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

December 1, 1987

34th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L015 - Tue 1 Dec 1987 / Mar 1er déc 1987

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

TRANSIT SERVICES

OVERCROWDING IN SCHOOLS

JOHN BATES

EDUCATION FUNDING

CHILD CARE

MULTICULTURALISM

GOVERNMENT POLICIES

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

RETAIL STORE HOURS

WOMEN’S HEALTH SERVICES

RESPONSES

RETAIL STORE HOURS

WOMEN’S HEALTH SERVICES

RETAIL STORE HOURS

WOMEN’S HEALTH SERVICES

RETAIL STORE HOURS

ORAL QUESTIONS

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

RENTAL ACCOMMODATION

RETAIL STORE HOURS

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

RENT REGISTRY

INTERVAL HOUSES

SKILLS TRAINING

WOMEN’S HEALTH SERVICES

HELP CENTRE

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

LANDFILL SITE

LABOUR DISPUTE

OSHAWA AUTO AUCTION LTD.

AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRY

MEMBER’S COMMENTS

PETITIONS

CHILDREN’S LAW REFORM

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

COMMUNITY MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES ACT

ANSWER TO QUESTION IN ORDERS AND NOTICES

ORDERS OF THE DAY

MEMBERS’ CONFLICT OF INTEREST ACT /

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

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

Prayers.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

TRANSIT SERVICES

Ms. Bryden: I want to draw to the attention of the Minister of Transportation (Mr. Fulton) and the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) the fact that the Toronto Transit Commission is considering replacing its 103 trolley buses with diesel buses on the grounds that it would save $3 million a year and provide a more flexible bus service.

However, there are important environmental and health effects that must be considered as well as potential savings. The Toronto medical officer of health, Dr. Alexander Macpherson, has said that the change would create a possible pollution hazard due to the toxicity of diesel fumes. Users of trolley buses praise the cleanness, the quietness and the use of a nonpolluting fuel as their major attractions.

In view of the fact that the province pays a substantial portion of transit costs in Metropolitan Toronto, I urge the Minister of Transportation and the Minister of the Environment to discuss the proposal with the TTC and urge that full consideration be given to the environmental, health and noise impact of such a decision. I also urge the same ministers to consider giving the TTC greater funding so that it can join the province in the goal of a healthier Ontario.

OVERCROWDING IN SCHOOLS

Mr. McCague: At one time, “cramming” was the trendy catchword that many Ontario students used to depict their mid-term study habits, but for the students of Simcoe county, “cramming” has adopted a new definition, compliments of the Ministry of Education. I am referring to the horrendous number of Simcoe county students who are being crammed into portable schools during a time when the government of Ontario is flogging blank promises of improving the student learning environment.

The fact is that the number of portables in Simcoe county has skyrocketed by over 100 per cent in one board since this government took office. Since 1955, the number of portables used by the Simcoe County Roman Catholic Separate School Board has jumped from 52 to 102 while the number of portables housing the Simcoe County Board of Education students has climbed from 165 to 168.

This shocking statistic clearly illustrates the paper-thin promises made by this government. The government cannot expect improvements to this serious problem when it will not provide the capital. If we were to subject the Ministry of Education to a mid-term evaluation, its 1987 Christmas report card would be graded F for failure.

JOHN BATES

Mrs. LeBourdais: I rise this afternoon with a great deal of pride -- and I use that word advisedly, as you will hear in a moment, Mr. Speaker -- to pay tribute to John Bates, the president and co-founder of PRIDE, People to Reduce Impaired Driving Everywhere.

Mr. Bates, a constituent in my riding of Etobicoke West, was honoured last week by the Alcoholism and Drug Addiction Research Foundation for his efforts against drinking and driving. Mr. Bates and PRIDE have campaigned actively against drinking and driving throughout Ontario via government committee participation, publications and education programs in schools and universities alike.

Since its formation in 1982, PRIDE has established 15 chapters in major centres across the province and has worked closely with the addiction research foundation to highlight the dangers of impaired driving. I feel it is most important, as we approach the holiday season, to stress the importance of a program such as PRIDE and to warn all Ontarians against drinking and driving.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, you asked my leader to withdraw the comment that the government had been misleading the people during the last election around its promises on education, having promised $300 million in grants and now only giving $62 million. Yesterday after the House, the Premier (Mr. Peterson) referred outside to his campaign announcement, saying: “The first full year of implementation is three years from now. You check the words...we’re doing exactly what we said we would do.”

I am pleased to say that some members of the press did check his precise words. On August 6, he said to reporters: “Right away -- I think we’ll make a lot of progress in the next month or two and it will certainly be completed by next year.” He then also said to someone from CBC Radio, “All of those programs are starting right away.”

Mr. Speaker, I think perhaps you went beyond your bounds in asking a member to withdraw a statement alleging something that took place outside of this House and before this House and session ever took place, but I would certainly say that the evidence is very clear that the Liberal government promised one thing, specifically $300 million this year for education grants, and only gave 20 per cent of that. The people of the province need to know that hoax was perpetrated on them.

CHILD CARE

Mrs. Marland: The child care system in Ontario is characterized by low wages, a shortage of available spaces, an absence of flexible programs and an uneven distribution of spaces. Only one eighth of the number of children that require assisted child care are receiving it.

Since taking office, the Liberal government has made numerous announcements adding up to hundreds of millions of dollars in child care promises, but then has tied these promises to the initiatives of the federal government, notwithstanding the fact that constitutional responsibility for child care rests solely with the provincial government.

In light of the federal announcement on a national child care plan, which is expected this week, I call upon the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney) to act on those promises and immediately implement an adequate child care program at least for all Ontarians in all sectors of delivery.

MULTICULTURALISM

Mr. Fleet: I applaud the Ontario government for promoting multicultural policies and urge it to move forward by declaring Ontario an officially multicultural society. Ontario has undergone a fundamental change in recent decades. Our population is richly diverse. Fully 52 per cent of all Ontario residents are of backgrounds other than British or French. Multiculturalism includes the right of each person to celebrate her or his own heritage, ethnicity and cultural traditions. It also includes the right to participate equally and fully at all levels of society. It is an appropriate time legally to entrench these rights.

Recognition of and respect for different cultures is a fundamental characteristic of Canada. The distinctiveness of provincial societies is part of the current constitutional debate. We are an officially bilingual country. Should this Legislature some day choose to declare Ontario officially bilingual, it would be a profound statement,

an act of national unity. Similarly, the official recognition of multiculturalism would further symbolize our dedication to mutual tolerance and understanding. I again call on the government to declare Ontario officially multicultural.

GOVERNMENT POLICIES

Mr. McLean: I want to know if the Premier (Mr. Peterson) will tell this House how much the people of Ontario are paying for skating lessons for members of his Liberal cabinet. Was the contract for this instruction put out for public tender and which skating school got the contract?

He seems somewhat more perplexed than usual. I can understand that, when his Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith) says the loophole in the law that allows Sunday shopping would be closed, according to one Toronto newspaper, and would not be closed, according to another. Later, in the Legislature, she further aggravated the situation by saying it could be closed.

The Minister of Housing (Ms. Hošek) says she will build more housing units per year than is humanly and mechanically possible. On education policy, the Premier said during the election campaign that within one year after forming the government he is going to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on more teachers, more classroom computers and reduced class size. Now he wants us to believe year one is year three in the life of his government.

If that is not enough figurative skating, how about his jelly-type promises for increased funding of skills development, when the Provincial Auditor’s report tells him there is too much money? Instead of the red tie as a symbol of Peterson Liberals, I am afraid Ontario voters are seeing his symbol as a red herring. Can we expect his government to honour any of his election campaign promises?

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Hon. Mr. Scott: The intervention from the honourable member for Simcoe East (Mr. McLean) has driven me to my feet so that I can make a statement about the application of the Retail Business Holidays Act on Sunday, December 27, 1987.

The need for clarification arises from the fact that Boxing Day this year happens to fall on a Saturday. This means that most stores in Ontario will be required to close on Saturday, December 26, as well as on Sunday, December 27.

However, stores that employ fewer than eight persons and occupy less than 5,000 square feet will, under the act, be permitted to open on Sunday, December 27. This is because of the so-called Sabbatarian exemption in the act, which permits small stores to open on Sunday if they close on Saturday.

The purpose of this Sabbatarian exception, as it is called, as the Supreme Court of Canada made plain in the Edwards Books and Art case, is to reduce the impact of the legislation on those religious groups for whom Saturday is a Sabbath. Without such an exception, Saturday observers would have to close two days of every week, once because of their religion, the other because of the legislation. The Sabbatarian exemption puts them on an equal footing with other retailers by providing them with the opportunity to close on their Sabbath and yet remain open for business six days a week.

This discussion of the purpose underlying the Sabbatarian exemption illustrates that it will operate in an anomalous and unfair fashion on December 27 of this year.

The anomaly arises from the fact that the exemption is available to any store which closes on a Saturday and meets the floor-space and employee requirements. There is no obligation on retailers to demonstrate that their stores were closed on Saturday because of genuinely held religious beliefs. The exemption is structured in this way, as the Supreme Court of Canada explained in the Edwards Books case, so as to avoid the necessity of a state-conducted inquiry into religious beliefs. But this means that the exemption will be available to all small retailers on Sunday, December 27, even though they were closed on Saturday because of a statutory holiday, rather than for any religious purpose.

This will produce, I believe, serious unfairness on Sunday, December 27. A provision originally intended to lessen the impact of the act on Saturday observers will now have the effect of conferring on one class of retailers a competitive advantage over all others. Stores which happen to meet the floor space and employee requirements of the Sabbatarian exemption will be permitted to open six days during that week,

whereas most other retailers will be permitted to be open for only five days.

It is clear that the act was never intended to operate in this arbitrary and unfair manner. The Sabbatarian exemption was intended to place stores which observe a Saturday Sabbath on an equal footing with other stores. It was not intended to permit stores closing on Saturday because of a statutory holiday to enjoy the competitive advantage of being open an extra day during the week.

Given this serious and unintended inequality, the Ministry of the Attorney General has concluded that the Sabbatarian exemption in the act should be interpreted in a broader fashion on the weekend of December 26 and 27, 1987. Specifically, the ministry has concluded that the exemption should be available to any retailer who closes on Saturday, December 26, regardless of the size of the store or the number of employees serving the public. This

interpretation will mean that any store which closes on Saturday, December 26, Boxing Day, will be permitted to open on Sunday, December 27. The crown will not proceed with charges laid against any retailer on December 27, if that retailer can establish that his or her store was closed the preceding day.

This

interpretation will ensure an evenhanded application of the act on December 27 and avoid the anomaly arising from the fact that Boxing Day happens to fall on a Sunday.

A test based on this statement will be conducted in hearing room 1 at 3:30 p m.

Hon. Mrs. Smith: Over the past several years, it has become readily apparent that there exists widespread concern about the current and future status of the Retail Business Holidays Act as it applies to Sunday closing. There has been considerable confusion as to the application of the law. For this reason, I would like to inform all members of the House of the result of the government’s deliberations on this issue.

In recent months, the government has been giving careful and detailed study to the select committee’s report on the Retail Business Holidays Act, which was brought forward last spring. As you are well aware, Mr. Speaker, the report contained a number of recommendations with respect to the present law.

Specifically, recommendations for change included the development of a provincial tourism exemption plan and related municipal plans, a ban on roping off as practised by larger stores to meet the current size restrictions for Sunday openings and increased penalties for contravention of the law.

Regrettably, the government has concluded after careful consideration that the recommendations of the select committee are unworkable. Any tinkering with the law tends to create more unfairness than it eliminates and adds to the degree of uncertainty and confusion that already exists.

For example, it would be virtually impossible to develop a provincial tourism plan which reasonably encompassed all facets of tourism across the province yet was not so broad that virtually all commercial activity would fall within the plan.

Similarly, there are contradictions in the ban on roping off, while endorsing restrictions on pharmacies, which could only be reasonably accommodated by further roping off.

To proceed with certain of the committee’s recommendations, while rejecting others as untenable, would only perpetuate the problem of piecemeal adjustment to

an act which, quite simply, has been overtaken by the times. Just as the tourism exemption in the current law resulted from the recognition that economic factors such as competition from other jurisdictions and the expectation of visitors could not be ignored, other societal pressures must now be accommodated. Demographic factors, such as the significant increase in the labour-force participation of single-parent and double-income families, have led many to call for a less restrictive approach to Sunday openings.

At the same time, it must be recognized that these circumstances vary enormously across the province. The factors affecting consumers and retailers in Hawkesbury or New Liskeard are quite different from those in Metropolitan Toronto and may require different approaches to the issue.

For all these reasons, the government has come to the conclusion that only a municipality itself can best address the appropriate solution in its locality. Municipal governments are in the best position to determine local needs and the problems inherent in ensuring that equity prevails with respect to retail store openings.

Therefore, it is the intention of the government to introduce in the new year legislative changes allowing individual municipalities to regulate Sunday openings. This is fully in keeping with the existing power dedicated to municipalities under

section 211 of the Municipal Act, which allows municipalities to control shopping hours on all other days of the week. In this way, all Ontarians will be guided by Sunday opening rules which will better reflect their local conditions and attitudes.

The government believes that by announcing our intention to give municipalities an option on Sunday shopping, municipalities across Ontario will have an opportunity to consider their response and prepare for the change in the law. In the interim, the current law will continue to be enforced.

In those municipalities which embrace the Sunday opening options, consumers will clearly benefit from increased convenience, yet this must not be achieved at the expense of retail workers. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Sorbara) will shortly be addressing the issue of protections for workers which may be required.

In approaching this issue, the government had two choices: to continue by minor adjustments and amendments to carry on with a piece of legislation, which has resulted in a lessening of respect for the law; or to recognize societal change while accommodating local diversity and ensuring worker protection.

The government has chosen the latter.

WOMEN’S HEALTH SERVICES

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: Last March our government announced major initiatives to expand and enhance women’s health services in this province. I am pleased to report to this House that we have been able to move quickly to implement these programs.

A women’s health bureau is now functioning in the ministry and is responsible for promoting greater awareness of women’s health issues. It is performing its task well and is taking an active daily involvement in the ministry’s decision-making process.

Earlier this month my ministry held a very successful childbirth conference in Toronto. Outstanding speakers and representatives attended from across Canada, the United States and Europe. They participated in an exchange of information and ideas that will assist us in setting future directions of childbirth care in Ontario.

My ministry has been working in consultation with hospitals to develop a range of comprehensive services for women.

Today I am pleased to announce that a regional women’s health centre, the first in the province, is to be established at Women’s College Hospital in Toronto. The hospital will receive $1.5 million in ministry funding for the centre, which is to provide a wide range of education, counselling and referral services to women in Metro.

The hospital is to proceed immediately on detailed planning to implement its proposal. The centre will have a staff of 45, including doctors, nurses, social workers, psychologists, health educators, ultrasound technicians and support staff. Women will be able to use the centre through self-referral or by the referral of a physician, health professional or community agency.

As a health education resource centre, it will become a central access point in the province for consultation on women’s health services and offer a wide range of written and audio-visual information on reproductive health.

Services in the new women’s health centre will include individual and group counselling in family planning and contraception, pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases. The centre will offer physical examinations, pregnancy assessment and diagnosis and referral to other services.

Infertility counselling will be provided for individuals and couples experiencing this problem, which will include minimizing stress through one-to-one counselling and also through support groups.

A premenstrual syndrome education and support program will assist women to better understand the syndrome and ways to cope with the symptoms.

A menopause support program will provide counselling and treatment for those experiencing problems with this stage of life.

Services for pregnant women will include counselling on alternatives to abortion and support for single mothers.

Counselling and referral will be provided to women who are seeking therapeutic abortions. The centre will facilitate immediate access to one of several Metro hospitals co-operating in the regional service. These are Women’s College, Toronto General, Toronto Western, Mount Sinai and Wellesley hospitals, all of which will receive additional ministry funding to allow them to meet their anticipated needs.

Other Metro Toronto hospitals that provide therapeutic abortion services will be given the opportunity to join the new regional referral service. I want to commend these hospitals for their leadership in this important area.

Women’s College Hospital has provided leadership in meeting women’s health unequalled in other Ontario and Canadian hospitals. It was the first hospital in Canada to offer clinical opportunities for women physicians and plays a prominent role in academia. It introduced the first breast screening research program in the late 1950s, and it established the first perinatal unit in the province. Three years ago Women’s College set up the first sexual assault treatment centre and was the first provincial hospital to offer educational outreach programs on women’s health issues with the holding of large seminars at St.

Lawrence Centre. It is the first provincial hospital with an urgent care centre instead of an emergency department.

In February, Women’s College Hospital will open its new brief psychotherapy centre. It will provide outpatient services for women in crisis situations and is being designed to prevent the development of serious psychiatric illness, particularly for those in their reproductive years.

The centre is being designed to ensure that women have timely access to the services they need, provided by sensitive and supportive professionals who are committed to quality of care.

My ministry wants to be sure that women in all areas of the province have access to services which can give them immediate referrals to appropriate agencies, institutions and professionals. We will continue to welcome further proposals from hospitals, community-based agencies or organizations for the provision of comprehensive women’s health services in their communities. In the next few weeks I expect to be announcing other women’s health services and programs.

RESPONSES

Mr. Reville: Taking a leaf out of the book of the member for Burlington South (Mr. Jackson), I should like to respond to all three statements.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Reville: First of all, my congratulations to the tag team of the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) and the Solicitor General, particularly on having such crack research teams as were able to determine that in fact Boxing Day does fall on a Saturday this year. This must be perhaps one of the more machiavellian -- nay, let me not mince words -- Mephistophelean schemes --

Hon. Mr. Scott: It beats hypocritical, which he usually says.

Mr. Reville: -- which, as the Attorney General charmingly points out, beats hypocritical.

What the government of Ontario has managed to do is to look squarely in the eye of a serious problem and dump it on a municipality.

Mr. Wildman: When in doubt, duck.

Mr. Reville: The Association of Municipalities of Ontario sends them its white feather of the month. We are going to have to rope off the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Eakins).

Hon. Mr. Scott: Sarcasm doesn’t work in here. They don’t get it.

Mr. Reville: It is clear that very little works in here.

It must be particularly embarrassing for the Solicitor General, who strove mightily, along with a lot of members of this House, and with me, to come to grips with the difficult problem of whether we want to shop our brains out on Sundays and holidays or not.

In fact, it is a matter on which there is no consensus in the province. It is, however, a matter on which hang a number of other important issues, particularly the protection of workers from being required to work on Sundays and holidays, and one trembles to think at how those workers will be protected by a government such as this, which can think of no better solution than to send this downstairs to city halls.

I have struggled as a member of a council, and I know the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan), the Solicitor General and a number of other members on the government benches have also done that. We know that municipal politicians do not like this issue any more than we do and that they will be subject to the same kind of polarized views as we here have been. It strikes me that it is sad that this vast government, with its vast mandate, cannot get its vast mind around a problem like this.

Mr. Breaugh: There is the problem. I think we have just identified the difficulty.

Some hon. members: It is only half-vast.

Mr. Reville: For the record, there are some sotto voce or not so sotto voce voices saying the government’s mind is half-vast.

WOMEN’S HEALTH SERVICES

Mr. Reville: On the statement from the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan), one out of three is not bad. Perhaps I could congratulate the Minister of Health on this initiative in respect of the regional women’s health centre, and of course follow those congratulations quickly with, “Where is the rest of it?” Clearly, we all applaud the good work that has been done over many, many years by the folks at Women’s College Hospital. We expect that this good work --

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I was born there too.

Mr. Reville: This hospital is older than I thought. I might point out that the Minister of Health is younger than I am.

The minister, however, has not addressed the problem of access to abortion services in this province, and she well knows that. It is too bad the government has an inadequate position on that matter as well. One hopes that as time goes on, it will realize that the setting up of six women’s health centres in Metro Toronto and perhaps six in the rest of the province will not do the job when it comes to making sure that women have access to abortion services.

I think the other thing that should be said at this time is that, in respect of sexually transmitted diseases, the Ministry of Health is failing there as well. The inadequate response to the spectre of human immunodeficiency virus and acquired immune deficiency syndrome, which is part of what is being addressed here, is truly an indictment of the government. Clearly, the fact that 30 people in the city of Toronto last night contracted HIV indicates what a bad job the government is doing.

Mr. Speaker: The member’s time has expired.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Cureatz: Might I first congratulate the Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith) on at least coming forward with this statement. Over the last week to two weeks, we had a great deal of concern that possibly there was a lack of leadership on the front bench, albeit the second row, in terms of the wavering description of Sunday openings and special holidays and concerns for the employees, whether they would be lessened in their employment.

I am concerned about the Solicitor General’s statement because, although she has indeed gone through four or five pages of outlining the problem, all of which we know, she then comes up with a solution which, it grieves me to inform her, is no solution. As indicated by my New Democratic Party colleague, all she is doing is passing on the dollar to the municipalities. It is interesting, notwithstanding the Solicitor General’s statement, that on page 5 she goes on to say, “Municipalities across Ontario will have an opportunity to consider their response and prepare for the change in the law.”

I wonder if she is now going to still have an escape clause whereby, if the municipalities in the Association of Municipalities of Ontario react so strongly to the proposal of putting the responsibility on them, the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) is then going to say, to get us over the Christmas holidays, “I guess we had better take another look at it.”

It grieves me no end that the Liberal Party of Ontario and the government are not taking their responsibility seriously about these problems, taking leadership and, instead of passing the dollar on, deciding on the front bench what they are going to do about it, getting the support of the rest of the Liberal caucus and letting them go across Ontario to explain their position.

But no, what do they do? They send it off to the municipal politicians, and let me say they are going to have some very difficult decisions to make. Does the government think municipal politicians in the city of Toronto are the same as those in the town of Newcastle in the region of Durham? They have different thoughts and different concerns and the government is going to have a mixup of policy --

Interjections.

Mr. Cureatz: Oh no, the government is going to have a mixup of policy right across Ontario. There will not be any cohesiveness in Ontario, I say to the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio), and I say to the Treasurer and Deputy Premier (Mr. R. F. Nixon) there will be a hodgepodge of policy. You are going to be crossing from one municipality’s boundary to the next not knowing what you can do on specific days. We are going to look with great interest at the proposed legislation and at what the municipalities have to say about the lack of leadership of the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) and Deputy Premier in this area.

WOMEN’S HEALTH SERVICES

Mr. Eves: I would like to respond first of all to the statement by the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan). It was only two short weeks ago to the day in this Legislature that she informed myself and other members of the Legislature that she still had not made up her mind whether or not she would make the disclosure of these women’s health centres public. I am glad the minister has finally come to her senses. She came to them the next morning as a matter of fact and said she would now be in a position to tell the people of Ontario where these centres would be located.

I do not think anybody doubts the great contribution Women’s College Hospital has made to health care, especially with respect to women in Ontario. I am glad to see the minister is finally forthcoming about the counselling and referral service with respect to therapeutic abortions. It was not so difficult, was it? All she had to do was tell us that. I do not think she had to try to bury it on page 3 of her statement either, but I do commend the minister on having finally taken this initiative.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Eves: With respect to the statement made by the Attorney General (Mr. Scott), I presume that the member for Simcoe Centre (Mr. Owen) will not be too impressed by the Attorney General’s statement. It was just a few short days ago that he rose in this House to say that he certainly hoped stores in his riding at least would not be allowed to remain open on that particular Sunday.

I might say to the Attorney General and to the Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith) that if they had bothered to look into some of the recommendations of our task force, one specifically, and had allowed stores to remain open on Boxing Day, they would not be in the dilemma they find themselves in today.

It is interesting also to note that the government is now going to pass off any difficult decisions to municipalities. I presume that now we are going to have different liquor laws in every municipality in Ontario because they have different needs and concerns. I presume that with respect to rent controls, for example, it is going to permit municipalities to determine on an individual basis what they want.

The ramifications of this are possibly endless. We can just pass on all their responsibilities and maybe we can divvy up all their cabinet salaries and give them to reeves and mayors across Ontario.

Mr. Harris: I have four seconds, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Yes, you have.

Mr. Harris: It’s a disgrace.

Mr. Speaker: Now that the member for Nipissing has completed his response, that completes ministerial statements and responses.

ORAL QUESTIONS

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr. Mackenzie: I have a question for the Minister of Labour. The minister will be aware of the many ongoing occupational health and safety problems at Continental Can in Concord. The workers and their union, the United Steelworkers of America, Local 2514, have decided to concentrate on the lead issue. The metal beverage cans are soldered with lead. Doctors at the workers’ health centre have discovered that lead levels in some workers are above the permissible levels and lead, as the minister knows, is a killer.

The Minister of Labour ordered that there be a control program done on lead in the plant by September 23. The company did not comply. Why did the Minister of Labour not do something to ensure the compliance?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: It should be pointed out to my friend the member for Hamilton East that indeed the ministry did order a lead control program at Continental Can. What he failed to mention is that the order which was made against Continental Can was appealed by Continental Can and that the process of hearing that appeal is ongoing right now. l would add that ministry officials are in the process of continuing an investigation there in light of the appeal that has been made by the company.

Mr. Mackenzie: We got the regulations in 1981. We got the order, to be complied with by September 23. The company wrote the minister on November 22 saying it would comply with the order by December 7, but that was a day after a story in the Toronto Star and had little to do with the minister’s own pressure on the company.

The minister will no doubt be aware that 169 of the 300 workers in that plant have written complaints to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario concerning the company doctor. The workers want an independent test of their blood levels to determine the exposure to lead. The company is refusing to allow the in-plant tests to be done by any independent source.

The minister knows that this is one of the five key areas that led to the temporary settlement of the McDonnell Douglas dispute. Is the minister prepared to ensure that the workers can be tested in the plant by an independent source?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: My friend points out the issue relating to McDonnell Douglas. What he failed to mention when he pointed it out was that at McDonnell Douglas what was identified was the clear right of the worker to have an independent test done by the physician of his choice. There is no obligation however, either on McDonnell Douglas or Continental Can, to have the clinic of the choice of the workers located in the plant.

What we decided, and what was clarified at McDonnell Douglas, is that if there is no clinic in the plant, then the worker has the option of leaving the plant and going to the physician of his choice. That is the way the law stands. The law does not provide that any company, Continental Can in this case, must allow a clinic of the workers’ choice to locate itself within the plant. He knows that.

Mr. Mackenzie: Yes, I do know that. I also know what it took to get the testing and the lost time to be covered if it is done outside the plant. I am wondering if that is part of the decision the minister is willing to make in this case, because his ministry was part of those negotiations at McDonnell Douglas. I know the minister does not consider mass refusals incredible, but certainly if he does nothing we are going to see that at this and other plants in the province.

There are over 300 chemicals in this plant. Lead is the only one for which there are tests. The ministry has done nothing to see that the program is complied with. So far, only 38 of the workers have managed to be tested by independent doctors simply because the company will not allow the in-plant testing

These workers went there to work, not to die. Again, I ask the minister is he prepared to ensure that the workers can be tested in the plant or set up arrangements for them to be tested that are much quicker than what is going on right now?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: Some of the workers at Continental Can have an interest in having a specific clinic run by a specific doctor located in their plant. There is no obligation under the law to require a plant to accommodate that specific physician within that specific plant, with that specific clinic in the plant. The workers have a right to time off. In the case of McDonnell Douglas, it was an arrangement for the right to time off for two hours and the choice of the physician of their choice. That is the law and those are the provisions under which I would expect that the workers at McDonnell Douglas can have an opportunity to ensure they are fully tested.

Once again, the issue is the fact that the workers have a right to work in conditions that are safe. That is the overriding provision of the law. Where a medical surveillance program is put into place, the workers have a right to choose the physician they want to go to. If an arrangement can be made between a plant and a clinic to locate a clinic on the premises, then that facilitates and accommodates the workers. In this case, the workers and the company cannot agree on the choice of physician and the choice of a clinic. Under those circumstances, the workers regrettably will have to find their physician in another location and the company is obliged --

Mr. Speaker: Order. New question. The member for Oshawa.

RENTAL ACCOMMODATION

Mr. Breaugh: I have a question for the Minister of Housing. The October survey done by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp. of apartment rental accommodation in Ontario is now out. It is clear that the situation is worsening. What is the minister doing to prevent last year’s fiasco where the ministry failed to deliver on low rental accommodation across Ontario? What steps is she taking this year to see that she does not fail in her job of providing some relief to a very serious accommodation crisis across Ontario?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: The vacancy rates were released and the results were that the vacancy rate in Toronto is the same as it was, which is obviously very bad. The vacancy rate is down in large urban centres and up in smaller urban centres. That is the reason we have our program for increasing the supply of housing in the province. That is the reason we have made major commitments to increasing supply.

I should also tell the member our records indicate that since January 1986 some 18,000 or 19,000 rental units have been produced in the province, which is, for the first time in a long time, some significant production of rental units; and about 8,000 of those have been produced without any form of government assistance. So there is rental housing now being produced in the market in a greater number than has been true in the past.

Mr. Breaugh: It is very interesting. The minister might give us a clue some day as to when we will actually begin to notice this. Certainly the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp. in its survey did not.

Can the minister explain why there were over 26,000 applications before her ministry last year to provide some kind of reasonable housing on a rental basis for people in Ontario and it was able to approve and deliver on only some 6,700 units?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: We actually delivered on more than that number of units. As the member knows, the problem of producing housing in Ontario -- and in Metro Toronto the problem is most severe -- has to do not with our ability to approve the units but with the fact that the market has been heated up for production at the higher end of the market.

The difficulties have had to do with providing land and giving access to land as well as government support to the people who produce lower-end housing. But the biggest problem has been land and also the cost and the time involved in some of the municipal approvals. This is an area we are very concerned about and very informed about. We have been talking with the people who have these difficulties in the nonprofit sector regularly, and we are working very hard to try to come up with solutions to help them.

Mr. Breaugh: If talk could produce a house, we sure would be in luck here.

Finally, let me ask the minister about her comments about land. We know she has been conducting surveys of government-owned property here in Metropolitan Toronto, for example. Will she table the survey of property that is already owned by governments in Metro Toronto, and will she give us a reasonable commitment today that this land will not be turned over to the private sector to build more luxury condominiums? Will she ensure that this property is used for a variety of uses, including recreational but by and large in the housing sector, that it is used for nonprofit housing so we can accommodate these 26,000 applications to build reasonable housing for people in Ontario?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: I would like to refer that question to the Minister of Government Services while telling the member that we have been in active consultation about it. May I do that?

Mr. Speaker: You can refer it, but then you cannot add any of your own comments. Do you wish to refer it?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: Yes. I would like to refer it to the Minister of Government Services.

Hon. Mr. Patten: There is a review of all the lands in Metropolitan Toronto. Those are being reviewed in the light of the most probable use.

The member is aware, of course, that there is a “housing first” policy, which means that throughout any development of those lands the very first question being asked is: “What is the appropriateness of housing? If not necessarily as a primary feature, what may be developed in conjunction with some other form of development?”

As soon as that report is finalized, it will be available to all members.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Brandt: I have a question of the Solicitor General. On May 22, the Premier (Mr. Peterson) was quoted in the Globe and Mail as having said, “We owe it to the people, particularly for the next pressure point, which will be the Christmas season, to tell them exactly what the law is and to make it enforceable.”

That is what the Premier had decided to do on May 22. I would guess it was the responsibility of the cabinet over that period of months to come up with a program. A week ago, while the Solicitor General was responding to questions in the scrum outside the House, it is my understanding that when she was asked about the municipal option relative to Sunday shopping she said, and I believe I quote her correctly, “We would not use the municipal option because that would be the chicken way out.”

What was the chicken way out a week ago has now become the policy of the government of Ontario. I wonder if she can share with this House what sort of conversion has actually taken place over the course of the last matter of days.

Hon. Mrs. Smith: The member for Sarnia will be aware that we received a report from the select committee asking us to try to create a definition of tourism as it applies to the retail sales that would indeed apply across the whole province. We have worked very hard on this, which has taken up the time that delayed us in coming down with some sort of statement. In fact, hard as we might have worked at it, we were not able to come up with such a definition that would apply right across the province. We still see, however, the value of having a definition that could be applied locally by the local municipalities, and so we do not want to take that option away from them.

Mr. Brandt: I know that giving the municipalities this new option and this new responsibility will be welcomed by them in exactly the same fashion as when the government could not make a decision on the issue of beer and wine. They welcomed that decision by shoving it right back at the government and telling it they wanted nothing to do with it.

The reality is that all the minister has done is that, taken the responsibilities that she acknowledged she had some months ago, she has completely ignored the need for province-wide legislation in this regard. I have to tell her she has come up with the absolute most chicken way out possible, to use her own words.

Would the minister clarify, if she would, my question, Mr. Speaker, which I know you are anxious to have me proceed with?

Mr. Speaker: I would like to hear it.

Mr. Brandt: Knowing how well the minister and the cabinet have thought out the option of passing this on to the municipalities, I wonder if the minister can share with us, recognizing that she has thought this through very carefully, whether it is also going to be a local municipal option to keep open beer and liquor stores on those particular days. Will that also be their decision?

Mr. Speaker: The question has been asked.

Hon. Mrs. Smith: Generally speaking, as I have examined legislation from other provinces, the laws that apply to liquor are specially treated and probably will continue to be so as time goes on. We have, as I have pointed out, left an opportunity here for municipalities to speak to us, not about what the long-term effect of us opening up the municipal option in itself would be but about what sort of option they would like there. We will be getting input from them about the exact nature of our law, which will be permissive to them to do this.

I would point out, when the member mentions beer and wine options, and I would point out also to the member for Parry Sound (Mr. Eves), that the province did give the communities many years ago the opportunity to have a local option in liquor stores, to be dry or not dry. As a matter of interest, I believe some 15 areas have still opted to stay dry. So one can assume that in this very wet province there were 15 municipalities or areas that appreciated the opportunity to make their own decision.

Mr. Brandt: By way of final supplementary, we are, as the minister can well imagine, somewhat confused about how this law that she is proposing came about. We are also somewhat confused about what is going to happen with respect to beer and wine openings on those particular days. But let me proceed a little further.

Is it the responsibility of the province, in the minister’s view, to provide any form of protection whatever for workers who, for either religious or family reasons, do not wish to work on days that municipalities determine are going to be open for business? Is the province going to take any responsibility whatever in this regard, or does the minister simply take a Pontius Pilate attitude and wash her hands of the entire matter?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: The province has already said that it will be addressing the matter of the labour laws in the time to come and that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Sorbara) will be coming forward with a bill before we come forward with the retail bill that we are proposing.

I would point out, as a matter of interest and just by way of example, that the Employment Standards Act will limit the number of hours that can be worked in any case.

Having spoken to others, including my daughter-in-law, who worked in a retail store in Vancouver, they had very little trouble working it out in the store she worked in. They took either Saturday or Sunday and worked it out so they had one or the other off. Probably there would be many people who would like to work on Sunday and have Saturday off. We may well find that some people do.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Mr. Brandt: I have a question for the Attorney General. On November 5, 1987, the Attorney General indicated with regard to the conflict-of-interest bill that the bill will be treated as if it were already in force with respect to cabinet ministers. I would like to ask the Attorney General if all cabinet ministers have, as of this point in time, complied with the requirements of his proposed legislation.

Hon. Mr. Scott: I am advised that all cabinet ministers and parliamentary assistants have complied by delivering their disclosure statements to the interim commissioner, the Honourable John B. Aird, in the time fixed by the draft legislation.

Mr. Brandt: It is my understanding that Mr. Aird indicated that the disclosure statements would be available by the end of November. In checking with the Clerk of the House at the end of November, we were not able to get the assurances we felt we should have with respect to compliance on the part of all cabinet ministers. We did not check into parliamentary assistants, but we did check in connection with cabinet ministers.

Is the Attorney General giving us the assurance today that all the cabinet ministers have complied? We on this side of the House in opposition have no other way of finding out, now that he has changed the rules to suit himself.

Hon. Mr. Scott: The honourable member is getting revved up for this. I think he is going to be the last leadership candidate who enters these stakes that are going to take place.

The reality is that we introduced a bill, which will be debated today, that establishes, if the Legislature adopts it, some rules as a matter of statute and not as a matter of guideline. That is a first in Ontario, and I believe it is a progressive step.

The cabinet ministers are required under that bill to file their disclosure statements with the interim commissioner within a time limit. That time limit has in each case been met. The interim commissioner is obliged to file disclosure statements with the Clerk of the House “as soon as reasonably practicable.” That is the language, I believe, of the draft statute. He indicated that he would be doing so by the end of November. The other day the Premier (Mr. Peterson) indicated that he had heard from him, and the interim commissioner had indicated that an additional two weeks would be required.

Mr. Brandt: Let me say to the Attorney General that it has been written in some quarters that the last shall be first. I just want him to know that.

Let me say as well to the Attorney General that the flexibility --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I know the member for Sarnia has a final supplementary he would like to put through the chair.

Mr. Brandt: I certainly do, Mr. Speaker. I thank you for this opportunity, because it is obviously feeding time over there. We are getting a lot of responses back.

My final supplementary is with respect to the timetable the Attorney General put forward, namely, the 61 days for full compliance, which is in his bill and which he indicated would be taken as law.

To suit his own purposes -- the Attorney General should check his bill; I see he is reading very rapidly to catch up to the points I am trying to make with him -- is this going to be a bill where he can build in the type of flexibility that will accommodate every cabinet minister under every circumstance, no matter what the conditions are? It appears to us that the Attorney General is operating this bill in such a way as to create the most convenience for each and every member of cabinet. What are his intentions with respect to compliance with the law that he is proposing?

Hon. Mr. Scott: I noted the honourable member’s observation that the last shall be first, and I was tempted to take that as a public declaration that he in fact was seeking the leadership. The looks on the faces of the member for Cochrane (Mr. Pope), the member for Burlington (Mr. Jackson) and the member for Carleton (Mr. Sterling) confirmed beyond any doubt that this was the case, and I know that all members of the House, except his colleagues, will wish him well in that important struggle.

The honourable member was absolutely right. I was searching for the bill because I think, if a question is going to be asked about the bill, we might even turn to see what it says.

Mr. Cousens: Have you sent a copy to John Aird?

Hon. Mr. Scott: Well, apparently l have sent copies to the member for Markham; it does not apparently make any difference.

If we look at

section 11, we will see that the bill provides that “Every member shall, within 60 days of being elected” --

Mr. Harris: It doesn’t affect us. It affects you and John Aird.

Mr. Cousens: Has John read it?

Hon. Mr. Scott: I know the honourable members opposite have not, and so we are reading that only for cabinet ministers and parliamentary assistants at the moment, but it says that one shall, “within 60 days of being elected, and thereafter annually, file with the commissioner a disclosure statement.” That has in every respect been done.

Section 12 provides that the commissioner, after an interview with the members, shall file his statement in the House, and that will be done when the commissioner determines he is satisfied.

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

Mr. Mackenzie: I have another question for the Minister of Labour. The Minister of Labour is no doubt aware that dozens of injured workers demonstrated this morning when officials of the Workers’ Compensation Board presented the new policy on supplements payable to workers on a WCB pension who co-operate with or are available for a rehabilitation program.

The minister said yesterday that it is quite clear in some cases benefits will be cut off and less supplements will be paid out. He also said it gave him a great deal of concern that there would be cutbacks in the supplement.

Will the minister today demonstrate his concern with action, and will he ensure that these cutbacks do not take place?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I recall in the first question from the opposition party today, the member for Riverdale (Mr. Reville), I think it was, used the words “Machiavellian” and “Mephistophelean” to describe actions which clearly were not the case on the part of the government. Now my friend the member for Hamilton East is suggesting to me that I simply ignore the authority of the Workers’ Compensation Board to interpret the law and apply the law.

The fact is that the policy of the board on subsection 45(5) simply provides that during a period of vocational rehabilitation, or during a period of on-the-job training, and thereafter during the period of adjustment to workplace, for workers who have suffered a permanent partial disability, a wage supplement can be paid. That is what the

section says. I invite my friend to read the section, and then he will know that what the board is proposing is simply to apply that section.

He knows and I know that there has developed a habit at the board to pay out supplements well beyond this period of vocational rehabilitation, in some cases some three or four years after the fact, after the vocational rehabilitation has taken place, and the board has simply said, as I understand the policy, it is no longer prepared to do that.

Mr. Mackenzie: The minister’s smug little lectures do not do him any justice in this House if he suggests there is not a link between the cutback in supplements and a threat to vocational rehabilitation. Injured workers can get these supplements only if they are co-operating in or available for a rehabilitation program. If you cut back on the number of workers getting a supplement and the duration of a supplement, you are going to cut back on rehabilitation.

Instead of assertions that the rehab will not be affected, can the minister promise some action? Can the minister tell us when he is going to implement the recommendations of the report of the task force on vocational rehabilitation?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: Talking about smugness and lectures, I simply remind my friend that it was two weeks ago in this House that he became rather smug and rather offensive to the entire House. I would have expected that when he asked the question, there might have been a comment retracting that comment. Perhaps I expected too much.

The fact is that the board is spending more, not less, on vocational rehabilitation. It is not enough yet; he and I agree on that. The board is currently examining the Minna-Majesky report on vocational rehabilitation, as is the Ministry of Labour. We are proceeding on that.

I cannot tell the member when it is going to be implemented, but I want to make sure that everyone in this House knows that an

interpretation of the policy under subsection 45(5) is not to be interpreted as less money being spent on vocational rehabilitation. The

interpretation simply says that if a worker is no longer on vocational rehabilitation, is no longer going through a period of on-the-job training and is no longer going through a period of work adjustment and he has finished all of that, then there is no authority in the act to continue the supplements. Therefore, the board has said, “We have no authority to pay that and we ought not, under the law, to continue to do that.”

RENT REGISTRY

Mr. Cousens: I have a question for the Minister of Housing. Could the Minister of Housing tell this House if the rent registry is currently active?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: The rent registry now has about 150,000 units on it and it is available for people on computer.

Mr. Cousens: In other words, saying the rent registry is active means that when someone called the rent registry this morning and asked for some assistance, the answer that was given on the toll-free number of her ministry is that it would be two months before the registry would be fully activated. I ask the minister, how can decisions be made about the 23,000 claims before the board if the rent registry is not even activated?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: In my earlier answer I told the member that 150,000 names are currently on the computer. Let me add that 10,000 letters will be sent out next week every single day, starting at the end of next week, to inform the people who are entitled to information on the rent registry so that more names and more of that information will be out. When all of the information is out, then everyone will be able to get an answer.

INTERVAL HOUSES

Mr. Breaugh: I have a question for the Minister of Housing. Many members have had the opportunity in the last few days to meet with the Ontario Association of Interval and Transition Houses. I would like to know why the minister continues to fail to meet a need that was identified as far back as 1982.

Our standing committee on social development made the ministry aware that there was a severe problem with people who were living in hostels and substandard accommodation who were going through this kind of horrible transition period in their lives when the housing need was severe -- was chronic, in fact. Why are we still at the point where this group is continuing to identify a real housing need that we have known about for some period of time? Why have we not been able to respond to these people?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: The member opposite shares with me a serious concern for those women who have been battered and who have to stay in interval houses for periods of time. Indeed, there is a difficulty in finding second-stage housing for those people because of the cost of accommodation in the province.

We have recognized that difficulty, and one of the reasons for a project that we started last year, called Project 3000, which is meant to address the needs of people with particular difficulties with housing, is to address also those women who are battered and who need second-stage housing.

Mr. Breaugh: I am saddened somewhat by that kind of reply because I am aware that the minister knows how serious the problem is. With that kind of knowledge, with that kind of advance warning and with that kind of programming in place, why is it that last year, when it had over 12,000 submissions to provide adequate housing for people in this kind of need, her ministry was able to approve and deliver only just slightly over 3,000 units?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: The need is very great; I agree with the member opposite that it is. One of the difficulties is the large number of women who are living in situations where they are being battered. The number continues to grow, and the people who go to transition houses then need that second stage of housing.

Our commitment to continuing to supply housing for those people remains both through the project I mentioned to the member and through support of community living initiatives, as well as through housing that will be made available by all the work we are doing. I do not think all the women who are currently in battering situations will necessarily need support in order to live in the housing that should be made available to them. I do not believe in creating housing --

Mr. R. F. Johnston: They can’t even leave the battering situation. Sixty per cent of them go back to their homes.

Hon. Ms. Hošek: We all know there are serious problems for women who are battered, and the reasons they return are many. It is our commitment to increase the supply of housing available to all people in need and also to people who are in need of supportive housing. One thing that has been changed is the eligibility requirements for people entering Ontario Housing Corp. housing, which has now put those women who are battered at the top of the list. So they are the first to get access to those houses.

SKILLS TRAINING

Mr. Jackson: My question is to the Premier. The Transitions program was one of the very first campaign statements that he made this summer in Hamilton on August 4. Specifically, he promised that older, unemployed workers who might participate in his program -- and I quote from the Globe and Mail of August 5 -- “would still be able to claim unemployment insurance and any other benefits.”

On the same day, he told the Toronto Star that “the federal government is co-operating on the new plan by continuing workers’ unemployment insurance benefits while they undergo retraining.”

No doubt the Premier is prepared today to stand in this House and state that when he made that statement on August 4, the federal government was in agreement with him and he could guarantee unemployment insurance benefits to older, laid-off workers who took training. Who told him that such a deal had been made, and is he prepared to stand by that statement today?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I will refer that to the Minister of Skills Development.

Hon. Mr. Curling: As the member knows, in the Transitions program the client gets $5,000 as a voucher with which to seek training. We had discussions and consultations with Canada Manpower, and we were assured that this would not affect the unemployment insurance benefits.

Mr. Jackson: I believe my question was directed to the Premier with respect to statements he specifically made.

According to the federal Department of Employment and Immigration, on August 4 there was no such agreement. According to his own Ministry of Skills Development, on August 4 of this year and as late as last Thursday, there was no agreement. According to the document that the Premier tabled at the recent premiers’ conference, there is still no agreement, by his own statement.

The Ministry of Skills Development reports the Transitions participants are being cut off from unemployment insurance benefits, a direct contradiction of the statement made by his Premier on August 4. The Minister of Skills Development now knows why I stated outside of this House yesterday --

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Jackson: -- that his Premier has misled the older workers of this province. Can he tell this House --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Would the member withdraw the word “misled”?

Mr. Jackson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I have a ruling on this very point from you on December 12, 1985 --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Jackson: I would ask the Speaker to examine his own ruling.

Mr. Speaker: I will be glad to examine it at a later time. Will the member withdraw? Order.

Mr. Harris: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: there is nothing out of order. I do not believe the member has said anything in this House that is out of order.

Mr. Speaker: Order. With respect, would the member withdraw the word he used, “misled”? Will you withdraw?

Mr. Jackson: Can I still ask my question?

Mr. Speaker: If you withdraw.

Mr. Jackson: I will withdraw, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

Mr. Jackson: Yes. My question is to the minister. Given the fact that we have a statement made that asserts one thing and we now we have the same Premier making an opposite, contradictory statement, will the minister not now agree that at least the Premier’s comments are at variance with the facts and that our older, unemployed workers in Ontario are at severe risk and have absolutely no confidence in the assertions he has made on this Transitions program?

Hon. Mr. Curling: I have problems dealing with the honourable member’s so-called facts. Just yesterday, the member stated in the House that when he called about the Transitions program in many areas the people he called said it was not there. The member also called the labour plant closure branch to receive material and he said it had cost $6. I checked and found the costs only $1.65.

The member also stated that nobody knew about the Transitions program. When we called the University of Toronto, we were told the people there were informed two months before. Then the member stated in the House that they did not know of the program. Now he states that there is an inconsistency in what the Premier has stated. We had the assurance from the immigration authorities that they would not in any way interfere with the $5,000 training vouchers that were given to the client. That assurance is what we stood by.

WOMEN’S HEALTH SERVICES

Mr. Callahan: My question is for the Minister of Health in regard to her statement. During the election, my colleague the member for Brampton North (Mr. McClelland) and I visited a very excellent facility being provided through a local community organization that provided counselling to young people coming for abortions. It told them where they could go in terms of housing, in terms of accommodation, in terms of money that might be provided for them and so on. I am pleased to see that in her statement the minister is putting emphasis on the question of counselling methods other than abortion.

I notice on page 5 of her statement she indicated that she would continue to welcome further proposals from hospitals and community-based agencies or organizations for the provision of comprehensive women’s health services in their communities. Can I take it from this that an organization such as I have indicated would be eligible to receive some form of assistance, be it monetary or perhaps monetary and facility assistance?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I thank the member for the question. I would say to the members opposite that it is a very good question.

We have requested proposals for comprehensive women’s health initiatives from hospitals, community-based groups and organizations across this province, and I would encourage not only the member for Brampton South (Mr. Callahan) but also any member in this House who knows an organization that would like to submit a proposal to encourage it to do so.

Further, I would offer the services of the women’s health bureau in the ministry to work with any community group or organization that would like to submit a proposal to facilitate and assist them in their efforts.

HELP CENTRE

Mr. Morin-Strom: I have a question for the Minister of Northern Development in regard to the unemployed workers’ help centre in Sault Ste. Marie.

The minister is aware that the centre closed its doors in November and has been able to reopen them only as a result of a reprieve that has been given to it by the Minister of Skills Development (Mr. Curling). However, ongoing funding is by no means assured because of a matching formula requirement.

The minister has been asked whether his ministry will get involved in the funding of this centre, and I ask the minister whether his staff have had the opportunity to meet with the help centre people and whether his ministry will assure that funding will be available beyond the month of December.

L’hon. M. Fontaine: Je tiens à remercier le député de Sault Ste Marie pour la question qu’il vient de me poser.

First of all, I was approached last week by the Minister of Skills Development about this problem at the centre. I instructed my ministry to look into this with the Minister of Skills Development to try to find a solution to this problem. I cannot say today that I will fund this, but I am looking into it and will come back to the member on this question in a few weeks.

Mr. Morin-Strom: I want to remind the minister that the centre will be closing as of the end of December if it does not receive assurances of ongoing funding. Can the minister assure us that the final decisions will be made before the House adjourns and that a statement to that effect will be forthcoming from the minister before we leave here two weeks or so from now?

L’hon. M. Fontaine: Je tiens encore à réitérer ma réponse, à savoir que nous sommes en train d’étudier ce problème-là, et je voudrais assurer le député de Sault Ste Marie qu’avant la fin du mois de décembre, nous aurons une réponse à lui donner.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr. Harris: I have a question for the Treasurer. When he released his second-quarter economic figures recently, the headlines the next day indicated, “Welfare Spending Soars as Jobless Flood Ontario.” It appeared that the influx of out-of-province jobless was the reason that our welfare rolls were swelling. This argument seemed to be the government cover for any lack of fiscal control or other legislative or administrative changes.

In view of the fact that the combined family benefits allowance and general welfare assistance totals were 279,691 in January 1987 and 272,103 in September 1987 -- in other words, it has dropped by 7,500 during the period that the Treasurer says it was this unexpected influx that caused the spending to go rampant -- l wonder if the Treasurer could explain that.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I think the honourable member will be aware that the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney) joined in the explanation by indicating that there was a variety of programs, some new and some strengthened old programs, which indicated that the utilization of public funds in providing facilities for the homeless and a wide variety of programs, not only in the metropolitan area but elsewhere, had contributed to the overexpenditure.

Mr. Harris: It may have contributed, but the overwhelming reason given was this flooding of the jobless into Ontario. The facts are that as of September there are 7,500 fewer on the rolls than there were in January. It is becoming apparent that the Treasurer has not seen to it that there are any controls whatever on government spending. It is becoming apparent that new programs are being developed and implemented with no value for money consideration either in the dreaming up of the programs or in the implementation of the programs.

It is becoming apparent that in good times, as the money rolls in, the name of the game is to spend it as fast as he can. This is all becoming readily apparent to us here in the Legislature.

An hon. member: It is out of control.

Mr. Harris: It is totally out of control.

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Harris: In view of the fact the Treasurer once again has no idea what is going on with the taxpayers’ money, I am not sure it is appropriate to waste the House’s time with a supplementary.

[Later]

Hon. R. F. Nixon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: To correct the record in the truncated exchange between the member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris) and myself, there might have unfortunately been left the impression that his numbers were correct.

I regret to inform you, sir, that I may have left the impression that the honourable member was correct, and I wanted to assure you that --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I would like to remind all members that we do have a tradition in this House where a member may make a point of personal explanation and correct the record of something that individual has said personally.

LANDFILL SITE

Mr. Owen: My question is to the Minister of the Environment. I am quite sure he is aware of the problems associated with the Innisfil landfill site. I understand that leachate has been identified migrating off the property, causing concern among nearby residents. There is some concern also that the leachate may be heading in a direction that may affect Lake Simcoe. I would like to ask the minister what is being done to control the leachate and what impact it is having on nearby families and their properties.

Mr. Jackson: Under 20 minutes or less.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: It will be a relatively distinct and precise answer to the member.

Mr. Jackson: That would be refreshing.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: First of all, I appreciate the member letting me know that he was going to ask this question today. That does not very often happen in this House, but since it is specific to his constituency, he was kind enough to let me know before I walked in so that I could gather some information.

Mrs. Grier: Would it shorten the answers if we gave notice?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: If the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore wishes to do the same, I will be happy --

Mr. Speaker: I am sure you have the answer prepared.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: As the member may be aware, the Innisfil site sits on sand beneath which there is approximately 60 feet of thick clay base. The hydrogeologists, who are always looking for particular sites that would be useful, would say that it is virtually impossible for leachate to migrate to contaminate ground water supplies in those circumstances.

The basic integrity of the landfill is found to be secure. However, the problem is with the leachate. The leachate is running along the top of the clay beneath the sand towards the direction of the Davis property, which is next door, and emerges there on the surface. The break-out of the leachate has been of great concern to our ministry and we have ordered the company, the Innisfil Landfill Corp., to install a $200,000-leachate collection system. That system was installed and is now operational as of September 1987.

Our ministry has conducted studies --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Owen: Neighbours have reported to me illegal dumping at the Innisfil landfill, which they indicate they have witnessed. They report that they feel some of the wastes are being dumped in Innisfil from north Simcoe when these wastes should be going to the Keele Valley landfill near Toronto. The residents have told ministry officials that the number of vehicles hauling garbage to the site is twice the projection for garbage haulage to that Innisfil site. Will the minister investigate to determine that Innisfil is receiving wastes from only those areas allowed under its current certificate of approval?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I would say first to the member that the Ministry of the Environment has conducted studies and has found that there is no evidence of leachate running into the creeks or contaminating Lake Simcoe.

In regard to his supplementary question, I want to indicate to him that the investigations and enforcement branch when notified of potential violations conducts an investigation. The Ministry of the Environment has indicated to the owner of the site that there is a certificate of approval which cannot be violated without a prosecution taking place. I expect the investigation will be concluded in a relatively brief period of time in this circumstance. If there is evidence that there is a violation of the certificate of approval, of course we will proceed with the prosecution and a court case.

LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr. Farnan: My question is to the Minister of Labour. I would like to inform the minister that I have a concern about the Salvation Army employees at the Eventide Home in Cambridge, who are being forced to subsidize the care of the elderly by virtue of the fact that they must take substandard wages. I am bringing to the attention of the minister two items. First, an arbitration agreement signed by a representative of the Salvation Army agrees that the employees should receive an increase of $2 an hour and that there is some $80,000 to $100,000 owing to those employees in back pay. Following that --

Mr. Speaker: I would like a question, please.

Mr. Farnan: This is necessary to understand the question, Mr. Speaker. Following that, there was a letter from the Salvation Army to the employees. After granting the employees the wage increase for one week, each employee received a letter saying that it was rolled back and that they would not get the back pay. My question to the minister is, what is he prepared to do to protect the employees of the Salvation Army so that they do not have to subsidize through low wages the care of the elderly in this province?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: What a terrible time of year to raise a question such as that about the efficacy of what the Salvation Army is doing in Cambridge.

I must apologize to my friend the member for Cambridge to the extent that I am not aware of the dispute going on at that home. If my friend would be kind enough to forward to me a copy of the documentation, I could review it and then get back to it and let him know whether or not there are steps that should or could be taken within the Ministry of Labour.

Mr. Farnan: I agree that for the workers at this institution it is indeed a terrible time of the year to be underpaid and to be facing extra costs at Christmas. The Salvation Army public relations director, Major Edward Pearce, explained that the facility is funded by the Ministry of Community and Social Services, rather than the Ministry of Health, which results in a substantial reduction in the grant money received. “We come in at the bottom end of the scale,” he said.

Will the minister agree that when workers are underpaid in the manner of this nature, morale suffers and the care of the elderly suffers? Will the minister make a pledge to this House that he will work in cabinet, together with the Minister of Community and Social Services to ensure that employees --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I consider it my primary responsibility within cabinet to make as forceful arguments as I can in the interests of workers, not only workers working at nursing homes under the jurisdiction of the Salvation Army, but all over the province.

If there is a particular labour dispute, however, between the workers at this nursing home and their employer, be it the Salvation Army or anyone else, my friend the member for Cambridge and I both know that the appropriate action is to take the case either before a board of arbitration or, under some circumstances, to the Ontario Labour Relations Board. It would be inappropriate, from the facts that he has given me, to intervene in this particular case.

I cannot tell him more about the funding arrangements. Obviously, it is the jurisdiction of my friend the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney). I take him at his word that his interests and my interests are the same when it comes to promoting the interests of workers.

OSHAWA AUTO AUCTION LTD.

Mr. Wiseman: I have a question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. On November 18, you will recall, Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister Consumer and Commercial Relations, I asked the Minister of Financial Institutions (Mr. R. F. Nixon) a question regarding the car auction at Oshawa. It hinged around the sales of October 21 and October 28 of this year.

I would like to ask the minister if he is as concerned as I am that Lloyds Bank apparently withheld the funds that it was understood were in trust, which totalled over $2 million on those particular sales, and the cheques that were issued on October 21 and should have been payable right away were withheld. They were bounced -- not sufficient funds -- on October 29.

I would like to ask the minister --

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

Hon. Mr. Wrye: The member in his question to my colleague also asked if we would get together with the Used Car Dealers Association as quickly as possible. I can report to him and to the House that I had an opportunity to meet with the association last Wednesday morning, and to review this situation with them thoroughly. I certainly share the concern that has been raised by my friend the member for Lanark-Renfrew as to the situation where there is some $2.3 million of loss, spread among a large number of dealerships, but in some cases, as a result of the loss, there have already been layoffs and very real hardship.

I am sure my friend will understand that Lloyds Bank falls into the jurisdiction of the federal Minister of Finance. As a result of the meeting, my colleague the Minister of Financial Institutions and I sent a telex last Thursday or Friday to Mr. Wilson asking for his immediate intervention in the situation.

I want to say while I am on my feet that while we have no jurisdiction directly, I would express a real concern on the part of this government as to the actions of Lloyds Bank in this situation. While it was not a formal trust, it was clearly expected that that $2.3 million was in a trust fund, and I think it was quite inappropriate that that money was seized.

Mr. Wiseman: I realize that it comes under federal jurisdiction, but our Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations and our Minister of Financial Institutions meet from time to time with the banks, and I think they can put a certain amount of pressure on the banks to release this money.

Will the minister give a commitment today and perhaps talk to his colleague the Minister of Financial Institutions, to write to that bank and outline what he has said to the House here this afternoon?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: A number of options were examined. Certainly I hope the senior officials at Lloyds Bank will acknowledge and be made aware of the views of this government on the basis of the answer I am giving to the honourable member today. We felt it was most useful in terms of getting immediate action to ask the federal Minister of Finance, who does have jurisdiction, to get involved.

While I am on my feet, I should say there is one other thing that will be of interest to the honourable member and which we shared with the Used Car Dealers Association. It is that until now, because these are dealer-to-dealer auctions, the trust situation has not been licensed and registered. As we are reviewing the legislation, that is one area we intend to tighten up.

Because they were dealer-to-dealer auctions, it had not been viewed in the past that there was direct consumer involvement. While there is not direct consumer involvement from the fallout of this situation, I can say that the indirect consumer involvement has been quite significant indeed.

AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRY

Mr. Wildman: I have a question of the Minister of Agriculture and Food. In view of the resolution passed last week by the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, despite the objections of the pork producers in particular, does he support the unanimous resolution of the County Federation of Agriculture “that Ontario agriculture has nothing to gain and everything to lose from the free trade deal”? If he does, can he explain why his colleagues voted down the resolution put forward last week against free trade and calling on the government to do everything possible to stop the deal?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: It depends on which sector of the agriculture and food industry you are talking to whether they support this agreement. As the member indicated, the red meat producers tend to support this agreement,

whereas the grape growers and the fruit and vegetable growers have very serious reservations about it.

I would tell the honourable member that ever since there were even rumblings about this free trade agreement, my ministry became very active. It met with all sectors of the agriculture and food industry. It released a report on the impact that free trade would have on the agriculture and food industry.

We have continued to have meetings with the industry, and we will also be releasing another report indicating what this deal means to all sectors of the agriculture and food industry. The Premier (Mr. Peterson) will be in receipt of this report, as will the cabinet ministers.

I will be attending an agriculture ministers’ conference tomorrow, and I will definitely be participating in the discussion on free trade and letting the federal Minister of Agriculture know exactly what each and every sector of the industry has to say about free trade and how it will impact on their industry.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I want to inform the members that the time for oral questions has expired.

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, perhaps you could help me. Is it your understanding the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Riddell) did not answer the question as to what his position is on free trade?

Mr. Speaker: I did state that time for oral questions had expired. Point of order?

MEMBER’S COMMENTS

Mr. Jackson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Today you ruled out of order comments that I made outside of this chamber. I would ask if you would examine your ruling of December 12, 1985, in Hansard on this very point on behalf of the member for Cochrane North (Mr. Fontaine).

Mr. Speaker: I remember it very well and I certainly will.

PETITIONS

CHILDREN’S LAW REFORM

Mr. Ruprecht: I would like to present a petition signed by persons, some of whom are in the gallery today, in regard to the rights of grandparents and heritage of children.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Some members may wish to leave the chamber; some members may wish to have a private conversation with other members. However, the member for Parkdale would like to present a petition and be heard.

Mr. Ruprecht: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to present --

Mr. Speaker: Order. I would just like to remind all our visitors we are most happy to have them here. However, they must not participate or demonstrate in any way.

Mr. Ruprecht: I would like to present a petition signed by over 1,400 persons from Ontario, some of whom are in the audience today, in regard to the rights of grandparents and heritage of children.

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

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

“That the Ministry of the Attorney General hereby amend

section 21 of the Children’s Law Reform Act so the word ‘grandparent’ be included to apply for access of their grandchild. This existing law must be improved so it is recognized that a child has the right to his or her heritage.”

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD

Mr. Owen: I have been asked to file a petition from 95 residents of my riding, mainly injured workers, who are requesting a royal commission on the Workers’ Compensation Board.

Mr. Speaker: To the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario, I presume.

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

COMMUNITY MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES ACT

Mr. Reville moved first reading of Bill 50,

An Act to provide for Community Mental Health Services.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Reville: The bill in question allows the minister to establish and maintain systems of community mental health services which follow certain comprehensive principles and which may include certain comprehensive components.

ANSWER TO QUESTION IN ORDERS AND NOTICES

Hon. Mr. Conway: Before calling the first order of the day, I would like to table the answer to question 2 in Orders and Notices [see Hansard for Monday, December 7].

ORDERS OF THE DAY

MEMBERS’ CONFLICT OF INTEREST ACT /

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

Hon. Mr. Scott moved second reading of Bill 1,

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

L’hon. M. Scott propose la deuxième lecture du projet de loi 1, Loi assurant une plus grande certitude quant au rapprochement des intérêts personnels des membres de l’Assemblée et du Conseil des ministres avec les devoirs de leurs fonctions.

Hon. Mr. Scott: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say a word or two to you and to my colleagues about this bill, which has, as you know, because it was inadvertently introduced as Bill 1, a high degree of priority for this government. The reason for that, of course, is that one of the basic obligations of all of us is to ensure that elected members of the Legislature are entitled to the confidence of their electors and the community of Ontario, whose work they do. This bill has been designed as best it could be designed, in my respectful view, to ensure that this will occur.

I want to begin by emphasizing that, as every honourable member knows, there is no subject that attracts more public interest, and perhaps with reason, than the potentiality that a member of the Legislature or a member of the executive council has exhibited a conflict of interest. All members will know there is no certifiably acceptable way to resolve the problems this potential presents.

There are a number of legislative responses in other provinces which are different than this, and honourable members will want to canvass very carefully the alternatives that have been adopted elsewhere. It is for that purpose that we expect and are content, if there is no objection -- indeed, even if there is an objection -- that the bill should be submitted to a committee so that the views of members can be taken in that environment about the strategies we have devised in order to deal with this extremely difficult problem.

The problem really presents four features that I would just like to touch on before I go on to describe the nature of the bill itself.

The first feature and the first difficulty in this exercise has always been to define what is a conflict of interest. Until an effort is made to do that, we do not know the evil to which the legislation is to respond. Defining a conflict of interest has never been a simple matter. It is one of those things like an obscenity: you may not be able to define it but you sure as hell know what it is when you see it. That metaphor was not from my prepared remarks. I just threw it in to give the honourable members opposite some sense of what we are trying to discuss here.

The point I want to make is that the first starting point must be the question of a definition, and the definition is never an easy question. I suspect when certain reports now reserved by judges and submitted to the federal government are made public, members will see that there is a wide variety of ways of defining a conflict of interest.

We have selected a definition to which I will come, and I will be grateful to have the views of all honourable members on whether that definition is too broad, too narrow or what modifications might be proposed with respect to it.

The second exercise here, once a conflict of interest has been defined, is to attempt to develop a scheme that will permit honourable members to avoid occasions which give rise to that conflict. So the second issue is avoidance: What rules can we establish, “conflict” having been defined, that will reduce the number of potential conflict situations and permit, or if not require, members to avoid what we in my church would call those occasions of sin?

The third exercise in dealing with conflict-of-interest legislation, it seems to me, is to develop a scheme which will permit full disclosure to the public. I want to emphasize that, because that has not been a characteristic of most conflict-of-interest legislation in this country, and a number of strategies have been developed at various levels of government precisely to preclude full disclosure to the public. The blind trust and operations of that type, which do not require the disclosure of the assets subject to the trust, is only the most common example.

So the third challenge for us was to devise a bill that would require, with some modifications but generally speaking, full disclosure to the public certified by a commissioner. The purpose of that, of course, is not to satisfy the curiosity of the public, let alone the curiosity of the opposition or our own party, but rather to allow the opposition, the governing members and the public to judge whether the conduct of a member of the executive council or a member of the Legislature was likely to be in conflict in respect of a particular issue because of the economic assets he held.

It seems to me, if I may say so, that one of the most important features of this legislation should be our commitment to disclosure. As I say, federal legislation does not require this in the same way. Provincial legislation in Ontario has never required this in the same way, but this bill is founded on disclosure which, at the end of the day, will allow the public and our colleagues to judge most effectively whether we have as legislators or members of the executive council found ourselves in positions of conflict which we have been unable to resolve.

The last feature that was very much in our minds as the bill was drafted for presentation to the House arises by virtue of the experience many of us here have shared over the past two years. In the past two years, in this House, there were allegations of conflict of interest made against at least two honourable members. I have nothing to say about that except to observe that the only method of resolving that conflict, either affirming that it existed or, perhaps more important in some cases, judging that it did not, was a committee representative of the House.

Now I have nothing to say about the work of the committee over the past session, particularly as the chairman of the committee is present today, but I simply observe that if that kind of allegation were made today under the old rules about a member of the executive council, the committee that heard the charge would be a committee which, according to our way, represented the House and therefore would be dominated by government members. And though it may not be true to say that anybody over the past two years lacked confidence in the minority nature of the committee that dealt with the previous charges -- though, in respect of some of the members -- well, we will just leave that.

Mr. Breaugh: That’s a boy.

Hon. Mr. Scott: Was I right to leave that? All right.

One would not care to say that a committee established in a minority government would not be able to do justice between a member and the House when an allegation of conflict arose, but I do believe there would be a real perception that a committee dominated by a government majority might not be able to do that justice, whether that was true or false.

In other words, in this House the traditional way of judging whether a conflict exists is a House committee and that committee, with the greatest respect for the work it tries to do under very difficult circumstances, will not always be perceived as fair, quick or, most important, independent as between the member and the House.

The other traditional method in Canada of determining whether a conflict of interest has been made out -- and I say in parenthesis that we will always need a mechanism to determine whether a conflict has been made out, no matter how the bill is expressed -- has been a royal commission.

In the past two years we have had an example, for the delectation of members, of that exercise. It is fair to say that it may be that such an exercise is independent in so far as it may be presided over by an independent judge with tenure for life, but it cannot be said that it is quick and it cannot be said, because of the media treatment that such an exercise always receives, that the result will necessarily be fair in the public mind to the principal actors.

The fourth major challenge for anybody attempting to draft a conflict-of-interest act is to develop an independent mechanism which will be able to respond to the question: Was there a conflict of interest when the member voted on this bill, when the executive council member approved that program? So much the better if that independent commissioner can give advice to members beforehand, because surely the exercise here is not simply to catch out those who do wrong. The exercise must also be to assist those who want determinative guidance as to what it is right to do.

It was those four major challenges that we had in mind when we drafted the bill. I recognize from statements that have been made here and outside this place that the response of all members to that challenge will not be the same as the response the government has selected. It is for that purpose that l frankly look forward to taking this bill to committee and reviewing it with all honourable members.

The first challenge has been met essentially by our effort to define “conflict,” which we do in

section 2 and, in an extended definition, in sections 3 and

Section 2 reads: “For the purposes of this act, a member has a conflict of interest when the member makes a decision or participates in making a decision in the execution of his or her office and at the same time knows that in the making of the decision there is the opportunity to further his or her private interest.”

A conflict exists not when a wrong is done but when a member is put in a position where his duty to the public in making a decision conflicts with his private interest. Having found himself in such a position of conflict, the minister or the member has the obligation to exit the situation by declaring a conflict in the traditional way, with which municipal councillors will be familiar, and refusing to participate in the decision.

The point I want to make to honourable members is, I think, understood; namely, that all of us will at one time face conflicts of interest because all of us have private interests. Many of us, if not all of us, will be invited to make decisions, whether it is voting on a bill or approving a program in committee or in executive council, that may advance or handicap our private interests.

I live in a house in ward 6 in Toronto. I conceive it might be said that if this government introduced market value assessment, which I am led to believe will increase my tax rate but not the tax rate of other municipal taxpayers by $400, it may be said that my private interest as the owner of my house was in conflict for a moment with my duty to decide what was best for all ratepayers in the city or all ratepayers in the province. I would have a conflict. There would be nothing unusual about it.

Members will have these conflicts regularly as they survey the private interests they have and their public duties. Respectfully, the trick is to face up to that reality, to acknowledge that the conflict exists and to withdraw from the decision-making capacity or the vote that would represent that they have succumbed and submitted to the conflict. The commissioner is here to assist all honourable members to do precisely that.

When you understand conflict of interest in that way, you will see why it was our decision, subject to what this assembly may say, to apply the conflict rules not only to executive council but to all members, because it follows that all members will be just as susceptible to potential conflict as members of the executive council. They will have the same private interests, or private interests of character and dimension. Indeed, because they will be entitled under our bill to carry on businesses, it may be that they will have more private interests.

They will be faced with the same public duty from time to time. Perhaps it will not be an obligation imposed on them in precisely the same way, but to vote on a bill, to participate in committee in moving or voting on an amendment, particularly in times of minority government when some of the oddest amendments proposed by the opposition got passed, will put an individual member in a position of conflict of interest. This bill is designed to recognize that reality by applying the principle to all of us who come here anxious to discharge our public duty.

The definition of “conflict of interest,” which is found in

section 2, is, in effect, expanded by precise prohibitions in sections 3 and 4. The first,

section 3, is utilized to deal with what marginally in the notice is called “insider information.” It says, “A member shall not use information that is gained in the execution of his or her office and is not available to the general public to further or seek to further the member’s private interest.” In other words, beyond making a decision -- and

section 3 will be a matter of interest if you look at the case of a prominent federal cabinet minister much in the news -- where no decision was made, but where information available only to the member of the executive council was used to advance a private interest, that is an expansion of the definition.

Section 4 is an expansion based on influence: “A member shall not use his or her office to seek to influence a decision made by another person to further the member’s private interest.”

So I believe we have not necessarily a perfect definition of that juxtaposition of private interest and decision-making or duty which gives rise to a conflict, but a workable definition.

I ask honourable members to assist in committee by applying their minds to this critical question of definition, because I think we all share, as one, the sense that conflict should be defined in an appropriately broad way so the public interest is advanced but, at the same time, with sufficient clarity so that members and the commissioner may be able to judge when the conflict actually exists.

The second important feature, responding to the second problem to which I initially referred, is that the bill requires full financial disclosure of the members’ interests, the interests of spouses and the interests of minor children. This permits a public record to be made of virtually -- l think I am correct in saying this -- virtually all assets of those three categories: the member, the spouse and the minor children.

Now, I ask members to consider the desirability of full disclosure for the reasons that I have given, but honourable members will also want to consider whether the net is broad enough, and that presents for all of us a major difficulty. Should it be that adult children should be obliged to disclose? Should it be that spouses of adult children should be obliged to disclose all their financial circumstances? If you go that far, why not the minor children of adult children and their spouses, and why not the spouses of those minor children? So what you see --

Mr. Wildman: Spouses of minor children? Wouldn’t that be unusual?

Hon. Mr. Scott: Certainly. It happens. It happens especially in the north. The honourable member will know that.

The question is, in other words, that the bill is based on the proposition that disclosure by near relatives should be required, just as is disclosure by the member himself or herself. Everybody understands that one’s family network will be close and tight or broad and loose depending on one’s personal relationship to those members. But a line had to be drawn somewhere, and I understand that the case for drawing the line in any particular place is very difficult. There will be those who say that, in this day and age, spouses of members who may be engaged in a perfectly lawful business earning their way should not be required to disclose their affairs for all the public to see.

A strong case has been made to me in the drafting process that if, in the late 1980s, we believe in the entitlement of spouses -- usually, in this context, women -- to make their careers and advance their interests, we should not impose on them -- whether they be doctors, lawyers or clerical workers -- the obligation of disclosing to the public everything they own and everything they have, simply because they had the misfortune to marry or enter into a relationship with a member of the assembly. But we have made that difficult choice against that interest and have recognized the practical reality that spouses should be compelled, in so far as they can be compelled, to full disclosure.

We have done the same thing for minor children. We have not done so for adult children, and a case can be made that we should do so. I suppose the case could equally be made that we should do so for parents. There is the necessity of drawing a line at some point, and I will be very interested in committee, or indeed in the speeches that follow, in hearing where that line should be drawn. There is no difficulty as a matter of principle, it seems to me, in drawing it here or there.

There is simply the issue of what is appropriate in all the circumstances of the case in Ontario today so that disclosure can be obtained in the interests of the public but yet so that people will be allowed to carry on private business, as they would be allowed to do if they were not members in this place.

Those rules of disclosure apply to members. There are special rules that apply to members of the executive council, and those rules essentially are found in

section 7, which provides:

“

(1) A member of the executive council shall not,

“(

a) engage in employment or in the practice of a profession;

“(

b) carry on a business, including the management of personal financial interests; or

“(

c) hold an office or directorship other than in a social club, religious organization or political party.”

What is the purpose of that rule? The purpose of that rule is not merely to require that the member of the executive council shall devote his full time and attention to government business. It will have that salutary side-effect, but its purpose is precisely to reduce the occasions which may give rise to conflict.

Now, it does not -- and nothing could -- reduce them to a vanishing point, and again the issue about whether the reduction of the potentiality for conflict in the members of the executive council is not an issue of principle; it is simply an issue of whether the line has been drawn at the right place.

Even those, you see, who say that members of the executive council should be required to divest do not mean what they say, because they never require you to divest yourselves of everything. They require you to divest yourselves of certain things, leaving the potentiality for conflict with respect to the other things where divestment is not required.

As the honourable members can see, for example, if a garbage dump is being voted on in the executive council -- and that happens from time to time -- and it is going to be placed immediately on the ravine lot next to my property, it goes without question that I would have a conflict of interest if I proposed to vote on that project. Divestment would not solve that problem.

It is true that divestment would reduce significantly the number of conflicts that might arise, just as

section 7 intends to do. Again, in deciding where the dividing line is, it seems to me that in committee, members will want to take account of the interests on both sides. Divestment, prohibitions against honourable members from carrying on businesses -- because we must not restrict this to the executive council -- the purpose of this is not to require your full attention to the job; the purpose of this is to avoid conflicts. I presume if that is its purpose, an argument could be made that it should be extended to all honourable members, or that divestment should be extended to all honourable members.

If members say, “That is silly. Honourable members do not make real decisions,” l ask them to look at the history of the last two years, when from time to time I used to begin to wonder who the government of the province was. So did the honourable members opposite, as they are plain to point out. It may be that the present disaffection of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. B. Rae), which is so apparent on his face as he comes gloomy into this hall daily at 1:30 p.m., is simply a function of his observation that his governing days are over.

But all that having been said, it must still be recognized that honourable members, in committee and in the House, can change laws and do change laws, and are therefore just as susceptible to positions of conflict, though perhaps not as many in number, as those who are in executive office. So if a theorist, a purist were to say, “Nobody here should carry on any business,” again we have --

Mr. Wildman: That has been happening here since November 3.

Hon. Mr. Scott: That is certainly true in the case of the honourable members opposite, who are getting quite used to and quite comfortable with it, as a matter of fact. We know the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) is going to be up every day. He is allowed one question, only about housing, never about his own party. We understand that. The member for Leeds-Grenville (Mr. Runciman) has not been allowed to say a word about French-language services from the day the House began, and we know that is because the fix is in.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I heard him one time.

Hon. Mr. Scott: The member heard him one day? It must have been in the antechamber.

However, it is an exercise in line drawing. We have decided that it is not an appropriate response, particularly in the light of the kind of emoluments that are available to honourable members, regrettably, to require honourable members to give up the right to carry on a business or to manage a business or to take outside employment.

I think it is important to understand that when honourable members opposite do that, they will be in positions of conflict from time to time. When one honourable member in the last session became an employee, as he was perfectly entitled to do then and is entitled to do under this bill, of a prominent drug house, when there was a drug bill before the House, he would face a conflict of interest as defined in this act or as defined by any typical authority. His obligation would be to --

Mr. Breaugh: He just couldn’t get his Maserati headed in this direction often enough, that’s all.

Hon. Mr. Scott: Yes, but he is learning.

Under this act or any other, his obligation would be to declare that conflict and to absent himself from that part of the decision-making process.

In other words, our bill draws that line in favour of the right of individual members to carry on businesses and to take other employment. This is not a full-care-and-attention provision. It is a provision designed to reduce occasions for conflict, and we think that the present proposal is sufficient to reduce to a manageable level the likely occasions of conflict that ordinary members will confront.

With members of the executive council, on the other hand, we have taken a different view: that they should be prohibited from doing any of those things, because it simply escalates the occasion of conflict.

There will be those like the professor emeritus of political science at the University of Toronto, who writes to the Globe and Mail and the Toronto Star, but the Star three days before he writes to the Globe, and who is the --

[Failure of sound system]

Mr. D. S. Cooke: That’s the same way you guys handle your press releases.

Hon. Mr. Scott: No, and who will be -- honourable members will want to hear this -- and who will be, if this legislation is passed, to his embarrassment, obliged to file a disclosure statement under this law, which we will all pore over on this side of the House. That professor says that divestment is the solution for cabinet ministers. He does not propose, interestingly enough, divestment for his old colleagues in the major opposition party. He proposes divestment only for executive council members.

We have drawn the line against divestment and we have done that, to be perfectly frank, because we believe that it will not induce people in Ontario to run for public office if they understand that the measure of their success in that run will be marked by increasing divestment of their assets. That is a judgement we have made, and I look forward to hearing the views of other members of the Legislature on that very difficult question.

I should say one other point about executive council members. Under most conflict-of-interest schemes that are incorporated by statute and under many which are found only in guideline form, a member of the Legislature or a member of the executive council who is required to stop carrying on business is entitled to transfer his business to some kind of trust, usually a blind trust. The purpose of this blind trust is that the management of the business will be remote from the honourable member and that he will not know the assets that that business acquires.

We believe, and I believe the history of federal conflicts in the last two years illustrates beyond doubt, that people do not believe blind trusts work. Therefore, we have consciously elected to abandon that mechanism as a solution for the operation of a business that was owned by a member.

What we have said in its place is this: The member may assign his business to a manager. The manager will be approved so that his arm’s-length relationship is documented by the commissioner. It will not be any old manager; it will be any old manager approved by the commissioner.

The second thing is that the manager will be under a contract in statutory form which prohibits him from taking instruction from the beneficiary of the trust but which requires him to disclose assets acquired to the beneficiary.

People may ask: “Why do you take the blinkers off the trust? Why do you force the member to know what he owns?” That forces him to know what he owns so that he will always be obliged to judge whether his private interest, what he owns, is in conflict with his public duty, what he votes on, what he decides, and so that he will never be able to say in good conscience: “I didn’t know I owned that. I didn’t know we had those shares. She never told me.” He will always know, and our evidence that he always will know will be the trustee’s statutory obligation to tell him.

Then if the honourable member fails to protect himself by asking for an opinion from the commissioner or by declaring a conflict and failing to vote, absenting himself from a vote, he may have an explanation, but it will never again be the explanation: “I didn’t know I owned those assets. I didn’t know I had acquired that property or that value.”

I believe that, increasingly, students of conflict of interest are recognizing that the blind trust, so well intentioned in its origin, has failed and that the only replacement solution is either divestment, which we have rejected, or arm’s-length management with full disclosure, which we have accepted.

The third element of the bill is the appointment of the commissioner and a process which will permit all honourable members to obtain the advice of the commissioner. In my respectful view, this is critically important, because while honourable members are going to be deemed to know what they own, and while we assume they have the wit, and will have the wit, to know when they are about to take a decision, it is not always an easy question to determine whether there is in an objective sense a real conflict.

One of the problems is that all of us are obliged to take that decision with whatever advice we can get to hand, often in only moments, on very short notice. It is inevitable that the best-intentioned and most honourable people, in making that judgement, will either abandon their duty to vote wholesale out of fear or will from time to time make the wrong decision.

In my view, that is unfair to honourable members, indeed intolerable to the process of which honourable members play a part, and there should be an avenue so that honourable members who seek it can ask somebody else to make a judgement on the objective facts of their case by applying the

definitions under sections 2, 3 and 4 and have reasonable security that if the facts presented to the commissioner were accurate and full and complete, they will then escape the criticism that they have acted improperly.

The fourth major characteristic of the bill is the creation of a mechanism, not simply for the provision of advice from the commissioner but rather a mechanism which ensures that an allegation made by one member against another that a member has acted in a prohibited way, or in a situation where there was a conflict of interest, can be adjudged decisively, fairly and economically, so we will never again have to face in this chamber the unfortunate spectacle, which nobody sought to bring on us but which was imposed on us, of asking committees of the assembly, usually perhaps dominated by government members, or committees of the assembly in a fractious minority situation, to set themselves up as judges on such an important, critical matter relating so closely to the integrity of a member

As all honourable members will understand, if an allegation of conflict of interest is made against a fellow member, there can be no allegation that strikes more directly at his reputation for integrity, for honesty and fair dealing in the community. There can be no allegation that strikes more directly at the way in which he has discharged his obligation as a member of the assembly. When that allegation is made out, it is an indictment that may survive for a long period of time and that may be impossible to escape.

I believe all honourable members believe that we should have a mechanism that is independent, that is fair, that is quick either to point the finger at those who have failed the standard or to exonerate, even more important, those who have not but against whom the unfortunate and damaging allegation has been made. I believe that this mechanism is as close as we have yet come to devising an appropriate response.

I want to say two other things about it. I think it is critically important that the mechanism we use, whatever it is, be a mechanism that is nominated by and within the control of the assembly. I also think it is critically important that it is not a court or a judge, not because I have any sense of inadequacy about the capacity of a judge to, from case to case, decide these matters, but because I believe this is a function that the assembly, through its agents, should provide and that we should not