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

June 25, 1986

33rd Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L039 - Wed 25 Jun 1986 / Mer 25 jun 1986

BOARD OF INTERNAL ECONOMY

ANNUAL REPORT, OMBUDSMAN

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

GASOLINE PRICES

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

BASEBALL GAME

EXTRA BILLING

ACCESS TO ABORTION COMMITTEES

CHILDREN'S AID SOCIETY

TUITION FEES

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

ALLEGED CONFLICT OF INTEREST

INVESTMENT IN THE ARTS

DISCLOSURE OF ADOPTION INFORMATION

STABILIZATION PAYMENTS

ORAL QUESTIONS

EXTRA BILLING

ALLEGED CONFLICT OF INTEREST

EXTRA BILLING

ALLEGED CONFLICT OF INTEREST

WATER QUALITY

ALLEGED CONFLICT OF INTEREST

NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT

COMPUTER CONTRACTS

ACQUIRED IMMUNE DEFICIENCY SYNDROME

BUSINESS PROGRAMS

CHILDREN'S AID SOCIETY

PETITIONS

EXTRA BILLING

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

ABORTION CLINICS

GASOLINE PRICES

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

MOTION

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

ORDERS OF THE DAY

SHORELINE PROPERTY ASSISTANCE AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)

MOTION

STATUS OF BILL 7

SHORELINE PROPERTY ASSISTANCE AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

BOARD OF INTERNAL ECONOMY

Mr. Speaker: I beg to inform the House that I have laid upon the table a copy of an order in council deleting the name of the Honourable Elinor Caplan and substituting in lieu thereof the Honourable James Bradley, Minister of the Environment.

Mr. McClellan: Is that for the board? For what?

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry. In regard to the membership of the Board of Internal Economy.

ANNUAL REPORT, OMBUDSMAN

Mr. Speaker: I also wish to inform the House that I have today laid upon the table the annual report of the Ombudsman of Ontario for 1985-86. The members will find copies in their postal boxes.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

GASOLINE PRICES

Mr. Pierce: I want to bring to this government's attention the high cost of travelling through northern Ontario. I believe travellers from eastern Canada and the eastern United States who intend to visit Expo this summer will travel through the US rather than through northern Ontario.

The Minister of Tourism and Recreation (Mr. Eakins) announced on June 16 that his government intends to spend $1 million this year to attract tourists into northern Ontario with a marketing ad campaign. The thrust of this campaign is to be directed at people in eastern Ontario. Does the minister really believe this ad campaign is going to encourage people to visit and travel through the north when they can travel almost twice as far in the US on the same amount of money that they would have to spend on gas in northern Ontario?

My father just recently drove from Fort Frances to Toronto. I mention this because he did not drive through Ontario; he drove via the US for $73. By using figures provided by the government's north-south gasoline pricing study, the same trip through northern Ontario would have cost my father $170.

Why does this government do everything but the obvious? The high cost of travelling through northern Ontario for families visiting Expo will discourage them from using the northern route. If the north is to benefit from the extra tourists travelling to Expo this summer, the cost of gas must be lowered now.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr. Martel: Dofasco has been exempted from the statutory requirement to establish joint health and safety committees in its plant. If the Minister of Labour (Mr. Wrye) was serious about health and safety, he would not allow a company of that size to have this option. Let us see the application, with the grounds for such an exemption.

The United Steelworker of America at Stelco presented to our task force injury statistics showing that for the past two years accidents at Dofasco are occurring at a rate 80 per cent higher than at Stelco. Local 1005 is frequently called by Dofasco workers to represent them in matters pertaining to health and safety. For example, the local is asked for help with Workers' Compensation Board cases and at coroners' inquests.

In the absence of a health and safety committee or a union, what proof does the minister have that the interests of unorganized workers at Dofasco are being protected from the hazards of the work place and the threat of reprisals? In the past three years there have been no fatalities at Stelco, while at Dofasco there have been four.

It is interesting to note that in the past three years, lost-time accidents at Dofasco are much higher than at Stelco. For example, in 1985 there were 850 lost-time accidents at Dofasco and only 455 at Stelco. It is time the minister looked into this situation to ensure that a proper health and safety committee is in place to protect the workers.

BASEBALL GAME

Mr. Callahan: I rise on this occasion to recognize a very significant event that took place on June 18, 1986. Unfortunately, this historic event could not be recorded until this time due to the important bills that were before the House. The occasion took place about eight o'clock in the evening at the De La Salle ball field. The courageous Liberal caucus met with the 14th-place press gallery team and soundly defeated it 24 to nine in a contest that was represented by a single pitcher throughout and there was no necessity whatsoever to go to the bullpen. We enjoyed it, and the trophy that was turned over to us on that occasion will no doubt remain in the caucus gallery for ever.

EXTRA BILLING

Mr. Andrewes: In its haste to ban extra billing, the government has allowed an important health care service in Ontario to get lost in the shuffle, to quote a member of the staff of the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston). The Ontario Dental Association, failing to get a response from the minister over several months, has advised the public by way of an advertisement in major newspapers that needed dental surgical procedures will not be undertaken in Ontario hospitals. This means that patients requiring services under the Ontario health insurance plan must either do without these services or seek them elsewhere.

ACCESS TO ABORTION COMMITTEES

Ms. Gigantes: Even before the withdrawal of doctors' services, the problem of access to abortion service was an increasingly serious one. In the last year, access to abortion service in Ontario has become more restricted; quite the opposite to what the Liberals had promised in last year's election.

In the last few weeks we have seen a totally intolerable situation develop. Some therapeutic abortion committees have resigned, while some are simply not meeting. In hospitals where committees have approved abortions, doctors have cancelled appointments and in many cases they are referring patients to doctors at two freestanding clinics. At the same time, the two clinics that continue providing abortion service are unable to arrange for their patients to get Ontario health insurance plan coverage.

Women who cannot get access to abortions in public hospitals cannot get OHIP coverage for a health service they desperately need. Meanwhile, the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) and minister irresponsible about women's issues mutters darkly about illegal clinics and possible prosecutions.

The government must change its course. It must adopt the position of successive governments in Quebec and recognize that the existing law concerning abortion service is unacceptable and unenforceable. It is time to recognize the important role of freestanding clinics, provide OHIP coverage for patients of those clinics and put an end to punishing women who need abortion service.

CHILDREN'S AID SOCIETY

Mr. Cousens: The problem with the Children's Aid Society of Metropolitan Toronto is reaching a point where, if the negotiations that today are under the auspices and leadership of the mediator do not proceed favourably, if the matter is not resolved and if we do not have the staff of the Children's Aid Society of Metropolitan Toronto back at work, the problem will reach crisis proportions.

The situation now is such that staff within the Ministry of Community and Social Services say there are no problems. Press aides of the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney) say there are no problems. I venture to say he is not listening to the people, the staff or the management which is trying to man the different centres around Metropolitan Toronto.

Unless action is taken in the next 24 hours, I believe we will reach a proportion of problems that we, in this

section of the opposition, will be forced to try to escalate and raise the attention of the whole province on this issue, because the minister is closing his eyes and mind to the problems that now exist. I beseech him to begin to be aware of it, to acknowledge that there is a problem and, while there is still time, to do something about it.

TUITION FEES

Mr. Allen: On Friday, the Minister of Colleges and Universities (Mr. Sorbara) announced that as of May 1, 1987, his ministry will eliminate tuition-related ancillary fees for students in Ontario's universities.

This was a remarkable performance, because those students have been paying an average of $250 in excess of their normal tuition fees in recent years. However, at the same time, the announcement rather neatly legalized at least 11 of those fees and offered the universities the discretionary power to add five per cent to the current fee level. The end result is that the students will pay the same amount and the minister looks as though he is doing something. That is a remarkable accomplishment but it is not unprecedented in the realm of politics.

Will the minister not take another look at this, since it will not go into effect for a number of months, and give us a better plan than he has come up with to deal with those fee problems?

2:13 p.m.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

ALLEGED CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Yesterday, in this House, the member for Sarnia (Mr. Brandt) made very serious allegations of conflict of interest against the Minister of Northern Development and Mines (Mr. Fontaine). It is alleged by the member for Sarnia that the minister now holds shares of Golden Tiger Mining Exploration and that he has failed to disclose his share ownership in the disclosure filing made with the Clerk of the House.

I have spoken with the minister. He has advised me that the disclosure statement filed with the Clerk of the House on January 21, 1986, is accurate. He has further told me that, prior to that filing, following the advice of his lawyers, he dealt with his assets in accordance with the conflict-of-interest guidelines.

He has advised me that prior to June 26, 1985, he owned two lots of Golden Tiger shares. The first lot, 45,354 shares, was held by the stockbrokerage firm of Osler, Wills Bickle for safekeeping. This lot includes the 18,888 shares referred to yesterday by the official opposition. These 45,354 shares were, in accordance with the minister's instructions and on the advice of his lawyers, sold over the period of December 10, 11 and 12, 1985. The fact of the sale of the 18,888 shares was subsequently registered in the share register of Golden Tiger on March 3, 1986, by the transfer agent, Guaranty Trust.

The second lot comprises 17,172 shares that are held in escrow in Montreal pursuant to the provisions of Golden Tiger's prospectus, which has been filed with the Quebec Securities Commission. Those shares can be released from escrow only with the approval of the Quebec Securities Commission upon application of the president of Golden Tiger. No application for a release has been made to the Quebec Securities Commission since June 26, 1985.

The Minister of Northern Development and Mines does not now have any control over those shares. He is not an officer or director of Golden Tiger. If the shares are released at any future date, they will immediately be transferred into the minister's present blind trust.

The minister has told me that last fall he received advice from his counsel as to the manner in which he was required to dispose of his shareholdings in Golden Tiger in order to comply with the conflict-of-interest guidelines. He has told me that, as outlined above, he has complied fully with that advice and, accordingly, he is not in violation of the conflict-of-interest guidelines.

The minister has also told me that the documents which verify his disposition of Golden Tiger shares are held by his lawyers, bankers and brokers. He has advised me that he requires 24 hours in order to contact these individuals and assemble the documents. He and his staff are at this moment engaged in the task.

Because of the very serious nature of the allegations made in the House yesterday, the minister has advised me he will not participate in any ministerial business pending his personal report to me and the outcome of inquiries being conducted by my office. I fully expect the minister will report to this House tomorrow.

Mr. Brandt: I say to the Premier that I am rather surprised and disappointed at the statement he made in the House today with respect to the Minister of Northern Development and Mines (Mr. Fontaine). Surely after a full 24 hours, he would have some clear and concise statement about whether the minister has the kind of direct conflict that appears to be the case from the comments I made yesterday.

I point out that in the Premier's statement today, he indicates the minister "has advised me that the disclosure statement filed with the Clerk of the House on January 31, 1986, is accurate." That can be interpreted as being totally inaccurate. I suggest the minister owned shares in Golden Tiger at the time he was required to make disclosure in this House. He did not file with the Clerk the fact that he owned those shares.

Further, on March 3, there was some suggestion of sales of shares or disposal or manipulation of stock that occurred fully two or three months after that time. Now we are into the month of June, and if it were not for the fact that we stood up in this House yesterday to advise the Premier of the matter, the people of Ontario would not have known -- certainly the Premier himself would not have known -- that the Minister of Northern Development and Mines owned at some point some interest in a mining corporation that has some 900 separate development sites in Ontario.

The Premier has a responsibility to this House and to the people of Ontario to say whether the minister did own those shares as of January 30, 1986. It is not necessarily only the minister's responsibility, but also the Premier's responsibility, to make that clear and concise statement. He has done nothing to clear the issue with the very modest statement he has given to the House today.

Mr. Foulds: I rise to respond to the Premier's statement with regard to the Minister of Northern Development and Mines.

First, we in this caucus believe nobody has the personal energy and the commitment to the north that the minister has. Let me also say it is our caucus's and my sincere hope that his defence will be found acceptable by the rules of the House and the Premier's guidelines and that he will be exonerated by the people of Ontario. However, the defence must be more substantial than that presented by the Premier today.

We believe the minister should stand aside, not merely for the 24 hours stated by the Premier, but until such time as it is clearly shown that he does not have either a real or perceived conflict of interest, as that is the case with civil servants and with proposed conflict-of-interest guidelines for deputy ministers.

The allegations that have been raised must be treated in the same manner and with the same urgency as those that were brought up with regard to the previous Chairman of Management Board. Even if the remaining 17,000 shares owned by the minister have been put in a blind trust, the fact remains that, unfortunately, the minister did not disclose them on the form he filed with the Clerk of the Legislature.

A number of questions remain: Is the trustee who holds the shares licensed under the Loan and Trust Corporations Act, according to the rules in Ontario? The major question remains: How can a minister responsible for mines continue to operate in that capacity while he continues to hold, even in escrow, shares in a mining corporation that continues to operate in Ontario?

INVESTMENT IN THE ARTS

Hon. Ms. Munro: I apologize to the honourable members. I had intended to make this statement yesterday but time for statements ran out.

Yesterday I had the pleasure of announcing the details of the $10-million Investment in the Arts program which was first mentioned in the budget last month. I will now give my colleagues in the House details of the program.

Investment in the Arts was designed to help arts organizations stabilize their financial positions. Our aim with this program is to achieve a higher level of financial security for arts organizations.

Under this three-year program, my ministry will match $1 for every $1 raised above an organization's particular fund-raising base to the specified maximum grant. If the dollar comes from a new corporate donor, then we will match it two to one. The moneys raised will be put into an endowment fund and the organizations will have access to the interest. The matching ministry moneys can be used to retire an accumulated deficit.

The Ontario Arts Council will be an important partner in Investment in the Arts because its nonprofit arts organization clients will benefit most from the program, along with the ministry-supported arts service organizations.

The program was received by both the arts organizations and the businesses represented with a great deal of excitement. The arts organizations see it, and rightly so, as an excellent opportunity to get themselves into a long-term financially secure position, and the business sector sees it as an excellent investment, again rightly so. After all, the culture sector is Canada's 11th-largest manufacturing industry and the sixth-largest employer.

I made my announcement at the St. Lawrence Centre for the Arts and, as I suggested to those present, in the 26 years since the O'Keefe Centre opened, the growth of that neighbourhood has been directly related to the presence of artistic activity. The many theatres and galleries in the area have been a magnet for dozens of restaurants, for condominium and co-operative housing developments and for a great deal of general business development.

The economic benefits of the arts should be considered on an international level, too, for culture opens doors to so many other opportunities such as trade.

Over and above the economic sense of investing in the arts, though, is the more intrinsic and in many ways the more genuine value of culture to a society, for culture over thousands of years has been to civilizations both a highly defined expression of artistic excellence and, at the same time, a more fluid expression of a society's aspirations and achievements.

Nations have developed and grown from visions largely provided by the arts and nations have been judged and valued by others for their creativity. They are a very real measure of our civility.

In my announcement, I stressed that this program requires an active partnership approach. No one could expect to get something for nothing. I urge the cultural organizations, who are providing to Ontarians a level of artistic and creative excellence that cannot be beaten anywhere, to take those creative skills and apply them to fund-raising. I appreciate the challenges of fund-raising, but, as I said to them, there are many untapped dollars still out there. A recent brief by Northern Telecom noted that only eight per cent of profitable Canadian companies make any donations to the arts.

The Continental Bank, well known as a major and innovative supporter of the arts, hosted the luncheon. That gesture is symbolic of the commitment we can expect from the business side of this partnership.

I assured them of this government's continuing support and I know that support for the arts in this province stretches across party lines. We all know and recognize that culture is really the hallmark of our society. I think members will all agree with me that, as such, the arts are surely worthy of this investment.

Mrs. Marland: I want to say at the outset that the objective of investment in the arts is always applauded by the Progressive Conservative Party. That has been well demonstrated and documented during the past 42 years.

I also want to say that the arts challenge fund, which about four years ago provided in excess of $50 million to the arts when lottery income was more than $50 million, does not compare to the pittance of $10 million that was announced yesterday when we now have lottery funds in excess of $300 million.

Corporate participation in support of the arts in Ontario must be encouraged. As the minister has pointed out, arts organizations are capable of responding to this challenge in a most creative way. However, the minister has chosen to focus on only one side of the equation. There is clearly no incentive to the corporate community to encourage its participation in this program.

If the minister had been serious, she would have undertaken to discuss this matter with her colleague the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) with a view to providing some recognition of the corporate community's social conscience in supporting the arts, particularly as this program was obviously developed at the time of the Treasurer's budget in May.

Further, I must question whether the minister is not unduly penalizing the organizations that have already established solid fund-raising bases by prohibiting them from the opportunity to receive equal benefit from the government's program. I also question the minister's prudence in limiting dollar-for-dollar support for such organizations to 50 per cent of that of a new fund-raising initiative. Also, a match of two to one for dollars from new corporate donors is not fair to existing donors.

Finally, on behalf of the arts organizations that do not meet the minimum operating budget requirement or that have received assistance from the ministry before, I mention that the minister's guidelines for eligibility may be too restrictive. I want to know who is going to administer the fund, whether it is going to be a board of trustees, and whether the moneys raised can be used for operating expenditures. We look forward to more complete details.

DISCLOSURE OF ADOPTION INFORMATION

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The issue of disclosure of adoption information has long been controversial in Ontario. Some have called for greater access to adoption information. Others say that the release of this information violates the right to personal privacy. It is an issue that members of this Legislature have debated many times. There have been literally years of consultation.

Today I wish to announce the planned changes to Ontario's legislation on the disclosure of adoption information.

In this regard, we owe a great debt to Dr. Ralph Garber. His report on the disclosure of adoption information, which I tabled in this House last November, was a sensitive look at this difficult issue. I am pleased to introduce Dr. Garber, who is with us today in the members' gallery.

Like Dr. Garber, the government of this province favours a more open approach to disclosure. We also recognize the right to privacy of all those involved in the adoption process. The changes which reflect that approach cover a number of areas.

First, let me refer to the release of nonidentifying information. Nonidentifying information is general background data on birth parents and information on the health and development of the adoptee, but this information does not disclose the identity of any of the parties.

Children's aid societies, licensees and the ministry will be required, under the amended legislation, to release nonidentifying information on request to all adult parties to an adoption. Adult birth brothers, sisters and grandparents of adoptees will also have access to this information.

My ministry is going to change the laws governing the disclosure of identifying information. That information will be released only with the consent of the birth relative in question and the adult adoptee.

Access to identifying information will be available only when the adopted child becomes an adult. In that way, the confidentiality of the adoptive family, the birth parents and the best interests of the adopted child are maintained while the child is growing up.

Because we feel that adoptees have a need and a right to know about their past, the government will also provide help to people seeking facts about their adoption. The province's adoption disclosure registry will become semi-active, authorized to undertake reasonable and discreet searches, but only on behalf of the adult adoptee who is looking for his or her birth parents or other biological relatives.

I want to assure this Legislature that searches will be conducted in absolute confidence by well-trained professionals in my ministry. The right of birth parents and other birth relatives to their personal privacy will be respected at all times, if that is their wish.

Under current legislation only adult adoptees and birth parents are given identifying information. It is our intention also to allow adult birth siblings and birth grandparents to register for access to identifying information.

The government is sensitive to the important role played by adoptive parents, but the present three-party consent law allows them to veto the decisions of adults who want and have a right to know more about their past. As a result, the government will introduce amendments to the legislation to move to two-party consent. This will allow an adult adoptee and his birth relatives to obtain identifying information without obtaining the consent of adoptive parents.

Under the changes, if an adult adoptee and his or her birth relative both give their consent, identifying information can be released to each. Adoption agencies and the ministry will be required to provide interpretive counselling to anyone receiving identifying or sensitive information about an adoption. Counselling has been found to be extremely valuable in helping individuals deal with this kind of information.

Two-party consent will also be required for any direct contact or reunion and, again, counselling will be mandatory. These requirements are designed to protect the privacy of birth relatives, some of whom wish to maintain their anonymity.

My staff is currently working on the necessary amendments to the Child and Family Services Act. I expect to introduce those amendments during the fall sitting of this Legislature.

I am also releasing today a policy paper which sets out these changes in more detail.

In the case of adoptions involving Indian and native children, further consultations will permit the development of an approach that will protect the interests of the child, the interests of his or her Indian band and the confidentiality of birth parents.

I know there will be mixed reactions to the changes I have announced. I feel, however, they strike the best possible balance. They are sensitive both to the individual's right to privacy and an adult's right to know about his or her past.

Mr. Cousens: The Minister of Community and Social Services and the government have broken the faith with this party in letting the media get the report first and in not following through on a commitment to me that they would allow us to discuss it. In spite of that, we will look at the report seriously. It is too important to see the work Dr. Garber and Dr. Elgie have done to get this whole thing started, go awry because of what the government is doing.

Mr. McClellan: I want to welcome the statement made by the Minister of Community and Social Services with respect to improving access to adoption information. I know his statement will be welcomed by thousands of adult adoptees who are searching for their roots.

I should acknowledge as well the debt we all owe to my friend Ralph Garber, who remains my favourite socialist. I cannot help mentioning that the amendments the minister is moving this year are exactly the same in each and every respect as the amendments I moved in 1978, which were opposed and voted down by the very same member, the member for Kitchener-Wilmot (Mr. Sweeney), who now introduces them as minister.

We have another example of a belated but very welcome conversion. We will look forward to seeing the legislation and will, I am sure, have some suggestion to the minister. I still favour an open system such as that which obtains in the United Kingdom, but any move forward and any progress that can get the support of a majority in this assembly is very welcome indeed.

STABILIZATION PAYMENTS

Hon. Mr. Riddell: Many Ontario farmers, caught between high input costs and heavy debt loads, are faced with the compounding problems of low commodity prices this year.

Corn and soybean producers in particular have experienced severe financial pressure because of low prices. For that reason, I am announcing an interim payment of $9 per ton for soybeans and $3.50 per ton for corn. Producers registered in the 1985 grain plan offered through the Farm Income Stabilization Commission are eligible for this payment.

For these two commodities, the Farm Income Stabilization Commission plans to provide producers with support of between 90 per cent and 95 per cent of the five-year average price of the commodity, with adjustments for cash costs.

Rather than wait to give a lump sum near the end of the year, we wanted to give the farmers some needed financial support now to help with this year's crop. Payments will be made on sales recorded by the Ontario Soybean Producers' Marketing Board and the Ontario Corn Producers' Association from September 1, 1985, to March 31, 1986.

Sales data required to process the payments to producers will be provided to the commission by the soybean board and the corn producers' association to help speed payments to the producers.

2:37 p.m.

ORAL QUESTIONS

EXTRA BILLING

Mr. Grossman: My question is for the Premier, in day 14 of the doctors' strike. He has assured us from day one that his government is monitoring the situation out there and that the situation is not out of control. He has told us of his personal attention being paid to this.

In the circumstances, therefore, will he give us information, which I am sure his government has, with regard to the number of abortions that have been cancelled throughout the system, the number of bypass surgeries that have been cancelled, the number of exploratory surgeries for procedures for cancer that have been cancelled, the number of northerners who have prepaid their travel arrangements and have lost their prepayments because their operations have been cancelled, how many children have had their tonsillectomies cancelled and how many beds are now empty, particularly in Metropolitan Toronto? If the Premier has monitored the situation, can he give us that information?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I do not have that information, but I will refer the question to the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston), who may be able to assist the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Grossman) better.

Mr. Grossman: No. If the Premier does not have it, that is fine.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I understand the Premier has referred that to the Minister of Health; correct?

Mr. Grossman: No. He answered the question. He does not know.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: He has redirected it.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Harris: He cannot answer it.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: How could he know?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Did the Premier refer to the Minister of Health?

Mr. Harris: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I would like to know whether a question can be answered and then referred. In other words, can two or three people answer? We asked a question, we got the answer; now he is referring. It is either referred or it is not.

Mr. Speaker: I agree, and I understand the Premier referred it to the Minister of Health.

Mr. Grossman: No, he did not.

Mr. Gillies: He answered the question and then he referred it.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

2:40 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: If I might, I would like to join in the discussion. I do not know what your ruling will be, Mr. Speaker, but the Premier received the question and said: "I do not know the answer. I refer it to the Minister of Health. Perhaps he knows." Surely the question was asked with the thought that the questioner would like to be provided with the answer. The only person who might know the answer is the Minister of Health.

Mr. Gillies: The question was asked to see whether the Premier knew what was going on, and he does not.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: How could he possibly know? It is a stupid question.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Gillies: He cannot come marching in here and say there is no problem.

Mr. Reycraft: If one asks a question, one expects an answer.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I listened to the point of order. I listened to the comment. I understood the Premier to refer it to the Minister of Health.

Mr. Grossman: No.

Mr. Harris: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member was up on the point of order, and I --

Mr. Harris: I think I can help you out of an embarrassing mistake; that is all.

Mr. Speaker: No. Order.

Mr. Martel: This has taken four minutes of question period.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The purpose of the time is to ask questions and to get responses.

Mr. Harris: We got the response. We did not get --

Mr. Speaker: Order. I recognize the Minister of Health.

Hon. Mr. Elston: At this time, I think it would be of interest to us to reflect on an answer given by a previous Minister of Health in relation to a strike in 1982.

Mr. Gordon: The minister does not know either.

Mr. Pope: This is disgusting.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Elston: The interesting item in that situation was that there was a question that required an answer with respect to the number of operations that had been cancelled in the Kitchener-Waterloo Hospital. The then Minister of Health stood in his place and said, "It is unrealistic for you to know."

I can tell the honourable members we have taken a considerable amount of time to be in touch with the hospitals where services are being restricted. We have watched as the medical judgements and opinions have been rendered. I can tell the honourable members I do not have any running total of the categories the honourable gentleman has mentioned to us. There is some estimate of elective procedures that have been cancelled for the moment, but since they are only elective in nature, people do not always contact us with respect to procedures that have been cancelled.

In addition to that, as the honourable member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope) brought to our attention not long ago, it is more difficult to figure out how many people have been referred and have not been referred.

Mr. Gordon: The minister is sickening. They are all on their own.

Mr. Pope: The poor people are on their own.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Supplementary.

Mr. Grossman: I asked my original question of the Premier to determine whether he knew what was happening in the health care system. He said he did not and referred it elsewhere. I want to ask my supplementary of the Premier to see whether he can provide the information --

Mr. Speaker: Order. The supplementary must flow out of the response; therefore, it must go to the Minister of Health.

Mr. Harris: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I believe you made an error. The question went to the Premier; he answered the question, and the supplementary is to the Premier --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Harris: I tried to help you out of the mistake you made before in allowing the response --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Harris: The question is out of the Premier's answer. You are making a joke out of the question period.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Polsinelli: If you ask a question, do you not expect an answer?

Ms. Fish: He does not know the answer. Why do you not listen to your own Premier?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Gillies: They have the biggest cabinet in the history of this province, and there is not one of them over there who can answer a question.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I will wait. Supplementary to the Minister of Health.

Mr. Harris: He answered the question, and that is what a supplementary is to deal with.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the honourable member take his seat.

Mr. Gillies: We have a government that cannot answer questions half the time and refuses to answer them the other half.

Mr. Polsinelli: The members opposite do not want an answer.

Mr. Gillies: We got an answer: The Premier does not know.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Supplementary to the Minister of Health.

Mr. Grossman: The Premier assures everyone there is only inconvenience in the system, but he does not have any information upon which to base that assurance and he will not answer questions in this House.

I am forced to put my supplementary question to the Minister of Health, as opposed to the Premier. Can the minister tell this House whether he has informed the Premier of all the information I asked about a moment ago? If he has not, how can he continue to tell the people of Ontario that he has the system under control, that he is monitoring it and that there is only inconvenience? How can the minister do that when he does not have the information?

Hon. Mr. Elston: There is no secret about the fact that I communicate daily not only with the Premier but also with the people involved in administering our public hospitals, the publicly funded institutions in which the slowdown is occurring. I am also in daily contact with the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario. When advice is given to me that a procedure has been cancelled or an intervention is required, we do that sort of thing.

As the member for Cochrane South pointed out in his question last week, I do not know about situations where a referral has taken place from northern Ontario until advice is given to me by the individual patient. We do our best to respond to questions when individual patients come to us. With respect to our understanding of the work of therapeutic abortion committees, for instance, all the matters that have come before those committees and all the procedures that are required as a result of their deliberations have been carried out.

I think that provides the member with an answer to his question. I have communicated directly with the Premier every day. We will keep not only the Premier but also the public up to date on the fact that medical decisions are being rendered and the system in Ontario is functioning.

Mr. Grossman: We are in day 14, and tomorrow we will enter the third week of a strike in this province. How can the Minister of Health tell the people of this province that there is no danger out there, that their safety is okay and that there is only inconvenience, when the minister and the Premier have to rise in this House and say they do not know how many heart bypasses have been cancelled? Does the minister not have at least that information on hand? How many heart procedures have been cancelled in the past two weeks?

Hon. Mr. Elston: I remind the honourable gentleman of an

article that appeared in the London Free Press wherein a medical practitioner, when asked about a procedure that was cancelled, was quoted as saying, "Do not inquire into the health of my patients." That practitioner indicated he makes medically necessary judgements and will continue to do so. Our government has indicated it wants physicians to be free to make those decisions.

I can tell the public that, from what I understand, no medically necessary procedures are being cancelled without the review of the medical practitioners.

Mr. Pope: The minister has no way of knowing that.

Hon. Mr. Elston: It seems the member for Cochrane South would rather intervene between physician and patient. That is not the position of this government.

I can tell the member that those people are providing medical services to the people of this province. We are performing. We have intervened in situations to ensure that the administrative capabilities of our public hospitals are continued and carried out. We are assuring the people here that we know what is taking place in the province.

Mr. Grossman: I invite the minister to stop reading press clippings, particularly his own, and to begin to be the Minister of Health.

Mr. Speaker: New question.

2:50 p.m.

Mr. Grossman: My question is to the Premier, if he will agree to accept it. At a press conference held at two o'clock this afternoon, the Ontario Medical Association and Dr. Railton reported that the Premier had been calling Dr. Railton several times up to midnight last night and that his suggestion for mediation, after he has taken away some important elements of health care practitioners' protection in this province, is too late and, to quote Dr. Railton, "It's baloney." Can the Premier tell us now as we enter the third week of the strike -- I will wait for the Minister of Education (Mr. Conway) to finish his advice.

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Grossman: Can the Premier tell us what he now intends to do, given that he has been unable to stop the strike, that his relationships with the OMA are so badly severed he cannot do anything about it and he does not know what is happening in the health care system?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The honourable member is quite right. I did chat with Dr. Railton last night; he phoned me at home, and I was very happy to chat with him.

As the member knows, the minister put forward yesterday what I believe is a very significant suggestion when he said he wanted to look at the issues that have always been raised by the medical profession, the so-called questions of professional freedom and liberty. We have said we are prepared to address those in substantial ways, with the assistance of a third party, if that is what they desire. They have had a chance to analyse it.

I have not seen Dr. Railton's statement from the press conference he had, and I will have to take the member's word of what he said. I have not had any official word back. We have had no official response to the offer that was made by the Minister of Health.

Mr. Grossman: The Premier's suggestions to the OMA are tantamount to Jesse James applying to be a Brinks driver.

At the press conference, the OMA indicated the strike was going to continue unabated. With regard to the Premier's attempts to appear to be anxious to mediate and conciliate, Dr. Railton said the letter the Premier had his minister write indicates the Premier did not intend to mediate since he first brought up the question of mediation in the House and, unbelievably but not surprising to those of us who work in this Legislature, gave the letter addressed to Dr. Railton to the media before he had it delivered to Dr. Railton. Given that this is the way the Premier intends to try to stop the strike, what is he now suggesting he is going to do next in the circumstances?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: It is obvious the member has a new private investigator writing his lines in the House.

Let me say that offer was made in good faith by the minister; it was conveyed immediately to Dr. Railton. As the member knows, I have had the opportunity to speak to a large number of doctors in the past few weeks. Almost everywhere I go, I have an opportunity to chat with doctors. I am always delighted to see them, share my views with them and get their insights into the question. A lot of the doctors I have talked to were not always aware of the kinds of things that have been going on in the discussions the minister has been having on an ongoing basis for the past year with the medical profession.

Even though we live in this great information age, sometimes all the details are not transmitted down.

I think it is important that the whole medical community understands the view of the government in this matter. That is why we have put forward specific suggestions that would address the specific concerns they have raised. They believe it is a matter of professional freedom, I gather, and I accept that at face value. We have said we are prepared to address those concerns in a real way. That is what we have offered, and I hope the OMA will look at the situation and, if the member tells me they have rejected that today, I hope they will reconsider.

Mr. Grossman: The people the Premier has to try to accommodate, having called them overrated, overpaid gougers, are saying his deathbed repentance is baloney. That is the circumstance he faces. Given that, I have a proposition to put to the Premier.

Mr. Speaker: By way of question.

Mr. Grossman: I propose this afternoon to call Dr. Railton --

Mr. Foulds: Right now?

Mr. Martel: Got a dime?

Mr. Warner: Where is the phone?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Grossman: I will invite him and his people to meet with me in my office over the next couple of days to see whether, together, we might be able to develop the kind of package the Premier is unable to develop because of the way he has handled this.

Mr. Breaugh: Here is the mediator.

Mr. Epp: The member wants to play Premier.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Grossman: If we are able to come to some sort of proposal --

Mr. Martel: Is the member for real?

Mr. Grossman: I will wait until his advisers are finished.

Mr. Speaker: Question?

Mr. Grossman: If we are able to come to some sort of proposal, will the Premier be willing --

Mr. Warner: This is fascinating.

Mr. Martel: Is he for real?

Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I will wait until you get order from the New Democratic Party.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Do you have a question?

Mr. Harris: We need more order in the House to ask the question. Everybody else gets called to order.

Mr. Pope: It is all right. Only sick people are involved.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Please put your final supplementary question.

Mr. Grossman: When we put questions in the House, Mr. Speaker, we are entitled to the same kind of peace that you demand when the ministers give answers.

Mr. Speaker: Do I understand you have no further supplementary?

Mr. Grossman: No, you do not.

Mr. Speaker: Place your supplementary.

Mr. Grossman: Since we are going to invite the OMA to meet with us to see whether we can accomplish a package which the Premier obviously is unable to put together with it, will he agree to join that meeting if, as and when it becomes appropriate to put that proposal to him?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: It was my impression the Leader of the Opposition was in constant touch with the OMA and, as a matter of fact, that was what he used his telephone for and why he wanted it back. If this is a new call, I am interested. The member can probably excuse his colleagues in the House, who have known him for almost a decade, for snickering when he made that suggestion. The Treasury is still reverberating from the last meeting he had with the doctors a little while ago.

We are obviously searching for constructive suggestions. In fairness, I must say I have never seen the member in the role of conciliator or mediator. Others may have, and I may have misjudged some of his characteristics. There are always hidden sides to everyone's character, and he may have some talents I have not seen.

If the member has any good ideas, we are always interested. So far, I have not heard any. However, if the member is asking me to back off the bill, the answer is the same as before. Frankly, I do not think most people observing us think his suggestion is very credible.

ALLEGED CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Mr. Wildman: I have a question arising out of the Premier's statement related to the allegations regarding the member for Cochrane North (Mr. Fontaine). Can the minister confirm that this is a quote from the report the minister filed: "No share interests in public corporations"? If so, does his own statement not indicate that was an inaccurate statement? Does he believe that such a statement from a minister of the crown is acceptable? Also, can he explain why, when rumours of this matter have been rampant for some weeks, he apparently took no action until the matter was raised in the Legislature?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The honourable member says rumours have been rampant for several weeks. I can tell him I never heard the rumours. I had never heard of Golden Tiger until yesterday in this House. I had never heard of the situation. The member says rumours were abounding for some wide period. I had heard rumours that the Conservatives were trying to get the honourable member and had detectives on him, but I had not heard of this situation.

Mr. Mancini: Get the police dogs out.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

3 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Very serious allegations of fact have been made in this House and I take them very seriously. All I knew, as of yesterday, was the charges that were levelled in this House. I immediately undertook to ascertain the facts. As I said to members today, the minister has told me that, as of the filing on January 31 or so, he owned no shares in public corporations. Thus, there is obviously a serious difference between the facts as put forward in this House and the things the minister has told me today.

He is now in the process of gathering up all of those facts and substantiating his facts with documentation. He will be in the House tomorrow to share that information with members. I am sure my honourable friend, being a fair-minded member of this House, would like to hear the facts according to the minister, with supporting documentation.

It appears at the moment that the member for Sarnia (Mr. Brandt) has one understanding of the facts, which he presumably believes in, and the minister has told me other things. The member will want to hear those facts laid out in the House tomorrow, I am very sure.

Mr. Wildman: The Premier's own statement indicated there was one block of about 17,000 shares still held by the minister but in escrow, as I understand it. If that is the case, is it a tolerable situation for a minister of mines of this province, who is responsible for administering the Mining Tax Act, the Ontario Mineral Exploration Program Act and the Mining Act, to hold shares, even if they are in a blind trust or in escrow, in a company that is apparently doing business in mining in this province?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: As I told members, the minister is going to have a very clear statement tomorrow, and I know my honourable friend, being fair-minded, would not want to prejudge these things. These questions can be put in a very specific way.

Without knowing all the facts, just on the basis of what I have been told so far, my understanding is that some of those shares were in escrow because of some other financial arrangement and the minister had no control over that situation.

He will share with this House the view that he had legal advice that this conformed with the conflict-of-interest guidelines. The member may well have the view -- and frankly, it may be shared by many members of this House -- that the conflict-of-interest guidelines are inadequate. That is a constant source of worry to me. However, I believe that, as fair-minded members, they would want to hear the facts laid out tomorrow. I am looking forward to that.

Mr. Philip: Would the Premier not agree that under his guidelines: (1) there is a requirement that there be a disclosure even if the shares are held in escrow; (2) if there are any changes in the composition or ownership, there is a requirement on page 2 for a disclosure; and (3) it now appears from the Premier's statement that at least some of the shares are not in the hands of a trustee who is licensed under the Loan and Trust Corporations Act of Ontario? Will the Premier not admit that, even from his statement, there are three obvious violations of his own guidelines?

If there are three violations, why would he not ask the minister to step down, in the same way as the former Chairman of Management Board of Cabinet, the member for Oriole (Ms. Caplan), stepped down, until there can be a free, independent inquiry into this matter? Or does he have a double standard; one for the Chairman of Management Board and one for this minister?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Frankly, I do not think the situations are quite parallel from this point of view. The former Chairman of Management Board laid the facts before this House, and I think there is some difference with respect to the

interpretation of the conflict-of-interest guidelines as they pertain to those facts. Discussion has started in that regard.

In this case, the member for Sarnia has made very serious allegations of fact. On the basis of what I know today, the facts as he put them in this House are not correct and the facts the minister will bring tomorrow-and this is on the basis of what I am told -- differ substantially from that. It is not a question of the

interpretation of the conflict-of-interest guidelines; they are different facts.

We will go on to the third point. The member would say that anyone against whom a charge is levelled in this House, or at least a minister of the crown, presumably, should resign. The member will be aware, because he has been around here a long time, that ministers are charged regularly with a great number of things. I remember many of them in the past.

Is the member saying a minister should not have the opportunity to put the facts clearly before the House, but that any time there is an allegation there should be an immediate withdrawal on the presumption of guilt? I do not think we want to put any of us in that position. If the member is suggesting we need a thorough review of the conflict-of-interest guidelines or other ways to handle these difficult situations, I am completely with him in that regard.

There is no more troublesome issue to a first minister than the one that has been raised here and that has been raised in the House many times before. We search for advice on how to handle that, because we recognize our responsibilities to the public in that regard.

EXTRA BILLING

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I have a question of the Minister of Health. Has he had an opportunity to look at the case that was outlined in the Toronto Star yesterday involving Tiffany Rutherford, aged two, who went four days without treatment from the medical care system because of the doctors' strike? Is he satisfied with the letter sent out by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario on June 19, signed by Dr. Catton, which states, "The issue now before you and before your council is to ensure that such protests are made without endangering patient life or health"? Is the minister satisfied that this individual's health was not endangered by the strike?

Hon. Mr. Elston: I reviewed the report that was in the press but I have not had a chance to review it fully with the college. That is the situation as it stands right now.

I am concerned that the report in the papers was that, had there been any further delay, there could have been a more permanent problem for that patient. The situation was reported to be one of a very serious nature and we will be following up this matter more specifically with the college.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: Since the doctors of this province have decided that public hospital emergency wards will be closed and also how many doctors will staff public hospital emergency wards, can the minister tell us who owns the hospitals? Who controls the hospitals of this province? Is it the doctors or the people of the province?

Hon. Mr. Elston: The member knows, from his role as Health critic, that the independent boards of trustees are the people who make the decisions about what happens in their hospitals. They pass the bylaws. They make decisions of a business nature with respect to what happens in those facilities. They have in place certain mechanisms whereby people make determinations of a medical nature. The public of this province is responsible for those public hospitals.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: If the public owns the hospitals, I do not know why the Minister of Health and this government are allowing the doctors to do what they are doing to the health care system of this province.

Last night I was in Windsor, my home community, and I read in the paper that Dr. Donald Nassr, the chief of psychiatry at the Metropolitan General Hospital, has decided to carry out a one-man strike. He controls nine beds in a psychiatry ward at the hospital and all nine are empty because he refuses to admit anyone into those beds he controls.

First, does that not violate the letter the college sent out? Second, does this not demonstrate that a profession is trying to take away the health care system we own? When is this government going to have the guts to take that system back for the people of this province?

3:10 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Elston: The honourable gentleman may be suggesting the physician is putting his patients at risk. If that is what he is indicating, then there will be a follow-up on that matter.

When people make decisions, and there are decisions made every day about whether treatment is required in an institution or whether that treatment can be delivered in another area, those decisions are made from a medical standpoint. When it comes to decisions about who has admitting privileges, who does not have admitting privileges or who is able to make use of the facilities, these matters are determined under the bylaws and at the discretion of the people who are on the boards of directors of those independent institutions.

ALLEGED CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Mr. Brandt: I have a question of the Premier, who has indicated in a number of statements he has made with respect to the Minister of Northern Development and Mines (Mr. Fontaine) that this is a very complex issue. I want to share with the Premier a document I will pass over to him. It is a disclosure of public holdings that was filed with the Clerk of the House on January 31, 1986. Would the Premier state in a very clear and concise way to this House whether that document is accurate and whether the minister owned shares in Golden Tiger as of that date?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Very simply, the answer is that the minister tells me he did not. That is what he tells me.

Mr. Brandt: Not only does the Premier's own statement not indicate that, but also it is very strange that the minister himself would find it necessary to dispose of shares on March 3 but not to disclose the ownership of those share at a prior time when the evidence would indicate very clearly that he did have ownership of those shares at that point.

Hon. Mr. Scott: On March 3?

Mr. Brandt: Yes, on March 3, and today he still owns those shares.

Mr. Gillies: Today he owns 17,000 shares.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Brandt: I will attempt to simplify what has apparently become a rather complex issue. Surely, the Premier would know within 24 hours why his minister had to make certain transactions in March with respect to those shares, whether he owned the shares on January 31 when he made disclosure and, if he did not make disclosure because he did not own them, as the Premier is now putting before the House, why he did not make a supplemental affirmation of his ownership of the shares at some later date or bring to the attention of the public that he owned them?

As my friends in the third party have said, here is a minister who is involved in lumbering and in mining and yet the public does not know about his ownership in this particular company.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am not sure I can satisfy my honourable friend opposite. I think he, as a fair-minded member, will want to be careful and not make allegations in the absence of all the facts. I told him there would be a statement here tomorrow.

My understanding is -- and I hope I am not wrong -- that the sale was registered on March 3. As frequently happens in share transfer registers -- that is obviously the document the member's detective checked -- the sale took place prior to that, prior to the filing on January 31. That is my understanding of what went on, and the answer specifically to the member's question.

Mr. Speaker: New question.

Mr. McClellan: I have to ask virtually the same question of the Premier. In his statement today, the Premier said the minister owned two lots of shares. The first lot was sold and the second lot consists of 17,172 shares that are held in escrow. My question is very simple. Does the minister own those shares and did he own them on January 31?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: My understanding is they were in escrow. My understanding is he has no control over those particular shares. That may not satisfy the member. I am not in a position, legally, to answer all these questions at present. I am sure the honourable member wants a full explanation of that, which will presumably be coming forward tomorrow.

Mr. McClellan: The facts appear to be that he owned the shares and submitted a form on which he said he did not own the shares. Is the trustee of the second lot of 17,172 shares registered under the Ontario Loan and Trust Corporations Act?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I do not pretend to be an authority. That is my understanding. It is Guaranty Trust and it is registered in Quebec and Ontario.

Mr. Pope: I know the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) thinks this line of questioning is contemptuous, but let me deal with the Premier's knowledge.

Hon. Mr. Scott: I said it was contemptible.

Mr. Pope: Contemptible. I am not talking about the member for Cochrane North. I want to ask the Premier a question about his knowledge.

On September 3, 1985, the Kingston Whig-Standard, after interviewing the Premier's colleagues in his caucus from eastern Ontario, reported that the Premier personally and his office had "examined every facet in the MPPs' personal and financial life. No detail was left unturned. Every member of the Liberal caucus was grilled for hours. A detailed questionnaire had to be filled out and sent to the Premier's office.

"When two of the eastern Ontario MPPs...were elevated to cabinet posts, the screws tightened another notch. The Liberal leader was determined to make sure that his fragile government would be free of even a hint of scandal."

Did the Premier know, during the course of the early interviews by himself and his office staff, about the holdings of the member for Cochrane North?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I personally did not know.

Mr. Pope: Is this

article accurate? Did the Premier and his office examine in detail every financial aspect of every member of his caucus in August 1985?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: At the transition time, an independent lawyer was brought in to survey all these matters. A member of the firm of Tory, Tory, Deslauriers and Binnington was brought in to analyse these situations in conjunction with Blenus Wright. If the member is asking me whether I --

Mr. Laughren: That was the problem.

Mr. Martel: No wonder he is in trouble.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am answering the question. I did not personally survey all these matters. I asked for advice and asked whether everything was fine and that was what I was told.

WATER QUALITY

Mrs. Grier: I have a question for the Minister of the Environment about one aspect of his white paper that is distinctly vague. The minister told us he is going to control the 200 industries that discharge directly into Ontario's waterways. He is not going to impose controls on the 12,000 industries that discharge into sewage treatment plants. It appears from the white paper that a large producer of organic chemicals will be controlled, but a small one can continue to use dilution as his solution to pollution.

Can the minister tell the House why he is not imposing stringent limits immediately on these 12,000 industries or, at the very least, by mid-1987 when the 200 will be controlled?

An hon. member: Do not water down your answer.

Mr. Guindon: Do not pollute.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Pardon? Do not dilute the answer?

Mr. Speaker: On the original question.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I will try not to dilute the answer for the member for Lakeshore. There are more interruptions coming from the member for Cornwall (Mr. Guindon), but I will ignore them, Mr. Speaker, because you always instruct me to do so.

The member identifies two different ways in which effluent can be produced and go into a waterway. One is the direct way that goes directly into the waterway.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) is interested and he should listen. This is where one catches the major polluters, as I have indicated, the direct effluent going into the waterways, which is the responsibility of the Ministry of the Environment. In addition, the ministry has legislative responsibility for the effluent produced by sewage treatment plants across the province. We have given instructions through the white paper and the suggestions -- for which we are looking for reaction within the next 60 days -- that sewage treatment plants will be evaluated, will be monitored and will have abatement procedures applied to them.

There are two ways in which municipalities can deal with this matter. It is very likely that the way in which they will deal with it is through the bylaws they have for the discharge of sewage from any of these sources within a municipality into the sewage treatment plant. That is what they have responsibility for. We in the ministry are pleased to assist the municipalities to deal with that matter in any way we can.

3:20 p.m.

Mrs. Grier: It sounds as though the minister is putting upon municipalities, which are inadequately equipped to control, the responsibility for a job the ministry ought to be undertaking itself.

It is now a year since the minister took office and there has been no diminution in the amount of discharge to waterways. It appears from this white paper that it is going to be another three or four years before there is any diminution of the amount that is being discharged. Can the minister tell us what he is going to do in the interim?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The member forgets -- and I am sure she might be able to recall if she thought about it for some time -- that there are many ways in which effluent going into the waterways is controlled at present. Some of them are by certificates of approval; some are by control orders. On an ongoing basis, certificates of approval are evaluated, particularly when a problem is identified. Control orders are a dynamic process at this time.

She would know of the Chipman incident, for instance; I think of Ontario Paper, where there is a public process for evaluating a previous control order and upgrading or updating that control order. All around the province we are going through the procedure of evaluating and upgrading those control orders on an almost daily basis.

We see a diminishing of those products going into the environment. Of course, that is in addition to the program we have outlined. I know the member would want to have sufficient opportunity for environmental groups and others who are going to be directly affected by this to have the input that the white paper provides for.

ALLEGED CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Mr. Brandt: I have a question for the Premier. There are 17,172 shares, according to the statement he delivered to the House earlier today, that are currently in escrow on the part of the member for Cochrane North (Mr. Fontaine). Would the Premier indicate to this House whether, in his opinion, the member for Cochrane North owns the shares he has in escrow?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am not in a position to give the member a legal opinion on that matter. He wants to try to force this out of me at the present time.

Mr. Grossman: Why make a statement on it, then?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I was trying to share what I knew, what I am told at the present time. I told the member that the minister was coming back. Would he prefer that I say nothing today?

Mr. Grossman: The Premier has had a day to ask him whether he owns them.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I think the member opposite wants to be somewhat fair-minded about this situation and append all the facts. Then he can ask any questions he likes on the situation. I do not pretend to be an expert on this. As the member knows, when one escrows one's shares, one has absolutely no control over them, as I understand it.

Mr. Grossman: It is not a question of control.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Why does the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Grossman) not answer the question? He can help his friend out, because he knows everything.

Mr. Grossman: l would have found out in one day, I can tell the Premier that, and he would have been gone if he did.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Brandt: The Premier will find in his review of the conflict-of-interest guidelines that the fact the 17,172 shares are in escrow implies ownership -- not necessarily control, but ownership -- of those shares. Will the Premier indicate to this House when the Minister of Northern Development and Mines disclosed publicly the ownership of those shares, which he ostensibly has in escrow?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: As I understand it, escrow means, by definition, that one does not have control. They are in escrow under the control of someone pending certain other resolutions. That is the situation.

The member is trying to say the minister was hiding something.

Mr. Brandt: No, I am not saying that. He has a responsibility to declare --

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Sure, he is saying that. The member is entitled to make his judgements on these matters. However, all these facts will be made public tomorrow.

I am not a lawyer. I was, but I have lost my QC. I have given up my QC, and I never was a very good lawyer. As the member knows, I am living proof of why QCs should not exist. I have never practised.

The member can ask all these legal questions in his pursuit of my honourable friend. He can make his points in that regard. He is suggesting that the minister is trying to hide something, that he was manipulating them and that sort of thing. I have told the member what I know today. I hope he will hear the minister out tomorrow.

NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Morin-Strom: I have a question for the Premier regarding the report of the standing committee on resources development, which was tabled in the Legislature earlier this week. This is the Report on the Impact of the Announced Layoffs at The Algoma Steel Corporation Limited in Sault Ste. Marie and Wawa, a report which contained a number of very good recommendations for the government for action to improve the economic situation in that area.

Has the Premier reviewed this report? Does the Premier agree with the recommendations of this report that have been supported by the members of all three parties on that committee? When the Premier comes to Sault Ste. Marie in July -- it is well known in Sault Ste. Marie that he does have a visit scheduled for that time -- will the Premier be making announcements on the specific recommendations of this report for the Sault and area?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I have been gathering a great deal of advice with respect to the problems of northern Ontario, including from the members of this House. In my opinion, it has been a remarkable co-operative effort and some very constructive ideas have been put forward by the members of the opposition.

As I understand it, that report has not been debated in the House but it is one of the sources of information we will be using, as I have told my honourable friend. We have been working very hard on a number of long-term and short-term initiatives for northern Ontario and I hope, as he knows, to have an announcement fairly soon.

I heard some of his colleagues have already made some of the announcements on our behalf. I want to thank him for anything he can do to spread the information.

Mr. Morin-Strom: Surely the Premier realizes that we have two economies going on in this province. I am sure he is aware from the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) that the revenues from the growing economy in the south are expanding and surpassing the expectations we had last fall.

Are the Premier and his government going to take action to see that those revenues from the growing economy in the south are diverted to those areas of the province such as Sault Ste. Marie, but other areas as well, to ensure that we have a more balanced economy in this province and that those areas which are not growing are given the economic and public resources to turn around those areas so that we have more jobs available for those who really need them?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I do take the matter extremely seriously. It has a very high priority for this government. As I have said, a lot of thought has been put into it. The member lays out the problems very well.

As he knows, the Treasurer has substantially increased the allocation for the northern development fund but there are other initiatives required as well. There is no one solution to the problems of the north, as I am sure my honourable friend would agree with me. There is a myriad of small things as well as some long-term approaches to the problem.

I just hope when we make the announcement in the not-too-distant future of what we have in mind -- and believe me, we have been canvassing every option -- that we will have the member's assistance and the assistance of his colleagues in making it work, not just in the short term but over the long term as well.

COMPUTER CONTRACTS

Mr. Gillies: I have a question for the Premier about computer contracts. The Premier will know that on June 10 we put a question in Orders and Notices asking him to provide us with the names of all companies that have received contracts in the past year to provide computer software or hardware to his government and whether these contracts were tendered.

In reply to the question in Orders and Notices, the acting Chairman of Management Board, the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon), tells the opposition that this information will not be available until approximately October 10. Is the Premier's government so disorganized it cannot get this information together for four months, or does he have it and he just does not want to tell us?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: There are literally scores and scores of contracts with respect to computer services for the various ministries. I am very happy to share the information. We are gathering it up, as the member knows. I am not the one who does it personally, but he constantly tries to create the impression that we have something to hide. We have nothing to hide.

Mr. Gillies: When he gets around to freedom of information legislation, I hope we will not constantly be required to wait four months for information.

By way of supplementary --

Mr. Grossman: Why does the Premier not give the information? He should bring in his bill.

Hon. Mr. Scott: The member is not going to talk about freedom of information, is he? In a decade, his government never produced a bill. His party should not dare talk about freedom of information.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

3:30 p.m.

Mr. Gillies: The Attorney General (Mr. Scott) is clearly uncomfortable about the closed nature of this government.

When we asked in questions in Orders and Notices about the Exploracom project, we also asked for some very specific information, which was not provided. I ask the Premier again: Will he table with this House the current proposal put before the government in writing by Exploracom? Will he table the minutes of any meetings that were held between Exploracom and his government? Will he table correspondence between Mr. Schwartz and the ministry, and will he table the financial arrangements that are being entered into between his government and Exploracom? Those things were not contained in the information he brought forward yesterday.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: If my honourable friend is frustrated in his search for something, he should just put the question on the Orders and Notices paper and it will help him to find it.

Mr. Gillies: We did.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: He did? The relevant information was tabled, to the best of my knowledge, plus comparisons. We thought it was important to compare the way his government used to make grants compared to the way ours makes them. He should want to look into those matters. Some of his own announcements for the International Telecommunications Discovery Centre in Brantford had absolutely no scrutiny at all until he announced it with the help of his friend. We are happy to share all of that.

As the member knows, one thing we cannot make public is cabinet minutes. However, as I understand it, all the information was made public. I have not read all the information -- I do not check it, obviously -- but what was available was provided to him. If he has specific questions, if he thinks there is some collusion, then he should stand up and say so. Just because he does not find what he is looking for does not mean it is not there.

ACQUIRED IMMUNE DEFICIENCY SYNDROME

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I have a question for the Minister of Health. He will understand the AIDS Committee of Toronto has asked for additional funding to deal with the support services and the health education it now provides. Why has there not been approval for this extended funding, since this organization provides health education and prevention as well as support services to the victims of acquired immune deficiency syndrome in Toronto and throughout the province?

Hon. Mr. Elston: With respect to that committee, we have provided it with funding in the past. It was the subject of a considerable portion of the Queen's Park report of the member for St. George (Ms. Fish). She announced that last year we made a decision to fund them. We have funded them again this year. In fact, we made some arrangements to provide some cash flow.

I can tell the honourable gentleman that one of the biggest problems has been the fact that the federal authorities have not come through with funding to the extent the committee had hoped. I can also tell him that considerable effort is going into health education with respect to AIDS through the Ontario Public Education Panel on AIDS, and we are very interested in not getting into a situation where we have duplication.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I know the Ministry of Health provides $100,000 per year, but the minister will also understand that $100,000 per year works out to the cost of two cases if individuals come down with the disease. Does the minister not understand that it would be a much better investment to put money into counselling and into health education? While the federal government will not live up to its obligations, he is the Minister of Health, and health, the last time I looked, was a provincial responsibility. Will the minister not reconsider further funding for the AIDS Committee of Toronto?

Hon. Mr. Elston: With respect to this matter, I am not sure a formal request has been made, although I have heard they are interested in receiving extended funding.

I have to indicate to the honourable member and to the people of the province that we are concerned about the question of educating people with respect to the nature of AIDS. We have continued to do that by developing a consistent approach to developing materials that not only can be distributed in Ontario but have also been made available to the federal authorities and to the Health ministers of each of the other provinces.

We have done a considerable amount of work under the auspices of Dr. Jay Browne and OPEPA. We are making great strides in providing that educational material and making it available throughout the province and in Toronto. We have provided funding for them. We are interested in what they are doing and how they are performing for the public. I have indicated that publicly on many occasions. The people from the AIDS Committee of Toronto also help to serve on OPEPA. I think we are doing a very good job with respect to providing educational material.

BUSINESS PROGRAMS

Mr. Ferraro: I have a two-part question for the Treasurer. Many small business people to whom I have spoken at the committee of parliamentary assistants for small business, which I chair, and throughout this province have many positive things to say about the recently announced budget, and indeed they should, but they have also put questions to me and I assured them I would ask the Treasurer in the House.

The first question is whether there is consideration by the Treasurer and his ministry of extending the employee share ownership plan to larger corporations. The second question, which I hope the Treasurer can answer, is with regard to a further extension of the small business development corporations program, particularly to the service sector.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The employee share ownership program is in the process of formation. I hope to have a bill before the House in the fall. I have already made an announcement in the House asking for the views of the members, the financial community, organized labour and the working community in general. The idea is that it not be used as a reward for senior executives but that it allow working people in a corporation to participate.

As far as extending SBDCs into the service sector is concerned, there was an extension in the budget this time into software and certain other aspects. My concern at the moment is that the money available through SBDCs be taken up more enthusiastically. We think it is a good program, and it is my job to see that the business community is aware of it and knows of its availability to finance the entrepreneurial expansion that is so important to jobs and economic progress in Ontario.

CHILDREN'S AID SOCIETY

Mr. Cousens: I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services. The minister's assistant has made a completely irresponsible statement to the press that not one child has been harmed by the strike at the Children's Aid Society of Metropolitan Toronto.

A six-year-old boy was featured on the CBC news last week who has regressed to violent behaviour after being sent home from a treatment centre three weeks early. Children were moved out of the Lloyd S. Richardson Residence group home who are so uncontrollable that one was just in the hospital for stitches. There are children in abusive environments, cut off from their social workers.

The minister has the final responsibility to ensure that these children are protected. When will he get involved in this strike at the Children's Aid Society of Metropolitan Toronto?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I have been advised that the staff and the board of the society are meeting again this afternoon to renew their negotiations. I understand the board is prepared to make a new offer, and I have very high hopes that the staff will accept the offer.

PETITIONS

EXTRA BILLING

Mr. Jackson: I have a petition signed by every single patient of a specific doctor's office in my constituency. He is a doctor who has not taken any job action during the course of the strike. Every one of his patients has asked that the following petition be read to the Legislature:

3:40 p.m.

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

Mr. Wildman: I have a petition signed by 24 residents of the community of Dubreuilville which reads:

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

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

"The citizens of Dubreuilville respectfully request that the ministry improve the design and construction of secondary Highway 519 to Dubreuilville. Our request includes the following: (1) that the first

section of Highway 519 be redesigned to eliminate or improve the three main curves in order to avoid serious accidents; (2) that the 10-mile hill on the second

section of Highway 519, presently under construction, be lowered sufficiently to facilitate travel for logging trucks and other heavy equipment; (3) that the EGO mine curve or 7.2 km curve into town be improved also; (4) that the ministry seriously consider replacing the Bailey bridge situated at the entrance to town.

"The citizens of Dubreuilville have been waiting 20 years to have this road reconstructed, and they would like to have it done properly the first time to improve safety and driving conditions for all who must travel on Highway 519."

I have a second petition from the residents of Renabie and Missanabie at the border of Algoma and Nickel Belt ridings, in addition to the previous one submitted to the House. This petition is signed by 28 residents and reads:

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

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

"That the Ministry of Transportation and Communications provide the funds to upgrade and straighten out a number of dangerous curves on the road connecting Missanabie to Renabie Gold Mines and Missabay Mining Inc."

ABORTION CLINICS

Mr. Ferraro: I have two petitions to present, one with 28 signatures on it and the other with 24 signatures on it, from my riding; they essentially state:

"The Morgentaler and newly opened Scott abortion clinics are in violation of

section 251 of the Criminal Code, wherefor the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon parliament to immediately enforce the closure of the aforementioned clinics, and as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray."

Mr. McCague: I have a petition signed by residents of my riding protesting the unlawful abortions being performed at the Morgentaler clinic.

GASOLINE PRICES

Mr. Gillies: I have a petition signed by 1,200 long-suffering residents of Brantford, which reads:

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

"We request the government of Ontario to reduce gasoline tax by 1.1 cents a litre, from 8.3 cents a litre to 7.2 cents a litre, immediately and to phase in further reductions over three years to 5.4 cents a litre by 1989."

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

Mr. Callahan from the standing committee on regulations and private bills presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bills without amendment:

Bill Pr35,

An Act respecting the Young Men's Christian Association of Cambridge; and

Bill Pr37,

An Act respecting the City of Toronto.

Your committee begs to report the following bill as amended:

Bill Pr5,

An Act respecting The Public Utilities Commission of the City of Scarborough.

Your committee further recommends that Bill Pr4,

An Act respecting the Windsor Youth Marching and Concert Band, be not reported.

Motion agreed to.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

Ms. Fish, on behalf of Mr. Brandt, from the standing committee on administration of justice presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bill with certain amendments:

Bill 7,

An Act to amend certain Ontario Statutes to conform to

section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for third reading.

MOTION

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved that Mr. Offer and Mr. Poirier exchange places in the order of precedence for private members' public business.

Motion agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

SHORELINE PROPERTY ASSISTANCE AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 43,

An Act to amend the Shoreline Property Assistance Act.

Mr. Brandt: I apologize to the House for the delay. I did want to speak further on this matter. I had covered a number of points, as members will recall, with respect to some of the difficulties of shoreline protection and the high water levels being experienced in the Great Lakes.

Mr. Speaker, to your knowledge, is the minister going to be in the House?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I will see that he is called in. Meanwhile, I will listen attentively and convey the member's views.

Mr. Brandt: Will the Treasurer pass on to the minister all the comments I am about to make?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Yes. I will make notes.

Mr. Brandt: I am sure the Treasurer will. One of the points that is fundamental to this bill and that is conspicuous by its absence is the fact that there are no measures within the bill itself which provide any relief for municipalities to undertake any shoreline protection.

The minister has taken some initiatives with respect to unorganized municipalities and the provision for assistance to property owners who live in those municipalities. I complimented him on that when the bill was originally tabled in the House. That was a point that was overlooked in the previous administration -- I admit to that -- and it is a step in the right direction. However, a number of very serious shoreline problems are developing throughout the Great Lakes system and particularly in the area I identified in my initial statements when we first discussed this bill.

The problem on the Great Lakes has increased not only because of natural elements that are taking place in the Great Lakes region but also as a result of urban changes. The construction of both storm and sanitary sewers is an example, as is the development of drainage systems on agricultural land. These provide relief and provide a better quality of life for people who live on the land, but the fact of the matter is that the water that is discharged from the land moves far more quickly into the Great Lakes basin, into our rivers and into our lakes and thereby causes a quick elevation of water levels, which have now reached historical highs.

At one time, there was a belief that the Great Lakes ran on a cyclical seven-year period, that the water went up and down every seven years. It was relatively predictable; there was some shoreline damage, there was destruction that occurred and there was some loss of dollars in terms of lost property, but nothing even remotely resembling the level of devastation that has occurred over the course of the past couple of years.

3:50 p.m.

The historic highs we are experiencing at the moment are causing literally millions and millions of dollars worth of damage. It has been estimated that during the course of the past few years, on both the American and Canadian sides of the Great Lakes, primarily in Lake Erie and to a lesser extent, but equally destructively, in Lake St. Clair and along the Detroit and St. Clair rivers, there has been extensive shoreline damage in the amount of close to $1 billion.

Areas such as Long Point have lost literally thousands of acres of land because of waters that are no longer going through any kind of historical cycle, waters that are no longer reflecting the ups and downs that occurred over the course of the past few years, but are apparently going to remain at tremendously high levels as a direct result of some of the changes I mentioned.

Now that the minister is in the House, I will recap quickly what I have indicated. The problems of high waters are caused not only by increased precipitation, snowfall, rainfall and those kinds of things but also by urban development and the complexities that has brought about.

The government has to look beyond some of the measures on which I complimented the minister, if he will recall my opening comments when we originally discussed this bill. I applaud him for the two specific measures he has taken to improve and to strengthen the response of the government. I say that in a very charitable sense. He could have gone further.

It is now necessary for him, the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) and the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio) to sit down and come up with a game plan that will respond to a problem the likes of which we have never seen in the Great Lakes region, namely, historical high waters that are causing levels of destruction that are not simply a result of increased rainfall or snowfall in certain regions of our province.

One of the solutions is to look very carefully at the plan known as 25N, which deals with the Niagara Escarpment. It deals with a way in which we can increase the funnel, if you will, that is occurring at Niagara Falls, to allow more water to be released more quickly. The engineering estimates I have received indicate we can lower the Great Lakes level not by inches but by feet if we take very seriously the provisions outlined in 25N, of which I am sure the minister is aware, and allow for an increase in the outflow of water to lower the levels of the basin that are being blocked up behind the Niagara gorge.

I realize that is an extremely environmentally sensitive area. There would have to be extensive engineering studies. I also fully appreciate it is not a problem of this ministry alone. It will require detailed environmental research and planning. There will have to be extensive negotiations carried out with respect to our American friends.

I suggest to the minister this is one element of the bill that seems to be somewhat in shortfall with respect to what it should be addressing, namely, not only direct assistance to home owners but also more comprehensive assistance to municipalities directly and, further, to the kind of comprehensive assistance and change I suggest is absolutely essential if the government is going to bring about an overall improvement in the unacceptably high levels of water we are experiencing at present.

I could go on at some length, but I understand there may be other speakers who want to have input on this bill. I hope the minister will take my brief remarks very seriously. I will be happy to co-operate with him in any undertakings he may initiate in the direction I suggest, with respect to the Niagara gorge solution in particular.

Mr. Hayes: With regard to the comments made by the member for Sarnia (Mr. Brandt), I am pleased to hear the previous government indicating now that something can be done about regulating the Great Lakes. Back on June 6, 1985, I raised the question with the then Minister of Natural Resources. I was talking about the program of regulating the Great Lakes. At that time, it was mentioned that it would affect the water level by only one tenth of an inch. I am very pleased to find out now that people realize it is not strictly a natural phenomenon but also has a lot to do with some of the mistakes man has made and continues to make today.

Mr. Bernier: I want to join my colleague the member for Sarnia in complimenting the minister for bringing this bill forward.

The Deputy Speaker: Is this a comment or a question?

Mr. Bernier: It is a comment. I note there is some reference to inland lakes. I hope this bill will address the problems in northern Ontario. I am sure the minister is very much aware of the fluctuating water levels that occur, I think I can say, on a cyclical nature in northern Ontario. I refer to such water basins as the Lake of the Woods water basin, the Lake Nipigon water basin and the Lac Seul water basin, where we see water fluctuations, particularly in the Lac Seul area, of as much as 15 or 16 feet on a regular basis.

The minister will realize that in some years the tourist operations and the many people who have boathouses and docks on those large bodies of water find it impossible to get their boats or equipment into the waters on which they operate. It causes severe upheaval in their tourist business and they look for financial assistance. To this time, to my knowledge, there has not been any; however, I understand that sections of the bill address the question of people who have property on crown land and that funds and loans can be obtained directly from the ministry.

I believe there is in the bill a specific interest rate that has been established. It is a little high. It should be about half the prime rate. I do not know whether the minister would agree with me on that basis.

Mr. McLean: I want to comment briefly on the remarks of the member for Sarnia with regard to the breakwaters and some of the dikes this bill refers to.

Those sections of the bill with regard to loans concern me because there does not appear to be an upper limit anywhere. I was listening to the member for Sarnia mention that. There is the borrowing of money for the purposes of construction work, whether it be on crown land or other land.

I want to compliment the member for Sarnia on some of the remarks he made and the stand he has taken on this bill. I also want to compliment the ministry for initiating a program that will be used, and very substantially so.

I have some current concern with regard to the money. There does not appear to be any upper limit. I wonder whether the minister will indicate that there will be a maximum on a per capita basis or on some base. Of course, it would depend whether it is all shoreline in the municipality. It is different. I would like to hear the minister comment on that at a later time.

4 p.m.

Mr. Hayes: I would like to speak in favour of Bill 43, a bill that expands on the previous shoreline protection loan plan. Being able to raise or move a building is something for which shoreline residents have been looking for a long time, and I am sure my colleague the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman) is very pleased that at last the unorganized municipalities will be able to be covered under this act. I know that is something for which he has been fighting for a long time.

I will mention a few of the problems with the existing shoreline protection program, and I implore the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Grandmaître) to rectify them. If the problems are not corrected, this bill will not be worth the paper it is written on.

I will also mention a couple of comments that were made to me in December 1985 by some of the municipalities in my riding when they were faced with flooding problems. People were trying to get assistance and they did not know where to go. Some municipal clerks were saying they did not know where they stood, and the ratepayers did not know either, as far as the program was concerned.

In one municipality, there was no guarantee of the funds. They said the program was too vague. In another area, they were afraid the program was not going to be extended beyond March 1986. I am very pleased the program has been extended since that time. When they called the Ministry of Natural Resources office, they felt the staff would not talk to them. The people they called were wishy-washy and they had a hard time getting answers. I hope this program will be managed in future a lot better than it was in the past.

Individuals in municipalities are frustrated with the shoreline property assistance program set up to help property owners deal with damage caused by high waters. Because of the cumbersome way the program has been set up, people have no guarantee that, having done the work, the loan will be forthcoming from the government.

If property owners wish to build shoreline protection, they must first apply to the municipality. The municipal engineer or a representative comes to look at the proposed plan and advises whether it is likely to fall within the ministry guidelines. Individuals then must hire a contractor to have the work done and it is inspected by the Ministry of Natural Resources which makes a decision as to whether they qualify for the funds. At that point, if the ministry refuses a project, the property owner could be faced with a very large bank loan.

The municipalities wish to have an allocation of funds from the ministry. They want to know how much money the community can expect to be made available, instead of operating on a first-come, first-served basis. They feel this would alleviate some of the problems with the cumbersome paperwork and would reassure people about whether the funds will run out before the work is done.

The ministry has also failed to provide in the assistance program for property owners who cannot afford to take out a loan for flood protection. The serious problem this causes is that if one person cannot or does not put up a breakwall, the efforts of all the other people in that area will be futile. The water simply runs through the open space and on to the other properties.

There is another area of concern of which the minister should be aware. It has been raised a few times in the past as another problem the local municipalities are faced with. When debentures are issued by a municipality for loans under the Shoreline Property Assistance Act, the ceiling imposed by the Ontario Municipal Board in effect limits municipal borrowing for other capital works within that municipality. The Minister of Municipal Affairs should press cabinet to separate debenturing for lakeshore projects from those for other municipal capital works.

Not many people realize the extent of the damage in 1985 from high waters on the Great Lakes. In Essex county alone, it was estimated that the damage was close to $11 million and I am sure that is a very conservative estimate.

I want to point out to the minister that a report was done by municipalities on the estimate of some of the damages along the shorelines in Essex county alone. From Wheatley to Amherstburg, and that includes Pelee Island, there was $8,122,000 damage; on the Detroit River shoreline from Amherstburg to Riverside, excluding Windsor, it was $718,000; on the Lake St. Clair shoreline from Riverside to east of Stoney Point, $2,021,000; the Essex county total was $10,861,000. It is estimated that 80 per cent of the damage pertains to private property and 90 per cent of the private property damage pertains to residential buildings and breakwalls.

Even though I have concerns about the way the program was run in the past, and I hope the minister will take a look at these concerns, I compliment him on expanding the Shoreline Property Assistance Act. At the same time, I encourage him to implement the amendments as soon as possible. This program should be looked at as a short-term solution to the very serious problem of flooding along the Great Lakes shoreline.

I am sure in the ridings of many members, as in the area where I live, there is foreign ownership of some cottages along the shore. At this time we should be looking at the possibility of giving the municipality the power to force some of these people to protect their properties. If they refuse to do so, the municipality should have the right to go in and perform that work and to assess them on their taxes.

It needs someone in government to have the political will to look seriously at the real problem, which is that the level of the Great Lakes should be lowered. A lot of people have been living along the Great Lakes for many years. It is not a case of them happening to have moved there and now find they are faced with a lot of flooding problems in their houses. People make comments about some of these residents along the lake choosing to live there, but we should not look at it that way. These people are faced with a problem they did not create.

4:10 p.m.

A lot of suggestions have been made about lowering the Great Lakes levels. The member for Sarnia (Mr. Brandt) has spoken of plan 25N but many other suggestions have been made about lowering the lake levels. I will mention just a couple.

The Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio) has the same letter I have from the East Shore Coalition, written by Marv Ewing in Kingsville. One of the things we were talking about was that if one really wants to lower these levels, some are man-made and some are natural. Among those that are man-made, as the member for Sarnia mentioned, is the presence of more buildings, more housing going up and subdivisions put in. The water runs off faster than usual. There are other areas -- tiling, for example.

One of the other mistakes we have made is our loss of forestry, the deforestation. There are also wetlands. We have a serious loss of wetlands in this province. Even today wetlands are being filled in, and we should not allow this to happen, because that is also a factor. We all realize we have had more precipitation in the past couple of years than we had had for quite a while before that.

There are some ways of controlling the Great Lakes. If we started to control the levels of the Great Lakes, a lot of the programs we are talking about today probably would not even be necessary and, in the long run, we would save this province a lot of money.

We have some idea that if we close the Ogok and Longlac diversions until flooding is no longer a threat, we increase the flows in the Niagara River and Wetland Canal to obtain their maximum flow, which is 100,000 cubic feet per second, over the falls. The Black Rock Canal should be increased to its maximum. Those are a couple of emergency or short-term solutions to the problem.

What we really need to do is to bring those water levels back to the 1967 levels, and we should set up a controlling body that would have the authority to perform some of the following:

The body shall have the authority to increase or decrease any diversion in the Great Lakes basin that allows water into or out of any lake or river; it shall take weekly measures of flows and levels of each Great Lake; it shall receive weekly precipitation and runoff levels at each lake; it shall receive weekly evaporation levels of each lake; and it shall then make an evaluation and a projection of the surplus water above the 1967 level in each lake. The body shall now order the flow for each diversion to be set for the next week. This flow could be a reduction or an increase in cubic feet per second for the Wetland, Niagara, Chicago, Cornwall, Ogok, Longlac or Black Rock Canal diversions.

I could spend quite a bit of time discussing controlling the Great Lakes levels. I hope we can bring it up in this Legislature before too long.

I must compliment the minister again. I do not want to take too much time; it is important that we get this piece of legislation in as soon as possible as a short-term solution to the problem. I hope this minister and other ministers in the government, and also the Conservative Party, will support the efforts we have been making to regulate, control and lower the levels of the Great Lakes to the 1967 levels. I am sure that in the long term we will be able to save a lot of money for this province rather than have to put up dikes, beans and those kinds of things.

We are not just talking about people who live along the shoreline, because a lot of problems with sewers inland today are the result of the high water levels. Whenever we get a storm, people who live as far away as a mile from the lake find their storm sewers backed up because we do not have the capacity in some of our sewage treatment plants to take that extra water.

People along the shorelines move there to enjoy the shore and to enjoy getting in their boats or just sitting on the beaches. That is why they live there. We should reverse some of the mistakes that man has made over the years and get the water levels down and give back to the people their beaches, trees and wetlands.

Mr. Wildman: I do not wish to comment on the excellent speech of my colleague but I do wish to participate in the debate.

The Deputy Speaker: Fine. If there are no comments or questions, we will go in rotation. The member for Brock.

Mr. Partington: I am pleased to join in the debate and to speak in support of the Shoreline Property Assistance Amendment Act. It provides some additional relief for the people along the shores of the Great Lakes, particularly those whose properties have suffered severe damage in past storms. The act as presented will make loans available not only for repairing existing buildings but also for raising buildings and relocating them on either the same lot or an adjoining or nearby lot owned by the same individual.

Such an amendment is important relief in view of the very perilous condition of many buildings. These buildings are now at the very edge of the water line, partially hanging over cliffs. In many cases they are in a very perilous position, requiring that they be moved to a safer distance from the shoreline to protect them against further storms that will surely come, and also so that the banks might be improved.

The raising of buildings is very important as well because of the many low-lying and attractive areas we have along the Great Lakes. I think of one point where many cottages are built slightly above the water line. The one way of preserving those cottages, as the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) knows, is not to move them but to raise them somewhat higher.

I am pleased to see the coverage under this act is being extended to unorganized territories in the province. Water damage can be just as devastating in those areas as it can be in the industrial heartland of Ontario.

The act provides wider availability of financial help, although it is on a loan repayable basis, to riparian owners whose property is damaged by high water and wind. The focus for this act is particularly important to those people who live along the shores of Lake Erie, which is the area with which I have become most familiar.

Because of the lure of water and the beauty of the shoreline, the Great Lakes have attracted large settlements of people along their shores. As the late Senator Kerr of the US Senate once said, "People will always locate where there is an abundant supply of land, wood and water." In the Great Lakes basin we have been blessed with quantities of all three which are unparalleled anywhere else in the world. It has not been a surprise that the Great Lakes basin has become the industrial heartland of North America.

As I indicated, lately the inhabitants along the Great Lakes have experienced the ravaging effects of the water they chose to locate beside. The water and the wind have caused great damage and great concern and anxiety to these people.

4:20 p.m.

I read from a brief prepared by the township of Wainfleet. It is the Lakeshore Report on the result of the storm damage in December 1985. The township of Wainfleet has 14 miles of shoreline along Lake Erie which is almost entirely built up with cottages and permanent residential dwellings. I think 98 per cent of that shoreline is built up.

On December 2, that shoreline, as well as the rest of Lake Erie, experienced a very devastating storm.

"December 2, 1985: winds gusting to 70 miles per hour from the southwest raised lake levels as much as 10 feet at the east end of Lake Erie. Record highs have been set, and at Buffalo, a new record high of an instantaneous level of 580.68 feet was established. Extensive flooding occurred along the easterly end of the lake and the upper Niagara River."

The International Joint Commission's publication, Focus, on the Great Lakes water quality, indicates that fluctuations in lake levels may occur short term, seasonally or long term. The experience now is that the Great Lakes levels have reached a position that is likely to remain constant for at least the next 100 years.

This theory in the past that we have had about there being seven-year or five-year cycles, as the cottagers have talked about, is not the reality. The fact is that we have, as the member says, a very high, escalating water condition and great relief is needed.

I was talking about Focus on the Great Lakes. It states in here that, "a storm on December 2, 1985, tipped Lake Erie towards Buffalo, New York, causing a short-term difference of 16 feet in the lake level."

One of the aggravating aspects of the Lake Erie water is that Lake Erie is the shallowest of the Great Lakes, it is a very shallow lake, and it has a bathtub effect. A storm can, in effect, blow the water to one side of the lake so it can rise to extreme levels on one side and be almost dry where it once was wet on the other side.

As I indicated, the Great Lakes are a great natural resource for us to enjoy and we must be sure to keep the lakes for our enjoyment. The Great Lakes contain 95 per cent of the fresh water in North America, a substantial amount.

The storm that occurred in December 1985 along the north shore of Lake Erie caused $100 million in property damage from Fort Erie to Dunnville. As I mentioned, in the town of Wainfleet, the damage along its 14 miles of coastline is just less than $1 million per mile.

In addition to damage to beaches and to buildings, there was substantial damage done to sewers and roads, approximating some $400,000. That is one of the areas that will have to addressed, and I note that the Minister of Municipal Affairs has indicated that additional grants to municipalities may still be made -- I am reading from a release -- "in cases where the cost of restoring or protecting essential services would place an undue financial burden on local taxpayers." One of the direct results of a storm is the damage to the physical assets of the municipality.

One of the other things that municipalities must be concerned about is assessment appeals. As I mentioned earlier, there was $100-million worth of damage from Fort Erie to Dunnville.

Regarding the 14-mile Wainfleet area, reading from the report of the township of Wainfleet, it states: "Since there are so many applications to council for reduction of tax under

section 496 of the Assessment Act for assessment reductions and deletions, it is possible and the potential exists that the municipality could stand to lose as much as $3 million, which equals approximately $345,000 in assessment and could represent as much as $75,000 in tax for the year 1986; apportioned as $19,000 to the township of Wainfleet, $17,000 to the regional municipality of Niagara and $39,000 to the school board."

This small municipality would have a difficult time withstanding the loss of such tax revenues. That was the estimate made at the time, and I am sure the damage may go much higher. The damage to the shoreline is not only to private properties and residences but also to breakwalls. Perhaps worst of all may be the damage to beaches that have taken hundreds of years to build up and may now be gone for ever.

I refer to a very famous summer area, perhaps one of the greatest natural parks in North America, Sherkston Beaches, which is located in the riding of the member for Erie (Mr. Haggerty). It consists of two miles of natural beaches, a large lake which was formerly a quarry, surrounded by 750 acres of property. Sherkston Beaches was recently purchased by a company owned by Glen Maxwell and Tom Collins. This park has been very popular not only with people living in the Niagara Peninsula but also those in the rest of Ontario, New York state, Pennsylvania, Ohio and other surrounding states.

To give members an example of its size, there were 25,000 camping permits issued in 1985 for the 5,000 campsites in this great park. They average four people to a permit, so the number of people occupying campsites in this Sherkston Beaches property would be 100,000 in 1985. That may be impressive in itself, but in addition to that, between 200,000 and 250,000 people visited the park as day visitors last year. The park is open year round, with the peak time from April through September.

One of the great assets of this park was the two miles along the Lake Erie shoreline -- probably two miles of the finest beach one could find anywhere in North America. That beach is gone. The waves have picked it up and it is gone for ever. There is still some sand along the shoreline where one could sit and watch the lake, but the long expanse of sandy bottom leading into the lake has been dug out, taken away, and all that remains is a very rocky shoreline.

4:30 p.m.

According to an official at Sherkston Beaches, the government has indicated the cost to restore some of the damage done to the park site is approximately $2 million. Apparently Maxwell and Collins have already spent $500,000 to restore some of the campsites and try to salvage some permanent bookings for the current summer. Because of its popularity, people bring their campers in May, treat the area as their summer cottage and stay until the fall. In any event, accommodating the people will be impossible this year, and they have noted that the beach area has been cut down by 95 per cent. That is just some of the devastation that is taking place along the shores of Lake Erie.

A little earlier, the member for Sarnia referred to Long Point, and this may be one of the greatest losses the people of Ontario will have endured as a result of this storm. Long Point may be one the most natural wildlife habitats left in North America. Formed over the past 6,000 years and stretching 29 miles into Lake Erie, the first five miles are inhabited and settled with mainly summer cottages. The balance of Long Point Provincial Park, 27 miles, has been kept since its inception as a natural habitat. Long owned by the Long Point Co., much of it was turned over to the government of Ontario, provided it be continued in its natural state.

Over the years, hunters have enjoyed the almost unlimited number of ducks, geese and other wildfowl that spend time in the fall at Long Point on their way south. Fishermen fish that great Long Point Bay where bass, both largemouth and smallmouth, and perch abound, and naturalists come to watch the birds and to try to identify the many varieties at Long Point. Of course, there are also the beaver and just about every type of wildlife one can imagine. But 40 per cent of that great natural preserve was destroyed in the storm of December 2, 1985. Parts of the point had been breached by water and as a result the threat to the continued preservation of Long Point is a real one.

I was going to explain some of the beauties of Long Point, the types of birds and wildlife that have lived there for generations and that are now being threatened by the high water of Lake Erie. Suffice to say it would be a tragic loss to the people of Ontario if this great wilderness area were lost for ever.

It is interesting that we talk often about preserving our wetlands -- and we are very concerned about the wetlands -- to preserve our game and our wildlife. Normally, we think in terms of private owners or people filling in the wetlands to provide additional land to develop for housing or recreation. Of course, the reverse is happening in this case. Our wetlands are disappearing by becoming too wet, by being flooded over, and it is a tragic loss.

With respect to Long Point, Hastings Drive, one of the last roads leading into the end of Long Point, was developed with a great series of cottages. Fifty-five of those cottages washed away in the storm of December 2, 1985; they are gone. However, many of the remaining cottages will be able to benefit from this act by being raised. The level of the water has risen, and many of the people there are taking remedial action by raising the level of their cottages.

Dr. Joe Pacsuta, a member of the North Shore Coalition, a group of cottagers and property owners along Lake Erie, has vividly described in a letter the damage that has occurred on Lake Erie.

He refers to "the ruin of both public and private b