision of services, namely, the Law Society of Upper Canada. When the member for Oakville says, as he does -- I think he means it earnestly, I can see why he says it and I support him in the way he says it -- that what he is looking for is the provision of services for consumers in Ontario from competent and affordable legal representation, that is what this bill directs itself to.

On the other hand, it also directs itself to setting standards that will be operated through the Law Society of Upper Canada and that will be in large measure controlled by the Law Society of Upper Canada, since the committee that will do the regulating will be a committee of the Law Society of Upper Canada. These standards will run the gamut: educational achievement that must be demonstrated, hours of training, courses of study, approval of the schools a paralegal must go to and so on.

I am not convinced that what the consumer looks for when he looks for competent and affordable legal representation through the services of paralegals is necessarily somebody who has gone through a scheme of preparation, training, testing and so on that might be required by the Law Society of Upper Canada. However, this is one of the items we will have to look at as we discuss this bill. As I understand it, there is all-party interest in seeing it go to the justice committee.

You will be interested to know, Mr. Speaker, that there will not be a monolithic opinion from this caucus on this subject. You will find a refreshing divergence of views. I can advertise the fact that my fond colleague the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere (Mr. Warner) has agreed with me that he will speak second in this debate and that he will be in opposition to passage of this bill. That is fine with me and I am sure it is fine with the member for Oakville. That is the purpose of having private members' time.

10:20 a.m.

I point out in closing that there are many other groups providing vital professional services in our society in Ontario that are not regulated. They have not achieved, sometimes even though they wish to achieve, the status of a recognized self-governing body, which would therefore have status in the eyes of the government and, for example, in the case of the psychologists of Ontario might be eligible to have their patients receive benefits under the Ontario health insurance plan for treatment.

The same is true for marriage counsellors, also loosely called family counsellors or marital mediators, as we refer to them in the Family Law Act which we passed earlier this year. These people all operate in Ontario without any formal regulation or recognition by the government, even though in some cases they take

part in our justice system, either as witnesses or through involvement in cases going to court, before the court will accept certain approaches by applicants to the court.

The question of how we recognize and regulate these many service providers in Ontario is one that deserves a general examination in 1986. I am pleased this bill will give us some opportunity to do that. In that way, it serves a very useful purpose, and I will be pleased to support it on those grounds.

Mr. Epp: I am pleased to be able to speak today on Bill 42. The rights of paralegals are very important. The subject is timely, even though all of us probably have enough things on our plates these days that we do not have to add something else. Nevertheless, it is an important subject.

Like everything else, legal fees are rising. As the Deputy Speaker, being a lawyer himself, is aware, in many cases people of moderate means may not be able to afford a lawyer, particularly if there is not a great deal of money at stake, such as in fighting a traffic ticket. Probably all of us have experience in that, although we regret to admit it. There are many other such minor charges. Representation by a lawyer may not make sense, considering the charge or the money at risk and the amounts lawyers charge, which may vary from $75 an hour to $200 or $300 an hour.

At the same time, the number of people acting as paralegals is increasing. My information is that there are at least 150 people who are registered with the Independent Paralegal Guild of Ontario. There are probably 10 times that number who are practising as paralegal people. The issue is made even more important in the light of the recent provincial court decision, upheld by the district court judge, that dismissed the charge brought by the Law Society of Upper Canada against a paralegal for unlawfully acting as a barrister and a solicitor, contrary to the Law Society Act. Since then even more paralegals have entered the field.

There are several good points in favour of supporting the continued use of the paralegal profession and, therefore, of supporting the bill itself. In many situations, the services of a lawyer are not required. Paralegals can provide a valuable service to clients at much less cost than a lawyer -- a cost more in keeping with the charge or the matter at hand. Every hearing does not require a lawyer. As the member for Oakville has pointed out, many hearings are conducted in front of someone who is not a lawyer. It does not make sense to require a lawyer to represent someone who is appearing before a justice of the peace who himself or herself is not a lawyer.

Many paralegals are highly professional and have a great deal of experience. In many cases, they are former police officers who have the practical experience required in situations such as we are talking about. At present, there are a large number of paralegals in business. Several provincial statutes allow for the use of agents or paralegals. An example of such a statute is the Landlord and Tenant Act. Provincial prosecutors are also used and many are former police officers, as I pointed out.

These people are not lawyers. They handle minor prosecutions such as charges under the Highway Traffic Act and the Liquor Licence Act. Law students also carry on many similar functions for law firms. They are sanctioned by these law firms and by the Law Society of Upper Canada. The Law Society of Upper Canada is not enthusiastic at this point about the paralegal trade. In the light of the activity by nonlawyers that already exists and the benefits paralegals can provide to the consumer in legal services, it is vital that they be regulated in some fashion.

It is also important that we make clear the situations where paralegal agents can serve the public. We may wish to clarify the present situation, which is cloudy at best. We must be certain that a paralegal, before going into business, has the proper training, education and level of skill so that the public is not harmed by inadequately educated paralegals. This is paramount in our thinking. We have to protect the unsuspecting public because people can act as charlatans in any profession.

It is therefore incumbent on this Legislature to have some controls on people who practise as paralegals. Once they are in business, we must ensure that the paralegals maintain a required level of professionalism and professional conduct. There should be adequate restrictions on the type of work a paralegal is entitled to do. Most important, we must ensure that a paralegal is covered by adequate insurance so that a client is not injured financially if a mistake is made. If a person retains a lawyer, that person has the knowledge that insurance is in place to help compensate for malpractice or mistakes. A similar system is necessary for the paralegal profession.

Bill 42 contains a recognition that registration, education and regulation of professional conduct and insurance are all desirable. I note that responsible members of the paralegal profession have also publicly called for regulation of the area by way of protecting the public and ensuring that only those with the proper qualifications and level of professionalism are in business.

Bill 42 is somewhat vague on what limits would be put on paralegals. I am sure that the member for Oakville is keenly aware of this. While mentioning the need for proper education, it does not spell out what that would be. Many decisions would be left to the paralegal agents committee. I would be interested to know what are considered to be proper courses of study and whether colleges currently offer courses that are adequate; otherwise, new courses will have to be developed across the province.

As I mentioned, insurance is vital. I would be interested in knowing whether insurance is currently available to paralegals and whether it will be available if they become regulated. A representative of the Law Society of Upper Canada has stated that "tossing laymen into the hands of an untrained, unsupervised body of charlatans is hardly the answer" to high legal fees and better access to legal advice. This is unfortunate rhetoric. Most paralegals are professional, hardworking and well-intentioned people.

They do not compromise on their standards and they do not comprise a body of charlatans. They welcome the possibility of regulating the profession. There may be some bad apples among paralegals, but that is the case in any profession or any business. We should not condemn the whole lot because there may be a few people who need to comply with higher standards of conduct.

10:30 a.m.

I reiterate that the bill does not set out specifically what responsibilities a paralegal can assume. We must be careful not to go too far. It should not be the intention of the bill to allow them to work in areas where the training of a lawyer is required. Insurance must be arranged and there must be included in the bill, once this Legislature acts on it, stricter standards than are comprised in this particular bill. What also must be dealt with more extensively is the discretion of the commission itself.

I will be supporting the bill, but I have a number of concerns that have to be addressed, and I am sure they will be addressed in the not-too-distant future.

Mrs. Marland: I rise to support Bill 42 this morning. When the bill was first introduced, I sent a copy to all the lawyers in my constituency. To date, I have received only one letter from a lawyer requesting further clarification of certain effects of the bill that she has identified as undesirable.

This bill probably better deals with the old axiom that you get what you pay for. I must admit I had no idea of the scope of paralegals activities in this province until I saw a flyer from a paralegal centre. I am not going to give its address and telephone number, however, since it is because of this flyer that I feel even more strongly than I did before about supporting Bill 42.

When one sees the scope of services this paralegal group advertises, even though it starts its communication with, "We are not lawyers," one realizes that it is into a great number of areas. I am not a lawyer, and that is significant in the fact that I am speaking in support of this bill this morning because, although there are lawyers in the Legislature who are supporting the bill, I am speaking purely as a consumer with none of the profession of law behind me. However, in my layperson's

interpretation, I can see, as the member for Waterloo North (Mr. Epp) said, that some members of the public may not be able to afford a lawyer. My response, of course, is that there are members of the public who cannot afford not to have a lawyer in many areas. I feel very strongly that if there are areas where the members of the public who cannot afford a lawyer themselves require that professional service, they have access to it through legal aid.

When one looks at the list of services, one recognizes that they are offering to deal with wills, separation agreements, uncontested divorces and adoption in terms of family matters. Under the heading of business, they are dealing with the incorporation of Ontario firms, federal incorporations, registrations of proprietorship and power of attorney. What I really like under business is the last description, which says "all other matters," then in brackets, "depending on complexity." In other words, they actually hold themselves up as being able to deal with all other matters with respect to business.

I feel this is absolutely no protection for the public. As members of this Legislature, we have an obligation to protect the public -- sometimes to protect us against ourselves.

It makes sense, obviously, that a paralegal could appear in court on behalf of an individual in an area in which that individual could also appear on his own behalf. In those areas where we can now represent ourselves quite adequately and perhaps quite successfully, but when we cannot afford the time from work or perhaps cannot get to that particular session, it makes sense for members of the public to have the choice to have someone else represent them as an agent.

Certainly, in some of the areas that have been addressed, to have a paralegal as an agent is totally acceptable; but when one looks at the scope of services they think they are able to offer and to service the public adequately, that is where I feel we must be concerned.

I commend the member for Oakville for his professional conscience and for his public conscience, because in bringing this bill into the Legislature, he is recognizing that at the moment we do not have anything that defines the difference for the public between paralegals and the professional lawyer. Most lay people simply do not know what the differences are. Without regulation the public would not know whether it had any recourse on a paralegal agent.

We are certainly aware of the tremendous insurance coverage that becomes a requirement for an individual lawyer who is in practice in order that there always be some recourse for one of his clients to go back to that legal firm, if necessary, and be able to pursue that firm when he has had unsatisfactory service from it. As far as I am aware, there is no requirement for paralegal people to have any insurance or any form of protection for anyone who seeks out their services.

In areas in which I support the use of paralegals, their activities in those areas are to be encouraged. There is no question that a lot of the public are very inhibited by the formality of going to a lawyer's office, and in some areas they are quite inhibited by the fees. I am not here to justify or to question lawyers' professional fees, but I stand in this Legislature today to uphold the law profession, because the responsibility its members assume in rendering their services to those of us in the public who do not have their training is very great indeed.

When the law society expresses its concern, it is expressing it for very good reason. It sees the public seeking out a service thinking it is going to have the same advice, and subsequently the same protection, that it would have from a lawyer. Obviously, that is simply not so.

In supporting this bill, when we get it to the committee stage, I know the law society and those people who are concerned will be able to come to the committee to express their concerns. We will end up with a control, a regulation and a refinement that we simply do not have today. We will end up with something that will be acceptable to the law society because, for the first time, the public will be aware of what the differences are. Where we have obviously professionally trained people in the areas where their professional requirements are inherent in the responsibilities they assume in processing whatever that case is, then ultimately the public is protected.

It has also been suggested that the law society is protecting its own interests. It was suggested in one of the editorials I read that the law society is concerned about the competition and feels that regulating these paralegals will give it greater competition. I suggest the law society is not about to be concerned about competition, because it has enough competition with the number of lawyers within the profession in the province in the first place.

I do not think it is concerned about inhibiting competition, but conscientious practising lawyers in our province are certainly concerned about and want to inhibit improper, poor professional advice being given where professional advice is needed.

10:40 a.m.

An earlier speaker this morning referred to this. I guess it was the president of the paralegal society who said they would ask to have the society recognized as a profession and to have the training requirements for the profession established once and for all. Personally, I feel strongly that professions are just that. One cannot have someone without the training of the profession, whatever it is, recognized as a professional on a par with people who have had the training.

I look for the support of this Legislature on this bill.

Mr. Warner: It is obvious from the attendance this morning that the members were not alerted that I would be participating in this debate.

Mr. O'Connor: They are all waiting.

Mr. Andrewes: They were alerted.

Mr. Epp: We were. We could not even give the tickets away.

Mr. Warner: If nothing else, I have managed to wake up those members who are in the chamber.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to participate in this debate. The member is to be congratulated for bringing forward a piece of legislation that, in some respects, is warranted. I have a few --

Mr. O'Connor: So far I like it.

Mr. Warner: So far, so good; now for the bad news.

The bad news is that I have some concerns about who might be included by this bill. I want to spend a few minutes going over the background to my concerns. The member for Oakville may know that I have spent a number of years working with Scarborough Community Legal Services. In that capacity, we have currently on staff five community legal workers, two lawyers and a clerk-typist-secretary. As is common with most clinics, the community legal workers spend a great deal of their time attempting to organize in the community, often around issues.

They attempt to assist people before any of the social service tribunals; the tribunal under the Family Benefits Act administers that. They lend assistance to people before they go before a tribunal in preparing their cases adequately to seek some fundamental justice.

The community legal workers are also involved in public education around law issues. In that capacity, they go to high schools or meet with groups of single-parent mothers or with public housing tenants to attempt to explain what their rights are under the law and how to lobby effectively for any needed changes. There is a whole range of activities that community legal workers undertake. They are not lawyers. They are not trained to be lawyers. They have never taken training at law school. There is no precise job definition because of the variety of things they do. There is no set educational background or any particular experience that is required.

It was my experience on the hiring committee that when we hired a number of individuals, there were special abilities and talents that I was looking for and that I knew other members of the hiring committee were looking for, such as an empathy with the situation of the individuals with whom they would be working, some sense of organizing, some sense of how one is able to coalesce a particular

section of the community around an issue and how to present that issue, how to lobby effectively, how to fight effectively against the injustices that have been systematically built into our social welfare system. These are the kinds of criteria I look for.

When the member describes paralegal agent in his definition section, on the one hand I can see that the person I have just described would fit into that definition, with the arguable point around whether the individual receives a fee. Because the clinics operate on a global budget, the people hired there are paid a salary and are not paid on a fee basis. Therefore, when community legal workers go before a tribunal, they are doing it as part of their job. They are not receiving a separate fee for that. They are still on salary. Would a salary be determined to be in a larger sense a fee?

If it can be determined to be so, then a community legal worker, unfortunately, would fall under the definition of being a paralegal agent and, I suggest, that would in turn lead to a stricturing of the definition. It makes it tougher. In other words, we then go to

section 3, under the regulations, which means the community legal workers I wish to hire have to go through a whole series of hoops, none of which may be useful or helpful in attempting to get the kind of person needed to work in the clinic, and so it becomes a self-defeating proposition.

I look forward to hearing from the member for Oakville in his windup, because perhaps he will be able to address the concern I raise. If so, he may very well garner my vote. However, I reserve judgement.

I raise the concern because the clinics in this province serve the people of Ontario extremely well. The member for Oakville knows that the legal clinics have expanded. They were introduced under the previous government to the great credit of the then Attorney General, Mr. McMurtry, who was a tremendous supporter of the clinics. Similarly, the new government has shown support for the concept of the clinics and the Attorney General has personally pledged his support.

Within that atmosphere, the clinics have been able to grow, both in number and in size, so that we now have, I think, 52 clinics spread across the province, some of them specialist clinics, such as some that do only workers' compensation cases and others that do a wide variety of work. In each case, they look very carefully at their four-point mandate of working hard on law reform, of doing community legal education and case work and of organizing at the community level.

That work is extremely valuable because it means people who otherwise would not have access to our judicial system because of income have that opportunity. People who would not necessarily receive a legal aid certificate can go into a clinic and receive the kind of assistance which they require and an individual who needs to appear before the Social Assistance Review Board, for example, can be represented. We have found, unfortunately and very painfully, in many cases that have come before that tribunal, the individuals will not have received justice unless they had some representation.

We do not need a lawyer to do that, but we do need someone who has some knowledge and who is committed to the process.

10:50 a.m.

I am extremely supportive of the clinics and the work they have done and urge their expansion. Therefore, if there is anything in this bill that may cause difficulty for the clinics, which from the way I read it there is, I am not inclined to support the bill. If, on the other hand, the member for Oakville can make a clear distinction, especially under the definition of paralegal agents, so that it will not have any harmful effect on the work of the clinics, I will be more inclined to support the bill. I anxiously await the response of the member for Oakville and I know he, in turn, anxiously awaits my support.

Mr. O'Connor: First of all, I thank the members who participated in the debate this morning, who provided very useful and interesting comments: the member for Ottawa Centre, the member for Waterloo North, the member for Mississauga South (Mrs. Marland) and the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere. I will make a few comments with regard to each of their comments or concerns.

First, to the member for Ottawa Centre I can say I understand her concerns about the makeup and composition of the governing body of paralegals. However, I point out to her that the governing body, although it is called a committee of the Law Society of Upper Canada, is set out this way for a particular reason, and that is to give it a home, so to speak, a place where it may avail itself of the support and staff that it will need immediately.

She should look at the makeup of the committee and note that the majority of its members are themselves paralegal agents. Only two are benchers of the law society, and they are there because, quite frankly, since paralegals are involved in legal work in courts and tribunals, I felt there should be some input to the governing of the group from lawyers.

Two of the members of the society are laypeople representing the public. One of them is to be appointed by the Minister of Colleges and Universities to assist in the development of the educational standards of the profession as such. To be effective, I have attempted to involve in the governing body the three primary interests: that is, the paralegals themselves, the public, of course, and lawyers, the majority of that body being paralegals. I hope that will allay some of the member's fears with regard to the composition of that body.

I particularly welcome the remarks of the member for Waterloo North in that he is a member of the government who has indicated his support for the bill. He has obviously concerned himself with the matter. He has done his homework. His facts and his comments were quite to the point and well researched.

In reply to one concern he did have about the educational standards for paralegal agents, I point out to him the remarks I made to the member for Ottawa Centre. The governing body will include a person appointed by the Minister of Colleges and Universities. As I see the thing develop, I see paralegal agents being educated and trained through our community college system, perhaps in a post-degree or post-diploma course.

Courses in this area are already offered by the community colleges. I suggest, though, that it should be a post-degree course for fully trained paralegals to ensure that relatively mature, older people go into the system and not the usual graduates from the community colleges, who are, I believe, in the neighbourhood of 18, 19 or 20 years of age. With the appointment of that person to help develop and organize the courses, the member's concern in this regard should be taken care of.

The member for Mississauga South referred to a flyer she has received, which I have also received and seen. I agree with her entirely that this kind of publication and offer to the public makes the case for the necessity of some regulations. If nothing else that has been said or done in the past does, that kind of tactic certainly does.

With regard to the concerns of the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere, I suggest that a different

interpretation of the definition may be of some assistance. He will notice that a paralegal agent is a person who is not a lawyer and who is not acting under the supervision of a lawyer. My knowledge of the legal clinics is that lawyers are involved with them. Lawyers supervise the work of some of the other staff, particularly when those staff are involved in legal matters and giving legal advice. If that supervision was present, even in a general way, it would perhaps not be necessary for those particular people to be fully qualified, educated and certified paralegal agents. That definition could certainly extend to cover the community legal services situation.

In any event, the member might consider that it might be of some benefit to the legal clinics to have educated, well-trained, paralegal agents and that once the system was in effect there would be a growing pool of such people who would be available to fill the positions in those clinics, rather than the reverse that they would then be restricted as to staff. There might even be more people available of a better-qualified and better-trained nature.

I thank the members for their participation in this debate. I urge everybody to consider the remarks made this morning and to consider supporting this bill, including the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere, if I have in any way changed his mind. I hope I have. I hope he now can see his way clear to support this bill along with the majority of the balance of the members in the House.

Ms. Bryden: I have been informed that the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Pouliot) is unable to be present this morning and he has asked me to carry his ballot item. I ask the consent of the House to be permitted to carry the member's ballot item this morning.

The Deputy Speaker: Do we have unanimous consent that the member for Beaches-Woodbine carry second reading of Bill 46 in the absence of the member for Lake Nipigon?

Agreed to.

ONTARIO INSTITUTE FOR STUDIES IN EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT

Ms. Bryden moved, on behalf of Mr. Pouliot, second reading of Bill 46,

An Act to amend the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education Act.

Ms. Bryden: I would like to reserve a portion of my time for a windup. This act simply adds one clause to the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education Act, which was originally passed in 1965. The new clause says that among its powers the board of the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education may "provide for the granting of and grant degrees, including honorary degrees, diplomas and certificates in education."

In the original act, the objects of the institute were set forth in

section 3 as follows:

"(

a) to study matters and problems relating to or affecting education, and to disseminate the results of and assist in the implementation of the findings of educational studies;

"(

b) to establish and conduct courses leading to certificates of standing and graduate degrees in education."

In the early years clause 3(b), which I have just read, had been interpreted as giving OISE degree-granting powers. It actually did give an honorary degree to its first chairman of the board of governors, Bora Laskin, who later became Chief Justice of Canada. However, when OISE was created in 1965, it was an unknown institution and the board chose to seek an affiliation agreement with the University of Toronto for degree-granting powers to give its graduates the prestige of a degree from a well-established university in the province.

11 a.m.

In the first affiliation agreement, which lasted from 1965 to 1980, it was stated that OISE agreed to withhold the exercise of its degree-granting power for the duration of the agreement. However, in 1979 the Ministry of Education informed OISE that ministry solicitors, in the course of a review of degree-granting authority in Ontario, had concluded that OISE did not have the authority to grant its own degrees. This opinion has never been tested in the courts.

OISE signed a new affiliation agreement with the University of Toronto in 1981. It was to expire five years later on March 31, 1986. However, it has been extended for a year while negotiations continue on the terms of a new agreement with the University of Toronto. Unfortunately, the negotiations are more or less on hold since the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) announced in his October 24, 1985, budget, "As a step towards eliminating duplication in the public sector, the government will transfer the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education to the University of Toronto."

OISE was then 20 years old. It had established a worldwide reputation. It had developed into a unique educational institution in the province, combining graduate training, research and development and field services that brought the fruits of research into the classroom. It served the whole province, working with faculties of education in universities, with school trustees and boards of education and with a host of community groups involved in education. Its work in distance education brought remote areas in touch with research and world trends in education.

Its special centres for women's studies, francophone education, educational evaluation, modern languages and applied cognitive science were unmatched anywhere else in the province.

OISE has its own board of governors under the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education Act. The board was widely representative of educational interest in the province. It had control of its own budget, which came mainly from the Ministry of Colleges and Universities under the formula grant to universities. It also received a $2-million research grant from the Ministry of Education and other research grants from external bodies. It received money from tuition fees, rentals and conferences, and the government provided it with its own building occupancy costs. The total budget was $29.5 million in 1985-86.

That is not a great deal of money, but there has been a great deal of performance for that money.

The OISE board felt the proposal of the provincial Treasurer threatened its independence and budgetary and programmatic autonomy. It also felt its negotiating position with the University of Toronto for renewal of its affiliation agreement for degree granting was greatly weakened by the Treasurer's proposal. At a meeting of the OISE board of governors on January 28, 1986, the board set forth its objectives for further negotiations with the University of Toronto. These included retention of the name and an independent board of governors. They also included budgetary and programmatic autonomy and continuation of its mandate.

At that same meeting, the board set up a Status of OISE Committee with guidelines that contained the following statement on degree granting, "Among the options the committee should consider and plan toward are OISE as a free-standing, degree-granting institution, and OISE as an institution affiliated with the University of Toronto or, failing that possibility, another Ontario university." In other words, it put forth three options, including the one we are discussing today.

Why should OISE have degree-granting powers? One of the witnesses who appeared before the standing committee on general government, which has been holding extensive public hearings on the future of OISE, was Professor McCormack Smyth of Atkinson College at York University, a man of long experience in a variety of educational institutions. He came out strongly in favour of degree-granting powers for OISE in these words:

"My support for the granting of degree rights to OISE is based on my conviction that if Canadians are to resolve the variety of multifaceted problems that confront them on both the macro and the micro levels, new and vigorous initiatives are required in education. OISE could and should play a key role in ensuring that such new initiatives contribute to the resolution of the multifaceted problems before us."

Later he went on to say:

"If OISE is to serve as a pioneering centre for higher learning through education, it needs the freedom and public stature that only a freestanding institution of post-secondary education enjoys...

"It is extremely difficult, if not entirely impossible, to develop new educational approaches in established, ongoing universities...if one is to make a creative intervention in any education system, it is preferable that such intervention be made through an independent institution."

He also told the committee in the discussion on his brief that "we need a new catalyst in education in Ontario. I see that in an enhanced role for OISE."

He also put forth the view that "OISE should seek to do for education what the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the land grant colleges in the United States did for science and technology," that is, they "transformed America and gave it this tremendous industrial and technical capability," which it now shows.

He suggested that small is beautiful and differentiated institutions are often more cost effective.

He concluded, "The time has now come for the Legislature of Ontario to enable OISE to move to the essential next stage in its development as a free-standing institution of higher learning authorized to grant academic degrees in its own right."

Some arguments have been put up against giving OISE degree-granting status. The first is that it is not a university. That is true, and it clearly has no aspirations to become one. But the vast majority of degree-granting institutions in North America are not universities. In Ontario, 45 institutions have degree-granting power, but only 16 are universities. Most are single-faculty institutions operating through affiliation or federation with universities. OISE would be in a better position to negotiate such affiliations if it had independent stature.

The second argument against degree granting for OISE is the reluctance of governments in the past to increase the number of university-level institutions, mainly on the ground of economy. While I can see that a new institution starting from scratch could be costly, there would be no additional cost for OISE. It already has a mature administration and excellent facilities.

11:10 a.m.

The main argument for giving OISE degree-granting status is that it cannot carry out its very broad mandate if it is not an independent institution. Its mandate, as I mentioned, is "to study matters and problems relating to or affecting education, and to disseminate the results of and assist in the implementation of the findings of educational studies." To fulfil that, it must be a place where the voices of the teacher and the trustee are heard, where research is folded into the world of work, where access is based on professional experience and capacity as well as academic record and where there is a balance between theory and practice.

OISE merits degree-granting status. The standing committee on general government has learned a great deal during the past six months about OISE's contributions to education in Ontario. It has visited northern communities as well as hearing many briefs from other parts of the province. The committee has become aware that no other institution in Canada or abroad provides the full combination and range of comprehensive services OISE does. Few other institutions have a comparable level and scope of activity. It therefore merits degree-granting powers. I urge the House to vote for this amendment.

Mr. Cordiano: The act under consideration proposes to provide the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education with the authority to "provide for the granting of and grant degrees, including honorary degrees, diplomas and certificates in education." However, both the history of the institution since its establishment in 1965 and the current activities focused on bringing OISE and the University of Toronto together, lead one to the conclusion that the change proposed by Bill 46 would make no significant contribution to the calibre of study and work carried out in and by the institute. This change would in no way enhance the service provided by OISE to the people of Ontario.

I want to go over the history. The member for Beaches-Woodbine (Ms. Bryden) has done a very good job of going over some of the historical elements of this entire debate, but let me go over it in a cursory way.

At its establishment in 1965, OISE's objectives were "to study matters and problems relating to or affecting education, and to disseminate the results of and assist in the implementation of the findings of educational studies," and as well, "to establish and conduct courses leading to certificates of standing and graduate degrees in education." Since OISE's establishment, there have been three main areas of activity for the institute: graduate studies, research in education and field studies.

Through an affiliation agreement with the University of Toronto, OISE graduates receive U of T degrees. There is no evidence that OISE's important activities as outlined above have been impinged upon in any way by the fact that OISE itself does not have degree-granting powers. On the contrary, for the past 20 years, OISE has made significant contributions to education in Ontario. The institute has had a strong record of achievement in graduate studies, research in education and field services, as I have pointed out.

In such areas as French immersion, applied cognitive science, women's studies, adult education and curriculum, OISE has obtained a marvellous reputation worldwide. Indeed, degree-granting authority seems irrelevant to OISE's accomplishments.

I want to go over the current situation with regard to the merger between OISE and the University of Toronto. The bill we are considering seems particularly untimely in the light of the current activity focused on bringing together OISE and the University of Toronto.

It is the view of this government that bringing together these two outstanding institutions will provide enhanced opportunities for academic and research excellence in the field of education. The institute, with its nine field centres in graduate studies and research activities, fits with the well-established undergraduate programs at the University of Toronto in the faculty of education.

The government is seeking to ensure that the clear, potential benefits from integration of OISE and the University of Toronto are realized. It is, therefore, our hope the two institutions can work co-operatively in developing a detailed plan of union that can, in turn, be supported by both governing bodies.

Because this may take some time, the Treasurer has indicated that he is willing to delay the timing of the financial integration. In the meantime, the affiliation agreement between OISE and the University of Toronto, scheduled to expire on June 30, 1986, two days from now, has been extended for one year, as pointed out by the member for Beaches-Woodbine.

From this perspective, it seems ill-advised for the Legislature now to impose a fundamental change on the aspect of the multifaceted relationship which is under review and which is a priority to both parties involved in the integration.

As I understand it, the standing committee on general government has yet to table its report on the OISE/U of T issue. Again, this underlines the untimeliness of the actions proposed by Bill 46. Further, it should be noted that there has been no official request from either OISE or the U of T for the change proposed by Bill 46.

Mr. Grande: Is the member saying OISE does not support this?

Mr. Cordiano: I am saying there has been no official request. Both institutions are attempting to work out a detailed plan that will bring a level of co-operation to both institutions to work out those plans. It is far wiser for the two institutions to get together to proceed in the fashion they have been proceeding in order to reach a level of co-operation that is acceptable to both institutions.

What the bill proposes today is somehow to speed up the process, whereby it is not beneficial to OISE at this time to grant degrees. It is a question that does not involve the priority stated by both institutions; that is, that they get together to bring about integration.

Members of the third party and of the official opposition have stated their opposition to integration from both institutions. However, I think the period the Treasurer has indicated he is willing to extend, that is, one year, to allow both institutions to look at the problems in far greater detail and to come up with a detailed plan for integration is the better way to proceed at this point.

As I have said, degree-granting power is a separate issue entirely from the issue we are facing at this time and, as a result, I do not support the bill.

11:20 a.m.

Mr. McFadden: I rise in support of Bill 46. This bill would not have been before this House at this time if the Treasurer had not made his ill-conceived proposal in October's budget to transfer OISE to the University of Toronto. The Treasurer's proposal was made without consultation with either OISE or the university. It was also made without regard to the ongoing programs of OISE and the potential jeopardy in which these programs would be placed by such a transfer.

Based upon the Treasurer's statement to the standing committee on general government during the course of its recent public hearings on OISE, it is clear the budget proposal was based upon ill-founded views and prejudices developed from a government report that is now more than 10 years old, as well as on outdated information and conclusions as to what OISE is now doing and what it has achieved in recent years.

Like any institution, OISE undoubtedly had some growing pains during its first years of operation. This is natural and to be expected. Today, as Ontarians, we can be very proud that OISE has developed into a world-class educational institution with an excellent reputation for its work, not only in this province but also across Canada and around the world. The provision of degree-granting power to OISE, as envisaged by Bill 46, will recognize the stature achieved by the institute and its contribution to the enhancement of the quality of education in Ontario.

Since the controversy arose about the Treasurer's budget proposal, I have been impressed by the tremendous outpouring of support and endorsement for OISE. I have received hundreds of letters from students, elementary and high school teachers, university professors, education administrators and concerned individuals from across Ontario and from various parts of the United States and Europe. In this House we have received petitions signed by thousands of Ontarians endorsing OISE and urging that its current status as an independent institute be maintained.

In my view, the most impressive endorsement for OISE came during the hearings of the general government committee. One witness after another in our hearings in Toronto, Ottawa, North Bay and Thunder Bay came before the committee in person to endorse the outstanding work of OISE, to attest to the invaluable services the staff of the institute provide to the educational community throughout the province and to express opposition to the transfer of OISE to the University of Toronto. The wholehearted and unanimous endorsement OISE received from students, educators and administrators gave ample proof of the central importance of OISE to the education system in Ontario.

During the 21 years since it was founded by the Minister of Education of the day, the Honourable William Davis, OISE has achieved a standard of excellence in a broad range of programs, in research and development, in graduate studies and in field services. Some of its programs are of unique importance, such as those offered by the Franco-Ontarian Centre and by the Centre for Women's Studies in Education.

The field services offered by OISE deserve special mention since they provide invaluable service to educators throughout Ontario which are not available from any other institution. It was interesting to hear from teachers who came before us day after day during the course of our hearings to attest to the practical and very real assistance that OISE's field service program had been to them in their classrooms.

It was very interesting to see the various submissions received from administrators who are trained in the areas of government and of how the bureaucratic system works. It was interesting to hear from those administrators who warned us about moving OISE into such a large institution as the University of Toronto and the danger that would pose to the future security of the budget for the field service program and all the other excellent programs provided to educators across this province.

Having listened to the educators, the students, the administrators and the various people in the community who have come before the committee and sent in written submissions, I think it is clear that OISE can be justifiably proud of what it has been able to achieve since its establishment back in 1965.

Ontario can and should be proud of the real accomplishments of OISE and of the international reputation it has managed to achieve in 21 short years. The conferring of degree-granting status would recognize these achievements. It would recognize the hard work of Chairman Jones and his capable board of governors. It would also recognize the accomplishments of the faculty and staff of OISE.

Degree-granting status would give to the institute a much-needed sense of academic stability in the face of months of uncertainty that have followed the October budget. Therefore, I urge all members of this House to support Bill 46 and to endorse the kind of work OISE has been doing since 1965.

Mr. Allen: I rise to support my colleague's bill proposing degree-granting powers for the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, known as Bill 46.

It is not insignificant that this is 1986. It is exactly 21 years from the founding of the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. Twenty-one years used to be the coming of age, the age of majority, symbolizing accession to adulthood and full autonomy of person, with all the responsibilities that went with it. Although we have waffled with ages of 18 and 19 for various other categories of responsibility verging on adulthood, still, in many respects, it remains a symbolic number. The significant fact about OISE's history during those 21 years is that it has indeed grown up.

The original arrangements that were established to provide it with some legitimacy in the world at large, affiliating it with the University of Toronto, providing that university with the oversight of degree-granting powers for that institute, are no longer particularly germane or essential to that body's reputation, to the solidity of its record, to the need for some legitimacy that its graduates carry forward or to anything that bears any significant reality that one normally attaches to degrees and degree-granting powers.

The original discussions around the founding of the institute and for years afterward indicate there was much intention that OISE become a degree-granting institution. In fact, the affiliation arrangement it had with the University of Toronto is not to be found even within the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education Act.

In the course of time, this institution has, like many institutions, grown and expanded and outgrown the difficulties that attended the earlier years of development. I am not going to dwell on the latter. They were well expanded upon in the early years of that institution's development, but by common consent they no longer are part of our present reality. They are no longer part of what one thinks about when one thinks about this institution.

It has developed into a unique place. In its mix of graduate university studies, research and development and field services, it does things that are not common to most institutes or most bodies with which one might otherwise want to compare it.

11:30 a.m.

When we in the standing committee on general government undertook a search to discover how comparable it was with other institutions of its kind around the world, it stood out as a unique package, and it is precisely in its uniqueness that it has been able to accomplish what it has done in a very short space of time.

There is no doubt that the flood of letters to which the member just referred or that I or the member for Beaches-Woodbine has received has borne testimony, not only from Ontario or from across Canada but also from around the world, to the status and stature of the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. OISE has indeed grown up.

When one talks about degree-granting powers, a couple of things are often referred to. Of course, one is the need for the reputation that stands behind a degree to give it some currency. It is very interesting that at this point in OISE's history, its graduates, who fan out across the province, across the country and across the world, are known more for their attachment to the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education than for their being products of the University of Toronto per se. They are known as OISE graduates.

It is not surprising that when one looks at the list of visiting professors who go there, the pattern of international reputation is quite obvious. For example, there are professors who come from the Ministry of Education, Bogota, Colombia; Kyushu University, Japan; Bar-Ilan University, Israel; the Western Australian Institute of Technology; Islamic Development Bank in Jidda, Saudi Arabia, and Macquarie University, New South Wales. They come from the University of Aikato, New Zealand, and the National University of Singapore, as well as from various places in North America and Canada.

There is a sense that this is an institution that can stand behind any degree that is worth giving to any student. There is no question about reputation.

The issue that has been raised about whether or not this is a university and therefore worthy of granting degrees is really a nonstarter. There are 16 universities in Ontario, but there are 43 degree-granting institutions. There are far more degree-granting institutions that are not universities than are universities in our province.

There were those who suggested there should be no more degree-granting institutions because to proliferate them would add cost to the government. That was the song in 1983 when we were limiting degree-granting powers in this province. To grant degree-granting powers to OISE is to grant powers to an existing institution that will be no more and no less costly to the government in its support either way, with or without degrees. The issue is a nonstarter.

If I might respond to the question of whether this is untimely or irrelevant to the current debate around OISE's future; in the first instance, it is quite clear OISE has been asking for degree-granting power as recently as June 18. I have a letter from the chairperson of the board of governors, who says: "Regardless of the outcome of talks with the University of Toronto, we still wish to pursue independent degree-granting powers for the institute. We appreciate your efforts in preparing Bill 46."

There has been a request. It has been made before the committee. It has been repeated many times. It is in writing. There is no question about the desire. With respect to the relevance of the current debate on the future status of OISE, in a certain sense that is a little bit beside the question, although obviously a complete merger of this institution with the University of Toronto would finally close off any option for independent degree-granting powers.

With regard to any other alternative one can think about, including the one that appears to receive principally the attention of the negotiating team at this time -- namely, a structure which would include the faculty of education of the university within the OISE structure and have an independent board and control of its own resources -- degree-granting powers are not incompatible with that or with any acceptable model that has been presented to the standing committee on general government or that emanates from any part of the educational community.

The notion that to grant degree-granting power at this time is somehow or other inimical to the best future of OISE or to acceptable models that can be worked out in the relationship with the University of Toronto is really to raise a red herring across the whole issue.

The central issue is the question whether the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education has matured to the degree that it now is capable of fielding graduate students and researchers for this province, personnel who will support the whole educational enterprise in this province, outside this province and around the world to such an extent and in such a fashion that there is no question they have been legitimately and fully trained and will withstand any test of scrutiny that anyone can bring against them. That, in short, is the issue.

I submit that this institution has achieved that reputation. One has only to look at the various bodies it houses that have international reputations themselves, such as the International Council for Adult Education, which is the centre for adult education across the world. OISE is synonymous with a worldwide reputation and the whole thrust of adult education around the world. That is repeated in area after area of this institution's existence, in its purpose and in its function.

The time has come in terms of the institution's own development, quite apart from the question of relations with the University of Toronto, for it to have degree-granting power.

Ms. Hart: I rise today to speak against Bill 46, a bill designed to give the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education degree-granting privileges and to render it fully autonomous from the University of Toronto.

As I am sure the members are aware, the relationship between OISE and the University of Toronto is based on an affiliation agreement whereby the University of Toronto grants degrees to OISE students, but the administration of programming and funding rests solely with the institute. There is no other arrangement in post-secondary education quite like this one. These two institutions, ideologically tied through the common goal of providing superlative educational facilities to their students, ought to come together under one institutional umbrella to provide both organizations with enhanced opportunities for academic and research excellence.

The University of Toronto has in the past successfully merged with neighbouring educational organizations. I cite as examples of that the federated colleges of Victoria, St. Michael's and Trinity and the colleges of the Toronto School of Theology. The various institutions and the university itself have benefited immensely from their closer association. I believe the same type of benefits will emerge from the integration of OISE with the University of Toronto.

In fact, the OISE-University of Toronto subcommittee preliminary report deals with full integration of OISE and the University of Toronto. It was released in March 1983 and it outlined various benefits it felt would likely occur from such a merger.

One of those benefits would be enhanced quality of teaching programs by drawing upon the experiences of the staffs of the two institutions. Second, there would be a more systematic relationship in research, a strengthening of their research capabilities through effective use of the methodological expertise and knowledge of both staffs. Third, there would be a pooling of resources and staffs to review curricular needs and program co-ordination. These are but a few of the potential benefits of such a union that I see.

OISE's closer association with the University of Toronto, one of the finest universities in Canada and one known throughout the world, not just in educational but in all circles, could only bring increased prestige to its already renowned reputation. The integration will consolidate the activities of the University of Toronto and OISE, making both organizations stronger in the field of education. Co-ordination of undergraduate and post-graduate programs can only enhance the delivery of superior services to those seeking post-secondary education.

11:40 a.m.

The criticism of the integration program flows from the perceived threat that this proposal could pose to the programs OISE has developed over the past 20 years or so, for example, the women's centre, the modern language program and the regional field offices.

The government has not imposed a specific regimented plan for integration. It has not advanced ideas on the continuation or discontinuation of any program. Rather, it is the government's intention to continue promotion and facilitation of negotiations between OISE and the University of Toronto so that they may come to a mutually beneficial agreement on the method for a smooth and successful integration.

The University of Toronto has made a proposal that would provide for a 50-50 split of authority between OISE and the University of Toronto administrations. A new council would be established where, among others, the dean of undergraduate studies from the University of Toronto, the dean of graduate studies and the OISE director would be present. It is also suggested that a new college of the University of Toronto be established, and it is not inconceivable that the new college would retain OISE's name.

Further, the OISE board would be maintained but the functions would be altered. It could be a granting council responsible for the allocation of funding from the Ministry of Education. This plan would maintain OISE's programs and would continue degree granting from the University of Toronto.

This is merely an example of what could come from a joint effort to create an integration model. As efforts about the University of Toronto and OISE have been concentrating on an integrated model and as a successful result requires time, the affiliation agreement has been extended to June 1987 and a comprehensive model for integration is hopeful at this stage.

Finally, I would like to reiterate and emphasize that the common goal of superior postsecondary school education facilities is an item of utmost priority. The responsibility lies with elected members such as ourselves to advance and support those programs which would ensure the realization of the common goal. The University of Toronto and the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education merger would serve to enshrine our goals by uniting two excellent institutions.

I will be opposing the bill put forward today as I believe it will interfere in a negative way with the constructive negotiations that are currently ongoing between the two institutions for their mutual benefit. I urge other members similarly to vote against the bill.

Mr. Dean: I am delighted to rise and take

part in the debate on this bill which, when passed, would provide degree-granting power to the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.

I, too, am one of the members of the standing committee on general government which has listened over the past months to extensive briefs and oral submissions from people all over Ontario and, in a few cases, from beyond the borders of our province in support of the continuance of this excellent institution.

I recognize that the present bill does not speak directly to whether the institution remains as an independent body or whether it be merged with some other institution, which was suggested as a desirable thing by the Treasurer in his budget last fall. However, I believe the timeliness of the bill is exactly appropriate in that it underlines one of the features which, as we have heard from many presentations and from people directly connected with OISE itself, is considered by hundreds of people in the educational community to be an important adjunct to the continued and developing contribution OISE makes to education in our province.

The right to grant degrees, as has been stated by a previous speaker, is not given out with a free and open hand in this province. Having had some experience both as a member of a school board in years past and as a parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Education here during my time in the Legislature, I agree in general with that tight control on degree-granting powers. We are all familiar with the so-called degree mills we hear of from time to time which operate in the United States and which frequently attempt to extend tentacles into Ontario.

It is proper that we have that strict surveillance of any application, any consideration for the right to grant a degree which would be recognized in this province as being comparable to degrees that our own institutions already grant.

I know the Ministry of Education has ongoing discussions and concerns brought about because of the steady stream of applications from institutions in other jurisdictions that crave two things. First, they crave to be recognized by the ministry and the government in this province, which is known for having a high standard of excellence in educational performance, for the degrees offered; and second, to have access to a lucrative market in Ontario for those who might be persuaded to pay fees to those external organizations in order to get a degree that might look good on paper but might not have much substance to it.

OISE does not fit in that group of money-grabbing, would-be-degree-granting institutions. As the previous speakers this morning have outlined well, OISE is held in the highest respect worldwide for all of its different activities which can, as the mover of the motion outlined, be divided roughly into three sections: research and development in education, the graduate degree program and field services. In the submissions which we had in the standing committee on general government on the topic of OISE's independence or otherwise, all three of those fields were covered.

I do not propose to spend any further time here on the favourable submissions we received on both the research and development and the field services which OISE does. Suffice it to say these are held to be desirable, almost essential, to the carrying on of the excellent degree of educational performance we expect from our educators in Ontario. OISE does offer courses in the PhD, doctor of education, master of arts and master of education fields. At present, there are 690 full-time students and more than 1,600 part-time students engaged in one or other of those courses.

OISE has received high ratings from the Ontario Council on Graduate Studies, which does a general overview of all degree-granting institutions in the graduate field in Ontario. Since its inception in 1965, OISE has granted, through the University of Toronto, 9,000 master of education degrees, mostly to teachers, and more than 1,000 doctorates to teachers and other educational officials.

In the course of doing this, OISE has developed innovative ways of providing service off-campus, which is important in a jurisdiction as large as Ontario where people are scattered over thousands of miles and cannot always conveniently take all the necessary time off to attend full time. This is an example, in the degree courses, of the kind of innovation and dedication to excellent educational directions, projects and programs for which OISE has come to be renowned.

11:50 a.m.

More specifically, the degree-granting power or privilege, because it is sort of a privilege in our province, is one of the six features that we judge is important to OISE from the submissions their own people have made. I do not necessarily mean the people who are employed there, but the people who have come to respect OISE for what it does and who have had direct experience in OISE. It is one of the six features they believe are essential for the continued effective operation of the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.

In that regard, it will aid it to continue functioning as an independent body. It is quite true we have the looming spectre of amalgamation if the Treasurer carries out his threat or promise, whichever it was, which was enunciated in his budget last fall. I am not trying to prejudge what the standing committee on general government will recommend to the Legislature after its extensive study, because that has not yet been completely formulated by the committee. However, my own personal opinion is that the power to grant degrees would be a considerable step in the right direction to support the good work and reputation OISE enjoys.

In

summary, I am proud that the members of our caucus in the Legislature show their own confidence and support of OISE by recognizing its achievements in the field of graduate education as well as in the other roles it performs. Over the years, I believe OISE has earned the right to be recognized as a pre-eminent, unique, valuable component of our excellent education system. In supporting this bill, we grant OISE a tangible sign of that recognition it so well deserves. I urge all members to support this bill.

Mr. Warner: I am pleased to support this bill. Frankly, I remain puzzled as to the Treasurer's intent from the outset when he made his announcement.

OISE was established to serve a unique function. It continues to fulfil that function and to excel in quite a number of areas of educational research. It remains a world-class example of the kind of extremely important educational work that needs to be done. It is an entity that should be left separate and it should not be disturbed in any way.

Rather than attempting in some way to dismantle it, which appears to be the Treasurer's intent, we should be supporting it to a greater degree than we are. Part of that support is to enable OISE to grant diplomas, certificates, honorary degrees and degrees themselves. We should be trying to enhance the institution and not attempting to break it down. In a practical sense, members realize that if OISE becomes amalgamated with the University of Toronto, it will melt. It will simply become part of the fabric of the university and will lose its separate identity. It will no longer exist on its own merits. To me, that would be wrong.

I urge all members to support this excellent bill put forward by my colleague. We should try to support OISE rather than attack it.

Ms. Bryden: The members who have opposed this bill are claiming we do not need any change from the present situation and that OISE can continue to work out an affiliation agreement with the University of Toronto and carry on in a co-operative way. The present state of the negotiations does not lead us to believe that is necessarily going to happen, and they have been going on for a considerable period of time.

The other thing I want to point out is that this bill would not interrupt the negotiations or interfere with them; in fact, it would enhance the ability of both institutions to work out cooperative arrangements. The University of Toronto faculty of education and OISE need to work together; it would be beneficial for both of them. The simple fact is that if OISE does not have its own degree-granting powers, it cannot negotiate as an equal with the university. Anybody who has been connected with bargaining of any kind will recognize that.

If OISE has to rely on fixed-term affiliation agreements with the University of Toronto for degree-granting powers, it cannot plan for the future. It cannot develop new programs to meet the new conditions of human life which Professor McCormack Smyth mentioned in his presentation to the standing committee on general government. He mentioned the advent of nuclear power, the robotization of work, the transformation of our system of communications, what he called the video culture, which is replacing the print culture. He mentioned the widening sense of alienation and the feeling of powerlessness of a great many people in our society.

We need institutions flexible enough to be able to start to meet these needs. We need an independent OISE with the ability to turn the focus of education on to meeting these problems. It cannot do it without its independence, its programmatic autonomy and its own budget. These may be at risk in any future affiliation agreement if degree-granting powers are also on the line.

It is absolutely essential we recognize that OISE is 21 years old, that it does merit degree-granting powers of its own and that it be able to continue to expand and develop as an independent institution. That is what this bill is all about. I urge members to vote in support of it.

I also want to mention that one particular institute at OISE, the Women's Centre for Studies in Education, is a unique resource for all women in Ontario. It is a meeting place for women and a centre for finding new approaches to the development of the equality of women. It is producing a history of the contributions of women to our society. History in the past has usually focused on the male players in the business world, in the political world and in the world of work. That imbalance is now being redressed by the women's centre, which is producing a history of women in Ontario in various aspects.

That is one of the centres OISE would like to continue, but if it does not have programmatic autonomy and budgetary autonomy, it may not be able to ensure its continuation. Another centre at OISE is the Modern Language Centre, which does work with native languages. That is another unique area that is not covered by any of the programs at the University of Toronto and it may not be funded if OISE is merged with the University of Toronto.

12 noon

It is important to maintain OISE as an independent institution and to make it possible for it to negotiate affiliation agreements that will be fruitful to both OISE and the University of Toronto.

PARALEGAL AGENTS ACT

Mr. Speaker: Mr. O'Connor has moved second reading of Bill 42.

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will say "nay."

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for standing committee on administration of justice.

ONTARIO INSTITUTE FOR STUDIES IN EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT

The House divided on Mr. Pouliot's motion for second reading of Bill 46, which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes

Allen, Andrewes, Barlow, Bernier, Brandt, Bryden, Charlton, Cooke, D. S., Cousens, Davis, Dean, Gigantes, Gillies, Gordon, Grande, Gregory, Grier, Guindon, Harris, Hayes, Hennessy, Jackson, Lane, Laughren, Leluk;

Mackenzie, Marland, Martel, McCague, McFadden, McLean, McNeil, Morin-Strom, O'Connor, Partington, Philip, Pierce, Reville, Rowe, Runciman, Shymko, Sterling, Stevenson, K. R., Swart, Treleaven, Villeneuve, Warner, Wildman.

Nays

Bossy, Callahan, Cordiano, Epp, Ferraro, Fulton, Hart, Knight, Mancini, McGuigan, Miller, G. I., Morin, Nixon, Polsinelli, Reycraft, Smith, E. J.

Ayes 48; nays 16.

Bill ordered for committee of the whole House.

The House recessed at 12:12 p.m.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

TAX PAYMENTS

Mr. Andrewes: Today I have the pleasure of informing the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon), the Premier (Mr. Peterson) and, indeed, every wage earner in the province that as of tomorrow, after 178 days, they will have finished paying off all their taxes for 1986. June 27 is tax freedom day in Ontario, a day to be celebrated as taxpayers stop working for the government and can finally begin to enjoy the fruits of their labour themselves.

It is interesting to note that this year tax freedom day falls five days later than it did in 1984, the year in which the last Conservative budget was delivered. The Liberals' October budget raised taxes by a staggering $700 million, forcing the taxpayers of this province to work an additional week to fund the government's uncontrollable spending habits.

The Treasurer may be surprised to learn that taxpayers in only one other province have to work longer to pay off their taxes. The beleaguered taxpayers of Quebec, which is governed by a good friend of our Premier, have to wait until July 17 before they can celebrate. Meanwhile, taxpayers in Prince Edward Island celebrated their tax freedom day way back on May 13, Manitoba on June 1 and Newfoundland on June 13. That is hard to believe.

During this weekend of celebration, all Ontario taxpayers should think hard about how they want to spend all their tax-free money, provided they have any left after one year of Liberal government.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr. Laughren: I have a statement concerning the abysmal state of enforcement of our health and safety laws in Ontario by the Ministry of Labour. As an example of just how bad it is, I refer to the situation at Waferboard Corp., just west of Timmins. There was a serious accident there on August 4, 1985. It has taken the Ministry of Labour seven months to investigate what is a clear case of negligence. No charges have yet been laid, and the deadline for charges to be laid is August 3, 1986.

As if that were not bad enough, isocyanates have been in use in that plant since July 1985.

There have been repeated complaints by the workers about throat and eye irritation. In December, there was a recommendation by the Ministry of Labour occupational health hygienist that a control program was necessary and that an order should be issued. In January, a survey showed that the isocyanates level in the air exceeded the maximum levels in three out of seven areas tested, and as far as I know, no control order has been issued yet.

Finally, it appears that notice was provided to Waferboard prior to the January 16, 1986, air sampling that was done.

The minister has not provided leadership, nor has he made it clear that control orders cannot be ignored and that charges will be laid.

TWO-WAY HAT

Mr. Sargent: The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Grossman) had a one-way phone last week. Now we have for him a two-way hat that says: "I'm their leader. Which way did they go?"

TOURISM ADVERTISEMENT

Mr. Baetz: Come, Jane. See Dick. Look, Spot. Today we will learn a new word: incredible. The dictionary defines it as "surpassing belief." It is the key word in the new Ministry of Tourism and Recreation advertising program. Look, Jane. Look, Dick. Look, Spot. There on the corner of Yonge and Summerhill, on the big billboard along with the name of Ottawa and the picture of a waterfall, is our new word, "incredible."

In Ottawa, we are proud of our cultural attractions and spectacular sunsets, but incredible? Certainly the traffic jams on the Queensway, which the Premier (Mr. Peterson) promised would never happen, are incredible. They and the Premier's broken promise surpass all belief for the thousands of motorists trapped daily.

Look closer, Dick. Look, Jane and Spot, at the waterfall on the billboard. That is a picture of a phoney waterfall; it does not exist in Ottawa or even in Niagara Falls. In a province with so many beautiful waterfalls, the ad agency produced its own fake waterfall. Now, Dick, Jane and Spot, that is incredible. It is also incredible that the Minister of Tourism and Recreation (Mr. Eakins) would agree to spend more than $500,000 of taxpayers' money on such a phoney ad. It all surpasses belief.

Down, Spot, down; get away from the billboard post. No need to raise your leg. I know how you feel about that ad and that you understand our new word, "incredible."

INSURANCE RATES

Mr. Swart: The insurance crisis in this province is becoming increasingly bizarre. In 1985, liability premiums escalated by between 150 and 200 per cent. Statistics Canada has just reported that liability claims payments last year rose by only 11 per cent. Thus, in the first quarter of 1986, total revenue attributed to liability insurance was almost double the amount of liability claims. That assisted casualty and property insurance companies to hike their profits from $22 million in the first quarter of 1985 to $173 million in the first quarter of 1986, a 700 per cent increase; but the rate hikes continue unabated.

The insurance companies have simply never had it so good; they hike the premiums and eliminate the risk. They have honed to perfection the Reaganistic philosophy of Tory Barbara McDougall, the federal Minister of State for Finance, who said two days ago: "There's one underlying motivation in business. It's called greed. It's what keeps the world of commerce going. There's nothing wrong with that, and we support it."

Obviously, those are the sentiments of Ontario's Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Kwinter) as well. While he certainly solved the problems of the insurance companies, I think his obligation as consumer minister is to solve the problems of the insuring public.

ATTENDANCE OF MEMBERS

Mr. Callahan: I rise to address the opposition to determine how their picnic was at Ward's Island on the day we were voting on a very essential bill in this House. My recollection is that there were only 16 members here.

An hon. member: Thirteen.

Mr. Callahan: Sorry; there were 13 members. It seems to me their members were absent to a very large degree on a day when they should have been present in the House. Surely it behooves all of us to bring that to the attention of the public so the young men and women out there who are going to be helped by this funding can know that in no way, shape or form was it assisted by the opposition.

SOVIET REACTOR

Mr. Shymko: Three months ago today, the worst nuclear disaster in the peacetime history of man occurred in Chernobyl, Ukraine. With the generous assistance and co-operation of the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh), I have tabled the following resolution and would appreciate if, with the agreement of all three House leaders, we could adopt it unanimously today without debate as a humanitarian act of this Legislature on this tragic anniversary.

The resolution is as follows:

"1. That the United Nations form an international investigative committee of scientists and medical experts to enter Ukraine and to assess the extent of danger, both domestic and international;

"2. That Canada declare its preparedness to contribute emergency aid such as medicine, food and technical personnel to help in treating the Chernobyl disaster victims either in the USSR or in our own medical facilities in Canada;

"3. That Canada announce an open-door policy for family reunification and sponsorship of immigrants wishing to leave Ukraine; and

"4. That the USSR permit more direct communication between Canadians and their relatives or friends in Ukraine."

I hope that at some stage today we can have the agreement of all the members of the House and the three House leaders to pass this unanimously.

2:10 p.m.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

WHEEL-TRANS LABOUR DISPUTE

Hon. Mr. Wrye: As honourable members will recall, on April 25 this assembly passed legislation to bring to an end the labour dispute between All-Way Transportation Corp. and Local 113 of the Amalgamated Transit Union. All-Way's Wheel-Trans division provides public transportation services in Toronto to handicapped people. The terms of the legislation provided that an arbitrator would examine and decide on all matters in dispute between the parties. On May 1, Howard D. Brown was appointed arbitrator.

Today I would like to inform the House that the arbitration award has been issued and received by the parties. Essentially, the award applies the terms of the memorandum of settlement which was entered into by the parties on April 18. The memorandum provides for a wage increase of $1.37 per hour over two years for the drivers, who constitute the largest group of employees affected.

The award also applies the memorandum of settlement's provision requiring extra funding in the amount of $377,000 to be shared equally by the Ministry of Transportation and Communications and the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto. I am pleased to advise members that this funding condition has been met by both funding authorities.

In accordance with the legislation, the parties are now in a position to prepare collective agreements that will give effect to the arbitrator's decision.

ALLEGED CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: Two days ago in this House --

Mr. Brandt: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: We do not have copies of the statement.

An hon. member: Copies of the statement are being distributed at this moment.

Mr. Brandt: We were not aware of that, and we would like to have copies.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Everybody sit down till the copies are distributed.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Do the members have copies of the statement? Yes.

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: Two days ago in this House, the allegation was made that I am in breach of the government's conflict-of-interest guidelines because of my involvement with Golden Tiger Mining Exploration. I now wish to answer that allegation.

Golden Tiger was incorporated as a private company in Quebec in 1981 under the name Explorations Banque-Or Inc. In April 1984, the company name was changed to Golden Tiger. Golden Tiger is a mineral exploration company which has not made any discovery in Ontario or Quebec. The company first issued shares to the public on December 30, 1982. As a result of the public issue, shares owned by me were placed in escrow. I will now review in detail the disposition of those shares and shares owned by other members of my family.

On December 30, 1982, the company issued 19,080 common shares in my name. As required by the Quebec Securities Commission, these shares were placed directly in an approved escrow account in the name of Golden Tiger. They are under the trusteeship of Guaranty Trust, a trust company licensed under the provisions of the Ontario Loan and Trust Corporations Act. These shares can be released from escrow only with the approval of the Quebec Securities Commission upon the application of Golden Tiger. I cannot cause their release.

Since December 30, 1982, there has been only one release of some of these escrow shares. On February 7, 1983, upon the authorization of the Quebec Securities Commission, 1,908 shares, or 10 per cent of the escrow shares, were released from escrow. They were delivered into the custody of my broker Osler, Wills, Bickle. There has been no change in the escrow account since February 7, 1983. Today, there remain in escrow 17,172 shares.

I did not in 1983, and do not today, have any control over these escrow shares. They are in an escrow arrangement under the sole control of Guaranty Trust. If Golden Tiger should in future apply for a release of some of these shares, and should the release of the shares be approved by the Quebec Securities Commission, they will be transferred to the custody of Canada Trust, which is the trustee of my blind trust. They will be dealt with in my blind trust without my knowledge or direction. I have received advice that I cannot even now transfer the escrow shares into a blind trust because of the provisions of the escrow agreement.

It is correct that my disclosure filing does not list the escrow shares. When I prepared my filing for the Clerk of the House, I forgot to list the escrow shares. I am a businessman. I believe ownership means control and the ability to exercise or direct that control such that one can benefit from what one owns. I do not own these shares within that meaning. Furthermore, I did not have and never have had custody of the escrow share certificates. I have never received any dividends from these escrow shares.

Moreover, since 1983, I have not received any statements from Guaranty Trust evidencing its holding of these escrow shares. In short, since February 1983, I have not in any way dealt with these escrow shares.

These shares have my name on them, but I cannot direct their release from escrow. I do not control them. I cannot determine whether I will receive any benefit from them. I cannot sell them. I am separated from them by two third parties over whom I have no control, Golden Tiger and Guaranty Trust.

I will now turn to the second lot of Golden Tiger shares. On December 1, 1985, I owned and controlled 45,354 shares, and my wife owned and controlled 3,000 shares. All of these shares were held in the custody of our broker Osler, Wills, Bickle in Montreal. Afrer reviewing with our legal advisers our option either to sell these shares or to place them in blind trusts, my wife and I decided to dispose of these shares.

Accordingly, because my wife and I owned and controlled these shares, in December 1985, I instructed Osler, Wills, Bickle to liquidate our holdings in Golden Tiger. My shares were sold over the period of December 10, 11 and 12, 1985. My wife's shares were sold on January 13, 1986. The allegation that any of these shares were sold on March 3, 1986, is false. I have today tabled with the Clerk the account statements from Osler, Wills, Bickle that verify the dates of these sales. I did not list any of these shares in my disclosure filing and was not required to list them, because as at January 31, 1986, neither my wife nor I owned or controlled any of these shares.

I will now review the third group of Golden Tiger shares, which are owned by my adult children. As at December 1, 1985, my adult children owned 26,500 shares of Golden Tiger. Twenty-four thousand of them were held at a bank in Hearst. In early December 1985, I called my bank to arrange for the transfer of these shares to the safekeeping of the Midland, Doherty stock brokerage firm. At that time, I learned that, in fact, 10,000 of my children's shares were registered by mistake in my wife's name.

I gave instructions to advise Midland, Doherty that upon its receipt of the shares, it should immediately re-register the 10,000 shares in my children's names. Yesterday, as a result of the inquiries made by my legal advisers, I learned that my instructions were never followed. Midland, Doherty has failed to re-register the 10,000 shares. My solicitors have today reconfirmed to Midland, Doherty my December instructions.

My adult children own and control these shares. The conflict-of-interest guidelines do not require that holdings by adult children be directed or placed in a blind trust and, accordingly, these shareholdings were not listed in my disclosure statement filed with the Clerk.

I have now outlined to the members the manner in which the Golden Tiger shares owned and controlled by me and my family, and the Golden Tiger escrow shares registered in my name, have been dealt with since June 26, 1985. My legal counsel, Messrs. Blake, Cassels and Graydon, have advised that I have never been and am not now in a conflict of interest because of my duties as minister and my shareholding relationship with Golden Tiger.

I believe it is my duty now to bring to the attention of the members of this House four omissions from my disclosure statement filed with the Clerk on January 31, 1986. In May 1986, it came to my attention that I had not listed in my disclosure statement my shareholdings in two companies, Paladin Petroleum and Villeneuve Resources Ltd.

On December 1, 1985, I owned 1,200 shares of Paladin Petroleum and 5,000 shares of Villeneuve Resources. On December 5, 1985, I instructed my broker Jones, Gable to sell all my holdings in these two companies. I assumed that by January 31, 1986, these shares had been sold. In fact, my broker was unable to sell these until February. On February 5, 1986, my shares in Villeneuve were sold for $715. On February 13, 1986, my shares in Paladin were sold for $445. My broker has advised me that the shares could not be sold before those dates because there was no market for them.

I also own one share in a private company known as Les Industries Nordex. Nordex was established in Hearst to market peat moss. The company issued 50 shares to 50 people for $200 per share. The company now has no funds. It is inactive. My single share has no value. There is no market for the share; it is not an asset. None the less, I have today instructed my lawyers to transfer this single share to my blind trust.

Finally, I am owed approximately $13,000 by Evolution Hearst. I am also owed approximately $50,000 by United Sawmill and René Fontaine Holdings Ltd. I am told by my lawyers that I should list these items in my disclosure statement even though, since January 31, 1986, they have been in the sole control of my trustee.

I also wish to advise the House that yesterday, in reviewing my disclosure statement, my lawyers discovered two transcription errors in the statement. My disclosure statement lists 126 preferred shares of Claybelt Lumber. This should read 126 common shares of that company. The statement also lists one share of Evolution Hearst. This should read 100 shares of that company. As of January 31, 1986, all of these shares had been placed in my blind trust, which is administered by Canada Trust.

I have today put all the facts before the House. When I filed my disclosure statement on January 31, 1986, I believed I had complied with the conflict-of-interest guidelines. Other members of the House, on strict technical

interpretation of the guidelines, may wish to reach a different conclusion. Therefore, I have delivered to the Clerk this afternoon two envelopes; one is addressed to you, Mr. Speaker, the other to the Premier (Mr. Peterson). These envelopes contain my resignations as the Minister of Northern Development and Mines and as the member of this assembly for Cochrane North.

It is alleged that I have breached the trust of the citizens of Cochrane North, placed in me on May 2, 1985, and I wish to be judged by my electors.

Mr. Brandt: Today is certainly a very sad day in this House. I have served for --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Brandt: With some sadness and a sense of some dismay, I listened to the member for Cochrane North (Mr. Fontaine) issue his statement today. It was extremely confusing and very difficult to interpret on this side of the House, in that it was fraught with a number of admissions that in some fashion, way, shape or form managed to escape the very close scrutiny of the Premier, who suggested back in January that all cabinet ministers would go through a very close check of any potential, possible, conflict-of-interest matters and that they were, in his words, "very squeaky clean" at that time.

Obviously, with four admissions and many more discussing the activities of his lawyer and the activities of his family, the member for Cochrane North finds himself today in a very awkward position. I want to make it very clear to the members on that side of the House that my comments with respect to that member's activities were singularly directed at his activities as the minister of mines, owning a mining company, and his involvement in a company he failed to disclose.

We did not call for his resignation on this side of the House or for his resignation as a private member. If the Premier and that member wish to force upon this province a competition in Cochrane North and subject the people of this province to that kind of cost, so be it. We are prepared to fight on the basis of the integrity of the members on this side of the House and on the fact that we have put before this House the facts as clearly and as succinctly as we know them. They have been answered today in a statement that does not in any way, shape or form cover off the kinds of problems the member has.

Mr. Wildman: It is with regret that I respond to the statement by the former Minister of Northern Development and Mines and member for Cochrane North, an honourable member, for whom I hold great personal regard, although as a member of the New Democratic Party, I have had serious political differences with him on occasion. The member has demonstrated in his short term of office tremendous energy and commitment to his duties. I regret that an apparent conflict developed for whatever reason and that the matter was not dealt with more expeditiously in the past.

There is no joy in this kind of political statement today.

M. Rae: Si je peux répondre très brièvement aux déclarations qui ont été faites aujourd'hui par l'ancien ministre, M. Fontaine, j'aimerais dire d'abord que du point de vue de notre parti, il est clairement et tout à fait inconvenant pour un ministre d'avoir un intérêt, même un intérêt indirect, dans une compagnie minière quand il est le ministre responsable des mines.

C'est peut-être une dure tâche de devoir le dire, mais à notre avis, c'est absolument certain qu'à l'époque moderne de notre politique, c'est absolument inconvenant et c'est quelque chose qui doit être résolu par la démission du ministre, ce qui vient de se produire.

Deuxièmement, je regrette que le ministre ait dû admettre aujourd'hui qu'il avait oublié non seulement de faire une déclaration, mais d'en faire quatre au total. Un tel fait dans une déclaration importante de la part d'un ministre qui s'adresse non seulement à l'Assemblée mais à toute la population ontarienne, encore une fois, c'est quelque chose que je regrette personnellement parce que nous ne voulons voir aucun collègue, à l'Assemblée, placé dans une telle position, mais c'est clair qu'il n'a pas déclaré ce qu'il aurait dû déclarer, et c'est une faute assez importante.

Troisièmement, il y a beaucoup de choses qu'on voudrait dire, mais nous savons qu'il y aura une élection partielle et je ne veux pas qu'aucune de mes déclarations n'apparaisse dans une brochure du candidat libéral. Je veux tout simplement dire que cette élection partielle n'est pas nécessaire. Le droit du député de Cochrane Nord de continuer comme député n'est pas mis en question. Il n'y a aucun doute là-dessus.

Je ne sais pas exactement pourquoi il l'a fait et ça n' a rien à voir avec la réalité d'une déclaration inadéquate, une déclaration qui ne reflétait pas tout à fait les faits. Je regrette profondément encore qu'en plus de démissionner de son poste, il ait décidé de démissionner comme député. Je crois que ça veut dire que nous aurons une élection partielle qui n'est pas nécessaire. Personne n'a encore dit qu'on devait avoir une élection suite à ça. Mais nous y serons, comme Nouveau Parti démocratique, si c'est ce que désire le député qui vient de démissionner.

Avec ces deux incidents, peut-être que ça mettra un terme au problème des conflits d'intérêts. Mais ça pose encore des problèmes pour le gouvernement, parce que c'est de plus en plus clair que les critères ne sont pas tout à fait établis, pas tout à fait connus et pas tout à fait respectés. Ça cause un problème de plus en plus grave pour notre vie publique.

MARINE AWARENESS PROGRAM

Hon. Mr. Keyes: The July 1 holiday has traditionally marked the start of the summer vacation period for many Ontario residents. Unfortunately, recent years have seen far too many of those holidays marred by boating mishaps. Indeed, problems created by impaired and disorderly boaters have become a major concern.

The fact that more than 100 people have been charged with alcohol-related offences since the start of the 1986 boating season highlights the need for stricter enforcement. That is why the Ontario Provincial Police has launched a marine awareness program. I am urging all members to support this worthy campaign.

Although the main focus of the marine awareness program is on education, the marine unit's 250 officers, with 105 vessels, will be more aggressive in addressing complaints. Each OPP boat will be equipped with an approved screening device to determine whether a boat operator has been consuming alcohol.

Statistics continue to show that approximately 42 per cent of the victims of fatal boating accidents had been drinking; 74 per cent of those were legally impaired.

The OPP will be keeping a close watch on boater behaviour and compliance with safety regulations. Community service officers will be in constant contact with cottage owner associations, boating clubs, children's camps and other groups to promote boating safety. A colour-coded navigational aid sticker will also be distributed during the course of the program.

I urge all members to support these efforts.

RESIGNATION OF MEMBER

Mr. Speaker: Although all members are aware of the letter I just received from the member for Cochrane North, it must be stated, for the record, that I am informing the House that a vacancy in the membership of the House has occurred by reason of the resignation of Mr. René Fontaine as member for Cochrane North.

2:35 p.m.

ORAL QUESTIONS

EXTRA BILLING

Mr. Grossman: I have a question for the Premier, as we begin the third week of the doctors' strike responding to Bill 94.

It is clear now, in spite of the earlier denials by the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston), that the government and the ministry have now offered resources, meaning in part money, to Women's College Hospital, in an attempt to buy more abortions. Is the Premier prepared to acknowledge that more than a serious problem or an inconvenience has developed for women seeking lawful abortions in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The minister can bring the member the full information on the subject he raises today.

Mr. Speaker: I understand the question is referred to the Minister of Health.

The member, having asked me the question yesterday about what we intend to do to provide assistance in situations such as that, will be pleased to know those inquiries have been made on an informal basis to see whether added resources are required. That was what was done, and I think members here will be pleased to know that ministry officials have been making every effort to ensure that the needs of women in this province are being taken care of and considered.

Mr. Grossman: We will come back to the question of the reality that the minister apparently was unaware of what was being offered and, second, the propriety of exactly how he chose to approach it.

How many hospitals has the minister approached to offer more resources to clear up an equally long, if not longer backlog in heart bypass surgery?

Hon. Mr. Elston: One of the concerns we have is that some people are not receiving elective procedures. We have undertaken to ensure to hospitals around the province that there will not be a need to provide layoffs of permanent staff. We have made it quite clear throughout the province that we are willing to see there are no layoffs of staff and that there are resources available for the hospitals to carry on their normal functions. I do not think it is any surprise to the member that we want to see the hospitals of this province well provided with resources. In particular, I have not made an inquiry myself with respect to bypass surgery.

Mr. Grossman: The minister now is telling us he has not made any inquiries in week three of the strike with regard to the cancellation and backlog of bypass surgery. The minister will surely be aware that there now will be an incredibly long waiting list for that surgery; the list has been exacerbated by this lengthy strike. How can the minister justify having taken action to sort out the backlog on abortions and then come to this House today and say he has not even asked the question and does not have the statistics to determine whether there is an equally serious problem facing bypass surgery, which may prove to be life threatening if he ignores it any longer?

Hon. Mr. Elston: I think the honourable gentleman would want to leave the question of what is life threatening to the physicians of this province. That is what we intend to do. In effect, they make those decisions and determinations. What is being planned at the hospital level is to provide facilities when those operations are undertaken by physicians on their own decision.

The member may want to intrude between the patients and the physicians to demand that the physicians do certain things, but he does not quite understand, even though he is a former Minister of Health, that the administrators and board members of the hospitals of this province make themselves aware of the needs they require to meet the demands for health care in the province. Even now, they are planning to deal with the question of providing the services that are required to assist physicians when they perform their surgeries.

I am watching very closely to see that the resources are in place to help any hospital deal with the provision of health care in the province, as is normal and as is required by my mandate as Minister of Health.

Mr. Grossman: Once again, we are going to try to see whether the Premier will answer a question relating to the doctors' strike.

The Premier has now heard his Minister of Health indicate he is trying to do something to alleviate the problems with regard to abortions that have been created by the strike. Given the actions of the Minister of Health, is the Premier prepared to acknowledge today that we now have more than an inconvenience and now are moving, in week three of the strike, to potentially dangerous circumstances?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I know the honourable member opposite has been trying to create that impression every day in the House, going back a couple of weeks. I do not agree with my friend's description.

Mr. Grossman: If he does not believe we are approaching dangerous circumstances, why did the minister suddenly offer, as he has just indicated, extra resources, meaning money, to Women's College Hospital in day 15 of the strike to clear up a backlog in abortions? Either there is a problem that he has dealt with or there is no problem. How can he explain that inconsistency?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The minister explained that to the member extremely well. We have been concerned, and it has been raised in this House many times, about access to therapeutic abortion services under the law, using the existing institutions. It is one of the things this government has been looking at and studying. We have been looking at the allocation of resources in that regard. I think it is quite clear.

Mr. Grossman: I hope the Premier will have an opportunity in the media scrum afterwards to deal with the question of whether the move he has made on abortions is related or unrelated to the doctors' strike, because he is not going to be able to get away with that suggestion.

My final question to the Premier is, if he is not prepared to admit that there is more than an inconvenience, how does he feel about the fact that Dr. Morgentaler's clinic, in response to telephone calls, is offering special deals on abortions during the currency of the strike, indicating that if a patient brings her Ontario health insurance plan card, she can get $40 off if her pregnancy is 12 weeks or less, or if it has progressed more than 12 weeks, she can get an $80-reduction? How does he feel about this circumstance that he has played a major

part in creating? What is he going to do about it?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I realize the honourable member would like to blame me for everything in this province, and that is fair enough; that is his prerogative. The answer is, I have not heard of the facts he