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

June 24, 1986

33rd Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L038 - Tue 24 Jun 1986 / Mar 24 jun 1986

VISITORS

PREMATURE DISCLOSURE OF COMMITTEE REPORT

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

CHILDREN'S AID SOCIETY

LA FÊTE DE LA SAINT-JEAN-BAPTISTE

FORMER POLICE CHIEF

ALCOHOL TREATMENT CENTRE

ACCESS TO ABORTION COMMITTEES

LA FÊTE DE LA SAINT-JEAN-BAPTISTE

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

LEGAL AID

WATER QUALITY

RACE RELATIONS

LA FÊTE DE LA SAINT-JEAN-BAPTISTE

COMMITTEE CLERK

ORAL QUESTIONS

EXTRA BILLING

ABORTION CLINIC

EXTRA BILLING

RENT REVIEW

ALLEGED CONFLICT OF INTEREST

RENT REVIEW

ALLEGED CONFLICT OF INTEREST

CHILDREN'S AID SOCIETY

ACID RAIN

ACCESS TO ABORTION COMMITTEES

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

TECHNOLOGY FUND

DISMISSAL OF EMPLOYEE

ACCESS TO ABORTION COMMITTEES

PETITIONS

NATUROPATHY

MOTION

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ELECTION FINANCES ACT

TOWNSHIP OF MARA ACT

LEGAL AID AMENDMENT ACT

ROYAL ASSENT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS IN ORDERS AND NOTICES

INTERIM SUPPLY

REPORT, STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE OMBUDSMAN (CONTINUED)

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

VISITORS

Mr. Speaker: I ask all members to join me in recognizing in the Speaker's gallery today David Henshaw, member of the Legislative Council and member for the riding of Geelong, state of Victoria, Australia. Please join me in welcoming Mr. Henshaw.

PREMATURE DISCLOSURE OF COMMITTEE REPORT

Mr. Andrewes: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: I rise to draw your attention, regretfully, once again, to a matter that appears to breach the privileges of every member of the Legislature. This morning the Toronto Star ran an

article which alleged to represent the contents of a draft report of the select committee on energy. The

article refers to a source as an authority for its quotes.

I refer you to the standing committee on procedural affairs, Report on Standing Orders and Procedures, No. 3, 1984, in which that committee refers to this matter. In considering this matter, I would like you to refer to two points contained in the report.

First, "If a committee meets in camera to write its report, the report should first be presented to the House before it is released to the public." Second, "It is unethical for members to disclose matters relating to the contents of the committee's report, which was considered and adopted while the committee met in camera, before the report has been presented to the House. Such disclosure may be found to be a breach of the privileges of the House and may constitute a contempt of parliament."

As chairman of the committee, I ask you to investigate this apparent breach of the privileges and to report back to the House.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, I support the point that has been raised by my colleague the member for Lincoln (Mr. Andrewes). I believe the release of draft reports from committees has in the past been found by you, sir, to be a breach of privilege. I ask you to find that this latest incident once again is a breach of our privileges and to refer this matter to the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly.

Mr. McGuigan: As a member of the committee, I support the previous speakers. It puts all committee members under a dark cloud and I think that suspicion should be lifted.

Mr. Shymko: I join the comments of my colleagues, adding that the leaked report on the stockyards should be part of that issue as well.

Mr. Speaker: I have listened carefully to the point raised by the member for Lincoln and the comments made by other members. I recall very distinctly a similar matter being raised, I believe in November 1985. At that time, I stated that such premature release has always been held to be a breach of the privileges of the members, constituting a contempt of the House.

As members know, it is up to the Speaker to decide whether it may or may not be a breach of privilege. Then it is up to the House to decide what it wants to do with it. Under the circumstances, and listening to the members, I feel it may be a breach of privilege.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, would you like to buy some sodium pentothal before you send it to committee?

Mr. Speaker: It is up to any member of this House if he or she wishes to make a motion to send it to the committee.

Mr. Breaugh moved that the matter be referred to the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: I ask the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) to put that in writing to the table.

2:06 p.m.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

CHILDREN'S AID SOCIETY

Mr. Cousens: I rise with the concern of the children of Toronto because of the strike and withdrawal of services by the Children's Aid Society of Metropolitan Toronto, a consideration that has to be of significant interest to all members of this House, all residents of Metropolitan Toronto and the people of Ontario.

We are dealing with the largest agency serving children in North America, and we see a withdrawal of services that leaves the supervision and care of many of the needs of these people and these clients to a small number of management personnel who are now reaching the point where they are not able to do the job -- they never could -- of serving this client base.

We are talking about an issue in which our province has always had great interest, but it is failing to show that interest in a tangible and meaningful way as we move into negotiations tomorrow. I hope the mediator will be able to bring something to the table. However, he cannot do much unless our own Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney) begins to show some concern and compassion for the children and for the workers who are so involved. It is time for this government to do something to respond to the need.

Interjection.

Mr. Cousens: I ask the member to withdraw his statement.

Mr. Speaker: I did not hear any statement. Would the member advise the chair of what was said?

Mr. Cousens: The member for Scarborough-Ellesmere (Mr. Warner) called me a hypocrite. I ask him to withdraw that, leave the House or be removed.

Mr. Speaker: Will the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere withdraw the word "hypocrite"?

Mr. Warner: I used the term "a shameless hypocrite." Which part does the member want withdrawn?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I will ask once again.

Mr. Warner: I withdraw the word "hypocrite."

Mr. Speaker: Very good. Thank you.

LA FÊTE DE LA SAINT-JEAN-BAPTISTE

FORMER POLICE CHIEF

Mr. Epp: Most members of this House will be familiar with the history of events surrounding Sydney Brown, the former chief of police for the Waterloo Regional Police.

Members will also know that Mr. Brown's eight-year dispute over his dismissal from his job as police chief came to an abrupt end last week. While it would be inappropriate to comment on the particulars of actions involving Mr. Brown and the courts, I do wish to indicate my pleasure that the matter has now been set to rest to the satisfaction of all parties.

The uncertainties that have accompanied this issue since 1978 have been a source of instability to police and to municipal operations in the Waterloo region. I am pleased that the burden of those uncertainties has now been removed from the shoulders of the excellent operations of the Waterloo police force and the board of commissioners of police.

Mr. Brown has had a varied and colourful career which included an attempt to find a seat in this assembly on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party in Scarborough West in 1975. I am sure we all wish him well in his future endeavours.

Waterloo region joins all the other regional municipalities in Ontario in having only one police chief.

ALCOHOL TREATMENT CENTRE

Mr. Villeneuve: Last Thursday I asked the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston) whether he would provide emergency funding to Mount Carmel House Treatment Centre which was unable to meet its June 12 payroll. On February 25, the minister wrote to me to say that permanent funding for Mount Carmel was being examined. Clearly, the minister has done nothing since then to rescue this facility.

The result of the Minister of Health's inaction will force eastern Ontario residents to seek treatment in the United States. Mount Carmel House has been able to provide a 42-day program at $84 per day and at only $20 per day for those on government assistance. By comparison, a US facility in New Hampshire provides only a 28-day program at a cost of US$210 per day, or almost $294 Canadian funds.

We are now in a situation where the taxpayers, through the Ontario health insurance plan, will have to pay a US facility because the minister has delayed aid to a treatment facility in Ontario. The minister knows that Mount Carmel House is the only substance abuse treatment centre in eastern Ontario and on the District Health Council of Eastern Ontario's funding list. The minister also knows that eastern Ontario residents have nowhere else to turn, that Mount Carmel House has a 75 per cent success rate and provides a two-year after care program, unlike its US counterpart.

The centre needs funding. I again urgently appeal to the minister to keep Mount Carmel House Treatment Centre open.

ACCESS TO ABORTION COMMITTEES

Ms. Gigantes: I rise with a strong sense of outrage to protest the behaviour of the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) during question period yesterday.

In response to a question posed by the leader of our party, the Attorney General purported to quote Jim Renwick, our former colleague and one of the most respected members of the Legislature. He said that Mr. Renwick, the then member for Riverdale, had said in this House: "We believe that access to abortions must be achieved within the context of law. We therefore cannot condone the establishment of illegal clinics."

The next line in Mr. Renwick's statement of June 8, 1983, reads, "We also believe that the law should be changed to protect privacy and public health and to ensure equal access." He also called on the provincial government to establish and license women's health clinics to provide abortion and other health services. The Attorney General knows a selective reading of a judgement before a court would lead to disciplinary action against the offending counsel. His selective reading of what he called the judgement of Mr. Renwick was an affront to this House. He must recognize the ethics of the profession he now presumes to practise and apologize to this House, or resign as Attorney General.

LA FÊTE DE LA SAINT-JEAN-BAPTISTE

A

titre de député de Chatham-Kent, j'ai l'honneur de saluer l'apport majeur des Ontarois et Ontaroises à l'histoire du Canada en général et de l'Ontario en particulier.

Je suis certain que tous mes collègues, tant francophones qu'anglophones --

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

2:17 p.m.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

LEGAL AID

Hon. Mr. Scott: Today I will be introducing legislation which will mark a new beginning in equal access to justice in Ontario.

People who cannot afford the services of a lawyer, whether in civil or family law matters or when facing a criminal charge, must rely on the Ontario legal aid plan to protect the rights which our laws give to all, regardless of economic situation. If the plan does not provide full and effective access to legal services, a substantial segment of our population is denied its fundamental rights.

For years, the Ontario plan has been chronically underfunded. The report of a fact-finder appointed by the previous administration demonstrated that in 1985 fees paid to lawyers in the plan were less than one half, in constant dollars, of the level established when the plan started in 1967. Not surprisingly, many lawyers deserted the plan, and freedom of choice of counsel was being seriously eroded. Some persons, particularly those in shelters for battered women, were finding it extraordinarily difficult to obtain needed legal services.

I have made the resolution of this matter a high priority. Last December, I announced an interim 20 per cent increase to the tariff, and today I am pleased to introduce legislation which will have the effect of increasing the tariff by a further 35 per cent.

The increase granted last December, together with the further increase I am proposing today, completes the first two steps of the report of the fact-finder. The fact-finder also recommended increases of 15 per cent for 1987 and 1988. I believe those recommendations are right, and I will do my best, within the limits of fiscal responsibility, to achieve the implementation of those increases as well.

The legislation I am introducing today is significant for another reason. It implements our part of an agreement with the Law Society of Upper Canada, pursuant to which the legal profession as a whole will begin to contribute to the cost of legal aid. Under the legislation as it now stands, lawyers who actually provide legal aid services are required to reduce their legal fees by 25 per cent as a professional contribution to legal aid. No financial contribution is made by the substantial majority of the profession who provide no legal aid services.

After discussion with the law society, it has now been established and agreed that the profession as a whole has an obligation to contribute to the cost of legal aid.

Under the arrangement we have negotiated with the society, the profession as a whole will undertake the responsibility of paying 50 per cent of the administrative costs of the plan. This obligation will be phased in over the next two years. This will mean a contribution by each lawyer of roughly $175, together with an agreed-upon reduction of up to five per cent from accounts, which will by 1988 constitute an annual contribution of roughly $7 million by all lawyers in the province.

The law society, supported by the Ontario division of the Canadian Bar Association, has demonstrated significant leadership in negotiating this agreement. The society has accepted once and for all the proposition that the provision of legal aid is the responsibility of the profession as a whole. In so doing, it has demonstrated that it is in the public interest that it continue to administer the plan, and I contemplate no changes in that arrangement.

With the increase I am proposing today, and the commitment I have made to endeavour to implement the remainder of the fact-finder's report, I believe that we have placed legal aid on a new footing in Ontario. We have done this not for the benefit of the lawyers, but rather for the benefit of the public, and indeed for the benefit of all who enjoy the order and relative societal harmony which result when justice is made meaningful for all.

Mr. O'Connor: Regarding the statement of the Attorney General, I find it regrettable that the government has been unable to resolve its dispute with another significant and important profession in this province, the doctors, in as amicable a way as it has with the lawyers. Why does it not try the same type of negotiation with the doctors as it has tried with the lawyers? It might just work.

The Attorney General, in the first paragraph of his statement, talks about "equal access to justice in Ontario." He talks in the last paragraph about doing this "not for the benefit of the lawyers, but rather for the benefit of the public, and indeed for the benefit of all."

A very significant way in which the Attorney General could benefit the public in its access to its legal system would be by supporting this party's bill on paralegal agents this Thursday morning.

He talks of those who are unable to afford the services of a lawyer. There is a very easy way to resolve that difficulty. He has indicated to me that he will be bringing in a bill similar to our bill in due course. Why not short-circuit the system? Why not support the bill on Thursday morning? Let him send it to committee for the amendments he thinks are necessary and thus assist in his desire, as set out in this statement, to benefit the public.

Ms. Gigantes: Concerning the statement by the Attorney General on the legal aid tariff, the Conservatives are trying to be provocative again. It seems to me they are suggesting that the doctors contribute to the Ontario health insurance plan. That would please their friends, I am sure.

The Attorney General's announcement is welcome in spite of the fact it is not good enough. It has not met the recommendations of the fact-finder. It certainly makes sense, as he proposes, not to tax those who provide legal aid, but he is still requiring a five per cent contribution from them. Instead of requiring contributions from all lawyers, he should use the progressive tax system to fund our legal aid plan.

WATER QUALITY

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Today I am pleased to table Ontario's white paper entitled Municipal-Industrial Strategy for Abatement, or MISA.

MISA is a program designed to turn the tide against the contamination of our province's waterways. Loadings will be systematically reduced, with the ultimate goal being the virtual elimination of persistent toxic substances from discharges into our waterways.

This paper, and the program to reduce pollution of our waterways which it describes, is our government's long-term response to last summer's Dow Chemical spill and the subsequent finding of dioxin in nearby waters. That experience underlined to me both the value of prevention and the need to stop pollution at the source.

As my ministry brought its resources to bear on the problems along the St. Clair-Detroit rivers system, it soon became clear that we did not know precisely what our industries were putting into the river, nor were we adequately controlling it.

MISA is a province-wide program of abatement of discharges into our lakes and rivers based on rigorous monitoring and standard setting. The first industrial sectors to participate are petroleum refining and organic chemical manufacturing. However, all the major polluters in the Chemical Valley will be covered early on.

Water pollution control to date in Ontario has regulated only a limited number of conventional contaminants, yet scores of persistent toxic substances -- some thought able to cause cancer or birth defects -- are of prime concern today. These toxic contaminants of concern include organic chemicals such as dioxins, polychlorinated biphenyls and chlorinated benzenes. These chemicals are not adequately addressed by the present water pollution control program.

Furthermore, the current program's major criterion governing industrial waste water discharges is the concentration of the pollutant. In other words, if one dilutes, one can pollute. That system was up to date several decades ago but is inadequate now, and I am replacing it with the MISA system.

There are five important features to MISA:

First, pollution reductions will be required from virtually every major toxic polluter of Ontario waterways, including eight industry sectors that comprise some 200 of Ontario's 300 direct dischargers. These sectors are: electric power generation, industrial minerals, inorganic minerals, iron and steel, metal mining and refining, organic chemicals, petroleum refining and pulp and paper.

Second, in addition to reducing pollution from direct dischargers, MISA will also cut contamination from the 11,700 other industries. These companies discharge waste water into Ontario's 400 municipal sewer systems which, in turn, pass this into our waterways. This will be accomplished by setting strict pollution control standards for municipal sewage plant effluent.

Third, a cap on the absolute amount of contaminants each source may discharge will be established for the first time in Ontario.

Fourth, each direct discharger must meet standards attainable by the best available abatement technology.

Fifth, each industrial and municipal sector will be periodically re-examined to see whether further reductions are appropriate. When re-examinations find better technology has been developed, or industry abatement standards have improved, or a receiving body of water is suffering, new and lower limits will be imposed.

With the speed of technological advancement, I expect most industries' effluent standards will be reduced each re-examination cycle. The length of this cycle has not yet been determined, and we will seek advice from interested parties and the general public.

We will implement the MISA program with two new sets of regulations, setting monitoring requirements and effluent limits. The monitoring regulations will require each industry to analyse its own effluent for a wide range of contaminants. This self-monitoring program will be policed by the ministry. Spot testing will ensure that industry sampling results are accurate and representative.

The comprehensive data from this monitoring will show the exact nature of the toxic pollution problem in Ontario waterways. Once a comprehensive database has been accumulated and analysed, we will be able to set limits for each substance of concern for each sector. All the members of the sector will be required to meet standards achievable by the best available technology. These standards will be set out in new regulations under the Ontario Water Resources Act and the Environmental Protection Act.

This white paper contains a definite timetable for the stage-by-stage implementation of MISA. Currently, we are in the consultation phase with the petroleum and organic chemical industries. We will be in discussions with the other industries on a priority basis.

The first monitoring regulations, for the petroleum and organic chemical industries, will be in effect in mid-1987. Information sharing and co-operative monitoring with these groups is already under way. By 1988, we will be phasing in the first new abatement regulations for industries. By 1989, we will introduce abatement regulations for municipal sewer discharges.

We will hold pre-regulation consultations with the affected industries and municipalities. I also want to involve the general public and interest groups in the MISA development process. I invite public review and comment on this white paper for the next 60 days. At the end of this period we will draft the first set of regulations, working with technical and advisory committees, including members from municipalities, industries, interest groups and Environment Canada.

This white paper is a consultative process. We are openly stating what we expect the MISA program to accomplish and we are asking for constructive advice. I believe that the people, industries and environmental groups of Ontario can all contribute to this process of protecting our drinking and recreational waters.

Ms. Fish: It is always a pleasure to have the formal appendix to the Toronto Star tabled in the House come the opening of ministerial statements. However, apart from that, as the single-most-noted action by the Minister of the Environment, it typifies and continues his profile of being all talk and no action.

This is all talk. It is a discussion document with vague deadlines that look to 1988 and 1989. What action has the minister taken on municipal-industrial abatement and enforcement? A year ago an 85-member enforcement branch was established in the ministry, which he slashed to 63. The supports and government grants that were given for municipal waste treatment were slashed. The suggestion is: "Let us get some money from the feds. Let us improve things in some industries."

The key is for this minister to stand up and be counted. He should bring in the regulations, the money promised to the municipalities and action against industries. More action; no more talk.

Mrs. Grier: For 10 years the members of this party have been calling for strong action to reduce pollution in Ontario's waterways. We did not get any from the previous government, and we welcome the statement that has been made by the Minister of the Environment today. We will, of course, have to look with great care at the details of the program.

We have some regrets, however. We regret that it is not going to be until mid-1987 that we see some of this action. We want to point out to the minister that at this time one third of the industries on the Great Lakes do not meet his existing, very weak standards. He has to take some action against them before 1987.

We regret that, when inflation is taken into account, the spending estimates of his ministry reflect a decrease in actual spending on the environment, a decrease that does not, in our opinion, reflect the priorities of the people of this province or, indeed, the good intentions of the minister. We point out to the minister that while today may be a good first step, a second step is very necessary, and that is legislation to increase the fines for those people who persist in ignoring the regulations.

In conclusion, we welcome what is a good beginning. There is a lot more to be done, and we plan to keep on top of it and to criticize every step of the way.

RACE RELATIONS

Hon. Mr. Curling: On May 28, 1986, the Premier (Mr. Peterson) announced the government of Ontario's policy statement on race relations. At that time, my colleague the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) outlined several initiatives that demonstrate the government's strong commitment to that policy.

As minister responsible for the Ontario Housing Corp., I wish today to inform the members of the Legislature of the plan of action I have initiated to improve race relations within our housing projects, initially within the Metropolitan Toronto area.

The Metro Toronto Housing Authority serves as landlord to 90,000 tenants, a population as great as the population of Sudbury. Our tenants represent a wide and diverse variety of backgrounds and present equally diverse social, recreational and cultural needs. It is incumbent upon the Ontario Housing Corp. and the Metro Toronto Housing Authority to meet those needs with flexibility and sensitivity.

Members of the minority groups, together with human rights organizations across Ontario, have expressed concerns about the racial climate in some of the Metro Toronto projects. Under the previous government, a cabinet committee on race relations studied the most effective ways of improving that climate. Building on the initial report of that committee, this government has completed a fully comprehensive race relations policy for Ontario Housing projects in Metropolitan Toronto, and today I wish to outline the details of that policy.

The first, and most important, initiative is the appointment of a director of race relations policies and programs whose primary mandate will be to promote an environment of harmony, co-operation and mutual understanding among the residents of the Metro Toronto Housing Authority. This position has already been advertised and should be filled in the next few weeks.

This individual will serve as a catalyst, drawing on the strengths and resources of both the professional resource people already serving the residents of MTHA and the residents themselves. The director will move immediately to develop a race relations policy statement that reflects the views of the tenants and local community organizations, and then to implement that policy statement in constructive and meaningful ways.

The director will also chair a committee of tenants, community representatives and housing authority staff, a committee whose main goal will be to find ways to minimize racial strife in our Metro Toronto housing projects.

In addition to the responsibilities I have described, the new director of race relations will: (

a) work with housing authority staff to find ways to improve communications and eliminate misunderstandings between tenants and maintenance staff; (

b) explore methods of recruiting multilingual and racial minority staff; (

c) develop and implement cross-cultural training for housing authority maintenance workers; (

d) review the housing authority's communications policy with a view to improving the image of public housing; and (

e) produce a handbook describing all housing authority projects available, to reduce any perception that residents are "streamed" to certain projects on the basis of race.

From the lengthy description of the responsibilities of the new director of race relations policies and programs that I have provided, members will see that the appointment of this individual represents a major commitment on the part of my ministry, and of the government as a whole, to take concrete steps to improve the overall climate within our Metro Toronto housing projects.

The appointment of the director is intended to send out a clear and unequivocal message that neither the Ontario government, the Ministry of Housing, the Ontario Housing Corp. nor the Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority will tolerate racism in any form in our housing projects.

The government is currently putting in place additional initiatives to support this policy.

Community relations workers employed by the Metro Toronto Housing Authority will be trained to improve race relations, to mediate racial conflicts and to help residents form tenant organizations for the purpose of improving communications among all residents. Further, we are taking significant steps to ensure that the 58 local housing authorities responsible for managing Ontario Housing Corp.'s 84,000 units across Ontario reflect the real makeup of Ontario's population.

The housing authority members are appointed by all three levels of government.

I have requested that the Honourable William McKnight, the federal minister responsible for Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp., and all of Ontario's municipal councils begin now to ensure that the membership of Ontario's housing authorities accurately represents the people of this province. I am encouraging all three levels of government to nominate individuals who are distinguished by suitable qualifications as well as by a variety of social and cultural backgrounds. In addition, I am requesting that OHC tenants themselves be represented on the housing authorities.

Another important challenge is to ensure that Ontario Housing Corp. tenants are fully familiar with the cultural, social, recreational and educational programs that this government's ministries provide. In order to take advantage of such outstanding programs as Futures, the moms-and-tots program and many others, residents must be aware of those programs. To ensure that all available programs and services are accessible to MTHA tenants, particularly those services that can contribute to a positive race relations climate, my staff will work with other provincial ministries.

Unemployment is a major problem for our tenants, particularly for the young people. As part of today's initiative we will be developing ways to target young residents for Ontario youth employment and job training programs, and the housing authority itself will increase its efforts to hire young residents through job creation programs.

We are all aware of the importance of positive relations between the police force and the residents of the Metro Toronto Housing Authority. Our strategy is to build on the excellent relations that already exist between these two groups to expand existing programs such as the Vertical Watch program, modelled on the Neighbourhood Watch program; recreation and sports programs shared by young residents and members of the security forces; the community-based sensitization program; and joint tenant-police security committees.

As Minister of Housing, I have initiated a major overall review of the Ontario Housing Corp. policies and practices. Later this year I will report in detail on the measures we will undertake to make OHC more sensitive to the needs of the people it serves.

This work is being spearheaded by David Greenspan, who is in the audience today, the recently appointed chairman of the Ontario Housing Corp., and his board of directors, with the able assistance of Len Pitura, my assistant deputy minister for social housing, and his staff.

I am determined that the climate of Ontario's social housing projects reflect this government's respect for all the people of Ontario and for the wealth of cultural diversity they contribute to the life of this province. Our duty is no less than to create an environment that allows every citizen to flourish and grow.

That is the goal of our policy on race relations for the Ontario Housing Corp. It is my sincere hope that this statement will mark the beginning of a new era of mutual respect and harmony for the people we serve.

Mr. Gordon: I address this to the Minister of Housing. It is "Toronto, Toronto." What happened to the rest of the province? Does the minister feel the rest of the province does not have visible minorities? Will this be as much a failure as his housing program? We have 40,000 people on waiting lists in the minister's nonprofit housing program in this province. He is not getting the houses built. Where are the foundations in Ontario today? This is all a sham.

The minister talks about the future of this province and doing something about race relations. He should do something in the other communities across Ontario.

I will read to the Minister of Housing a quote from one of the tenant groups in Metropolitan Toronto today. He will be very interested in this one.

The tenant rep says of this historic agreement that he and the Premier (Mr. Peterson) worked out: "As it turns out, the tenant reps on the rental advisory committee made agreements for the rest of the world, but the rest of the world does not think they got such a good deal. The tenants are now saying you may have agreed, but we do not agree."

Where is the minister's great, historic announcement going to go? What is going to happen to Bill 51? They are not satisfied with Bill 11 either. That is not history; that is a tragedy.

Mr. Reville: In response to the statement of the Minister of Housing, in which he outlines a race relations program in the Metro Toronto Housing Authority, let me first say bravo. Then let me undercut that slightly by saying it is about time.

On May 28 the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) responded to some unfortunate interjections by suggesting that I myself had been an advocate for some time of improved race relations within MTHA, and I admit that. New Democrats believe that a community requires people to have control over their lives and that where racial discrimination exists, it is a denigration of the person. We will not stand for that.

It is quite a cruel irony that, even as the Minister of Housing and the Ontario Housing Corp. wake up to the fact that race relations need to be improved in their projects and that the community must be built, we have seated in the member's gallery today some Metropolitan Toronto Children's Aid Society workers who are being asked to make the Hobson's choice of a fair wage and community work programs. The Minister of Housing may want to send his statement two places down to the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney) so that this terrible choice does not have to be made.

There are some things that are not covered in this statement. I think the minister will want to look at the tenant placement policy, because it has been thought for many years that there was racial decision-making in terms of where tenants go, in which projects and in which sections of which projects. I do not see that point addressed.

The very important point of police-community relations has been raised. There are also implications for the relationship between police-community relations and the internal security of Ontario Housing Corp. projects. A good deal of work still needs to be done in that area, because quite often it is thought that some of the crime in OHC projects is police-caused crime and is the OHC-security-officials-caused crime; and that must stop.

LA FÊTE DE LA SAINT-JEAN-BAPTISTE

J'aimerais saisir cette occasion pour transmettre les meilleurs v_ux du gouvernement de l'Ontario à tous les francophones et à tous nos amis du Québec.

J'en profite également pour exprimer de nouveau notre volonté de renforcer les relations qui lient nos deux plus grandes provinces et nos deux principaux groupes linguistiques.

Les Canadiens profitent considérablement de la coexistence fertile des peuples fondateurs et ils l'apprécient d'autant plus qu'ils s'appliquent à y travailler.

L'occasion nous est donnée, aujourd'hui, de penser à redoubler nos efforts afin de nous assurer un avenir où régneront l'unité et l'égalité.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, if it is the wish of other members to recognize St. Jean Baptiste Day, perhaps we could do that without including it in the time for opposition parties' responses.

Mr. Speaker: I recognize the suggestion by the government House leader. Is that agreed to by all members of the House?

Agreed to.

M. Guindon: Il me fait plaisir de me lever, au nom de mon parti et en mon nom personnel et aussi en celui des gens de Cornwall, pour ajouter mes voeux de la Saint-Jean à ceux du premier ministre (M. Peterson) et des autres membres de cette Chambre.

La langue de Molière a souffert pendant des années, partout au Canada, et je dois dire qu'on a toujours su la garder et se battre et être fier. Dans le passé, nos ancêtres ont travaillé très fort et se sont imposé de nombreux sacrifices afin de garder notre fierté, notre langue et notre culture. Aujourd'hui, la preuve de notre travail ardu est devant nous: c'est que nous avons deux projets de loi pour les francophones, devant cette Législature, qui amélioreront notre position.

Avant de terminer, j'ajouterai que le futur des Franco-Ontariens et des francophones appartient aux jeunes de notre province et c'est à eux, quand nous, plus âgés, serons obligés de l'abandonner, que reviendra la tâche d'épauler nos projets et de lutter continuellement. Car la seule façon de garder la langue et la culture, c'est en luttant, et les générations à venir devront porter le flambeau pour garder la tradition.

Comme diraient les gens de Cornwall: soyons tous franco-fiers, et bonne fête de la Saint-Jean.

Nous avons fait bien du progrès depuis 20 ans pour créer une unité canadienne qui est beaucoup plus large et plus profonde que l'unité qui existait avant, et c'est dans cet esprit d'unité et d'égalité que je veux exprimer, au nom de mon parti, le sens profond que nous lui accordons. C'est par le progrès que nous avons fait, et par la législation et l'enchâssement de droits dans la Constitution, que nous allons enfin faire reconnaître l'importance de l'identité biculturelle, multiculturelle, bilingue, multilingue et multiraciale de notre pays.

Mr. Speaker: I understood that the suggestion was for representatives of the other parties to make comments. What is the wish of the House?

Mr. Harris: Obviously, we are not going to object to one more round. We did not use all the time for statements yesterday. The reason for the one more round is that the government ran out of time in its 20 minutes for statements. That was because it made speeches, not statements.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Is it the wish of the House to have three more? It is not.

COMMITTEE CLERK

Mr. R. F. Johnston: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: Yesterday I abused my privileges and the privileges of the members of the House when I was reporting and speaking on Bill 30. Although I was much praised for my work as the committee chairman, I did the unforgivable and forgot to thank Lynn Mellor, the clerk of the committee, and her staff for all their hard work. If I had gone without saying that, I would be persona non grata in many places in this building.

2:52 p.m.

ORAL QUESTIONS

EXTRA BILLING

Mr. Grossman: My question is for the Premier. The Premier must now, finally, be getting concerned about what is clear evidence of total chaos in the health care system. The situation we have today is as follows:

Many emergency wards are effectively closed; dentists in hospitals have withdrawn services; therapeutic abortions are no longer available in seven or eight hospitals; pharmacists are very unhappy with the government's activities; the American Society of Travel Agents is reportedly considering advising Americans not to come to Ontario; Ontario travellers will no longer have the opportunity to have their Ontario health insurance plan cards accepted in Quebec, Alberta and British Columbia; and today two more hospitals in Toronto have indicated they are likely to stop admitting new patients.

Last evening the Premier met with Dr. Railton and others to try to end this total chaos in the system, to attempt, as the Premier said, to begin to pick up the pieces. Dr. Railton said, "The sanctions are escalating and it is going to happen all across the province." What is the Premier going to do now?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: As the member knows, we are on top of the situation. The Minister of Health (Mr. Elston) has been discussing this matter with a number of others. We had a meeting with Dr. Railton, Dr. Moran and Mr. Trevino yesterday. I am sorry I cannot report that it was productive in a direct sense, but we are in the process of attempting to address some of the concerns raised by the doctors in this discussion with respect to their professional freedoms. In that regard, my colleague has written Dr. Railton today to express his views on the situation.

Mr. Grossman: The fact is that as a result of a meeting the Premier had last night, the sanctions are escalating, as Dr. Railton indicated they would, and his olive branch at too late a stage is looked upon with so much proper scepticism that he has continuing and catapulting chaos across the system.

Will the Premier consider an option? We suggest a five-point program to succeed in getting the doctors back to work:

(1) Recognize the need for a cooling-off period; (2) appoint an independent mediator; (3) allow the doctors time to proceed with their court action; (4) during this cooling-off period, delay implementation of Bill 94 for 60 to 90 days; and (5) the doctors will thus immediately end their sanctions upon acceptance of this program and the appointment of an independent mediator.

May I ask the Premier today to consider this as a clearly responsible option to get the doctors back to work and to stop the chaos we are seeing throughout the system?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: We have discussed all these items on numerous occasions in this House. My colleague announced yesterday that we were prepared to expedite the court reference or challenge, whichever method the Ontario Medical Association prefers. My colleague the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) is prepared to expedite it very quickly.

The member has raised a number of other points we have discussed before. Mediate? Mediate what? Mediate the principle of the bill? Back off on the principle of the bill? If that is what he is asking, and he has to be very clear on that, then the answer is that the bill is now the law of the land. I am sure my honourable colleague opposite understands that.

If he is asking me to bring in a third party to discuss the questions of liberty and freedoms, we will be very happy to do that. Indeed, my colleague the Minister of Health made that offer to Dr. Railton today. If he wishes, I will be very happy to read him a copy of that letter.

There are a number of things, in the judgement of the OMA, on which a third party could assist us in coming to some consensus. We are looking for that consensus. We have said before that we are looking at issues of compensation, freedom and others that have been raised. I remind the member that the OMA has always said this fight was about liberties and freedoms. I am saying to them that we are very happy to discuss them in any form they would like.

Mr. Grossman: I remind the Premier that he has no credibility when he approaches the doctors and suggests he is prepared to guarantee anything to them. The doctors had a guarantee of their freedom to opt out and extra bill enshrined in legislation before the Premier came to office. As a result of his determination to take away that freedom, the legal guarantee was worth nothing, as are his further guarantees.

Given that we now have all sorts of strife in the system and that he refused to appoint a mediator when a mediator would have been able to avoid this strife, will the Premier explain to this House why, now that he has decided to bring in a mediator, he would not invite the OMA to expand the terms of reference for that mediator for 60 or 90 days only to talk about Bill 94 as well and to see whether there is an opportunity to get the doctors back to work tomorrow? What has he to lose by doing that?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: My honourable friend opposite refers to credibility. I say very frankly that the OMA does not like what we have done, but when we say something, it takes it at face value. That is not the case with respect to the member. He should hear the things they say about him and about dealing with him.

Mr. Breaugh: Be more specific.

Mr. McClellan: Give us some specifics.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

3 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker would rule me out of order. I have a limited time to answer, so I will not get into those questions.

It would be misleading if we said we could hang on to this thing for a month, two months, three months or whatever, because then the discussion we are having today would come around proclamation or the end of the suspension period. I do not think it is fair to mislead people about the intentions of the government. We said we wanted to stop extra billing and we have done so, but we have also said that many other issues have been raised in the discussions. We have approached them with an open mind. We are prepared to discuss these things.

As I said on Friday, Dr. John Evans is ready to look into these matters about freedom. The OMA can participate in creating the terms of reference for Dr. Evans. If it wants to address the freedom issue, the capping of income and other things, we will be happy to have its advice or anyone else's advice. If it is not happy with Dr. Evans and if there is someone else who can assist in working out these questions about freedom, we will be happy to do that.

However, I say again to my colleague that if he is asking the government to back off, to withdraw Bill 94 and not to end extra billing, the answer is no.

Mr. Grossman: The Premier is prepared to discuss everything with the doctors except the reasons they are on strike, except the cause of the strike. He is prepared to discuss everything else.

ABORTION CLINIC

Mr. Grossman: Will the Premier not express some concern this afternoon about the increase in the number of abortions being performed at the Morgentaler Clinic?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: With respect to the honourable member's

preamble, he suggested the reasons the doctors are on strike are not in the bill. Is he suggesting that the doctors are on strike because of money issues? Is that what he is saying? If it is freedom, we are prepared to discuss it. Bill 94 deals only with financial issues. If the member is saying they are striking only for money, I can tell them his view on the subject.

Mr. Grossman: I said the Premier would not discuss Bill 94. He was not listening.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: With respect to the abortions going on in the so-called clinic, my colleague discussed this question yesterday. In our view, they are not legal and should not be going on.

Mr. Grossman: If ever the Premier proved the case for a mediator, it was in his response a moment ago. He believes Bill 94 is about money and doctors' incomes. The doctors have been telling him the opposite. He has made himself academic to the process.

A moment ago the Premier refused to answer the question as to whether he was concerned about the increase in the number of abortions at the Morgentaler Clinic. I invite him to address that while he answers my supplementary question, and that is whether he can confirm the rumour we read in the papers, from sources in the office of the Attorney General (Mr. Scott), that as a result of the increased number of abortions occurring in the Morgentaler Clinic because of the strike, the Attorney General will not be bringing charges against the clinics.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I cannot confirm the rumour. As I understand it, the police lay the charges. They are the ones who investigate these matters. The member will not ask us to interfere in a police investigation.

Mr. Grossman: Is the Premier now taking the attitude that the Attorney General has nothing to do with the prosecution of the Morgentaler Clinic? The Attorney General has been asked these questions and he has been answering them. He and his predecessors have all taken responsibility for the circumstances surrounding the charges, the decisions with regard to the charges and the appeal of the acquittals. Now the Premier is trying to wash his hands of the situation.

It is clear that the number of abortions at the Morgentaler Clinic is increasing. It is clear that the Attorney General, and it is his responsibility, has decided not to press charges just now because the defense of necessity may well be upheld as a result of the doctors' strike. Is the Premier telling the people of this province that they have the choice of not having an abortion, since they are not available at many hospitals in the province because of the strike, or of going to the Morgentaler Clinic? What other options do they have?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am not telling them to do either of the two. If the member is suggesting that the Premier tell the Attorney General when to tell the police to lay charges, we do not run the government like that. He may have. If he is suggesting to me that the Premier should instruct the Attorney General to instruct the police to lay charges, that is not the kind of government I want in this province.

Mr. Grossman: He has answered flippantly. The Attorney General runs away from it and the Premier runs away from it.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the Leader of the Opposition take his seat.

EXTRA BILLING

Mr. Rae: I have a question for the Attorney General. To the best of my knowledge, the Attorney General has not made any statement in the House as to what is the law in Ontario with respect to the provision of medical services, the Public Hospitals Act and the Health Disciplines Act. The public is entitled to some answers.

In the Attorney General's view, can a member of a hospital staff who is attached to an emergency ward inform the administrator of the hospital, with eight hours' notice, that he or she is leaving that post for an indefinite period without finding a substitute, there being one doctor taking the place of as many as 10, 12 or 15 doctors? Is it his view that this is in conformity with the Public Hospitals Act and with the Health Disciplines Act? What does he intend to do to see that the law is enforced in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Scott: As the honourable member knows, the Health Disciplines Act establishes offences that are tried by the disciplinary tribunal of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, in this case under the general rubric of professional misconduct. Professional misconduct is defined in the regulation under a number of headings. The college, which has the primary obligation to interpret these regulations, has said, I believe, that for a doctor to close a hospital, to close an emergency service or to fail to provide emergency services, would be professional misconduct. As I understand it, that is the view of the college, which has the primary responsibility of making that

interpretation and then applying it to the facts.

I see no reason to disagree with that conclusion, but I will examine it. If I come to a different view, I will let the member know.

Mr. Rae: I am amazed that after this period of two weeks, the Attorney General has not brought to the attention of the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston)

section 49 of the Health Disciplines Act, which says, "In addition to his powers and duties...the minister may...(

b) request the council to undertake activities that, in the opinion of the minister, are necessary and advisable to carry out the intent of this act."

I am also astonished that the Attorney General has not drawn to the attention of the minister subsection 66(1) of the act, which says, "Where it appears to the college that any person does not comply with any provision of this part or the regulations...the college may apply to a judge of the High Court for an order directing such person to comply with such provision."

At some point the law has to be clear and has to be enforced. We are asking the Attorney General for a statement as to what the law is and what the rights of patients and the obligations of the college are. So far we have had nothing but gobbledegook from every minister of this government, including the Premier (Mr. Peterson), as to what the law is.

What is the law and when is it going to be enforced in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Scott: I gave the member an answer to his first question. He may not like it, but he asked for my opinion about the law. He may disagree with it; he may even be right, but he asked for my opinion of the law. I said that under the Health Disciplines Act, the college is the primary judge of whether there is professional misconduct. It makes that judgement in the course of a disciplinary hearing. It has given a preliminary view of conduct that might be adjudged to be professional misconduct. I do not disagree with the conclusion it has come to, although as the minister pointed out yesterday, it must be applied in concrete circumstances.

If the member wants to know the rights of the college, he has only to refer to the last

section he read, which says what the college may do. It is perfectly plain that is the entitlement of the college and that if the college wishes to make that application, it can do so. It is not necessary to bring these sections to the attention of the Minister of Health. He is quite familiar with them, as are other members of the executive council.

3:10 p.m.

Mr. Rae: The college said last week that no teaching hospital's emergency ward could be closed. It stated that categorically in its letter. As soon as that letter was written, we learned that the emergency ward at Mount Sinai Hospital had been closed indefinitely. That information and the information provided by the Ministry of Health with respect to what services are closed was confirmed for me at 12:30 p.m. The people of this province are entitled to know when the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario is going to do its job. When is it going to enforce the law as it has itself interpreted that law?

If the college is not prepared to enforce the law, when is the Attorney General, who is supposed to be the chief law officer of this province, going to do his job and sit down with the Ministry of Health to figure out how he can get this structure working so that there is one law that applies to everybody, no matter how powerful or how well connected, and that is provided for the benefit of all the people of the province? That is the Attorney General's job.

Hon. Mr. Scott: I concede this does not make for a very good speech and I cannot make it in the loud voice my friend achieves, but the reality is that the Attorney General's job is to enforce the law. The law this Legislature has passed, and no amendments have been suggested by the member that I can recall, provides that the college will be the judge of whether professional misconduct has occurred in the case of a medical doctor. There is an elaborate process in the act, safeguarding the interests of the public and the doctor, to see that is done.

My friend may want us all to barge right through that and pretend it does not exist, but that is the scheme of a self-governing profession. My obligation is to see that it is available and that the college knows its rights; and it does.

Mr. Rae: What does one do when a self-governing profession is not governing? That is the question.

Mr. Speaker: Is that your question?

Mr. Rae: No, it is not. My question is for the Minister of Housing.

Mr. Andrewes: The member said that was the question.

Mr. Rae: I said that was the question. It is just not the question I am going to put to the Minister of Housing; that is all.

RENT REVIEW

Mr. Rae: My question for the Minister of Housing concerns our good friends, RCCI and BOCI. As this matter is debated, we will all come to learn about and love RCCI, the residential complex cost index, and BOCI, the building operating cost index. As I understand it, and we are all laymen when it comes to learning who RCCI and BOCI really are, RCCI is the amount the landlord can charge without having to go to rent review under the proposals contained in Bill 51. RCCI equals two thirds of BOCI, plus two per cent. Has everybody got that? It is two thirds of BOCI plus two. Everyone should understand this because it is very important.

An hon. member: Did the member get this on The Journal last night?

Mr. Rae: No, I got a lot on The Journal that was not on the air and it would curl the member's hair. What they showed was Mary Poppins compared to what happened at The Journal last night.

The old figure was four per cent, not RCCI and not BOCI. With respect to the new proposals by the government of Ontario, can the minister tell us where the plus two per cent comes from? Can he confirm today that the figure that now is going to be the residential guideline is well over five per cent and not four per cent as he promised in the last election?

Hon. Mr. Curling: Let me see whether I can go through this RCCI and BOCI for the member. In the past, the rent review guidelines were tied to inflation and the consumer price index. The consumer price index has within it various things that are not relevant to rental housing or the maintenance costs, the operating costs, of rental housing. BOCI -- my pronunciation is how my staff told me to say it -- means the building operating cost factors are elements that are relevant to the operating of buildings.

Ms. Gigantes: What is the two per cent related to?

Hon. Mr. Curling: Bear with me a bit. With that building operating cost, they have identified 22 factors that are consistent with the cost of operating buildings. These are weighted. The formula that was agreed to by both landlords and tenants --

Mrs. Grier: Some tenants --

Hon. Mr. Curling: The member asked for an explanation and this will take some time.

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the minister can wind up in another 20 seconds, fine. If not, we will have to --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Rae: I want to talk about some of BOCI's cousins.

Mr. Grossman: It is pronounced b-o-k-i.

Mr. Rae: I am sorry, but somehow I feel more comfortable with BOCI. Post-1975 apartment buildings can increase rents five per cent above the guidelines. Therefore, rents could increase 10.2 per cent. I wonder whether the minister can confirm that. A newer recent purchase of an apartment building that has accompanying high mortgage rates resulting in a financial loss in that year could mean an increase of 10.2 per cent. Newly constructed apartment buildings are guaranteed a rate of return that could mean an increase of as much as 15.6 per cent. So-called older buildings with the chronically depressed scenario could have increases as high as 7.2 per cent.

I wonder whether the minister can confirm these figures because when I talk to my tenants, they do not understand RCCI and BOCI, but they understand that they are getting a two or three per cent increase in salary and are having to pay a 10, 15 or seven per cent increase in rent. They wonder where the heck justice went in the rent control system that they were supposed to have voted for in 1985.

Hon. Mr. Curling: The member has asked some very important questions. The important question he asked was about the four per cent. The member can tell his constituents that we will honour that four per cent. He knows that in the past the post-1975 buildings were not included. They will be included under Bill 51 as soon as it is passed. As soon as we settle down to have members of both opposition parties pass Bill 51, it will be retroactive to August 1, 1985. The member can tell his tenants we will honour that because we believe in that.

It is nice to think we can address only the four per cent increase. However, what Bill 51 has done is to look forward to the future to what we will be doing in the years 1987, 1988 and 1989. The member spoke of a guideline that has been agreed to by tenants and landlords, so that people will know there will be increases or decreases in their rents. That guideline has taken care of that. It is forward-looking legislation and a forward-looking guideline.

3:20 p.m.

Mr. Rae: It is onward and upward to 15.6 per cent; that is what it looks like to me. If this is forward looking, it is not the kind of future the tenants voted for in 1985. There is a basic question, a basic matter of principle I would like to ask the minister about. When one looks at how RCCI, at how the basic amount, the basic level is going to be calculated, can he explain where the plus two comes from? Can he confirm that is not just gravy going to the landlord? Can he tell us why the landlords' equity and potential capital gains figure nowhere in the rate of return?

What tenants are being asked to do is to pay for an annual level of profitability for landlords, over and above what landlords are getting as their capital gains. It is a one-way deal for tenants.

Hon. Mr. Curling: The member asks a very important question again, which will take some time to answer. In the past, when guidelines were being applied by the previous government, they had no relevance to inflation. If inflation were at 12 per cent, the guidelines might be eight per cent. The member has not mentioned the averaging of the increase. There is a cutoff at six per cent. When inflation is above six per cent, the guideline accommodates an increase that is less than six per cent. When it is below six per cent, it will be a bit higher. In a time of high inflation, tenants are protected.

ALLEGED CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Mr. Brandt: My question is for the Premier. By way of a brief introduction to refresh his memory from last week, the Premier's conflict-of-interest guidelines state that any minister who has shares in a public corporation must either divest himself of those shares or place them in a blind trust. I believe I am quoting accurately. The guidelines also state that any such holdings must be publicly disclosed one month after taking office.

Will the Premier inform this House what action he would take if he discovered that one of his ministers was directly, in fact blatantly, in violation of these guidelines?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I believe that every minister should conform with those guidelines. Matters have been checked. If the honourable member has some suggestion that someone has not been conforming, I would be most anxious to look at that immediately.

Mr. Brandt: In January 1986, in response to a similar question the Premier stated that "every little, tiny detail has been tied up and everything is as it should be" -- this was with respect to his cabinet colleagues -- "in conformity with the guidelines."

In view of that statement and his own conflict-of-interest guidelines, how could the Premier possibly allow his Minister of Northern Development and Mines (Mr. Fontaine) to own, up to March 1986, more than 36,000 shares of Golden Tiger, a mining company operating in Ontario, without publicly disclosing his holdings to the Clerk of the House and to this assembly as required, and without putting those holdings in a blind trust? What action is the Premier prepared to take?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: As I said, I am not aware of the charge the member makes today. I will investigate that immediately.

RENT REVIEW

Mr. Reville: I would like to go back to the Minister of Housing and the BOCI game because my leader had such a good time with it. The minister does not understand it; nobody understands it. People of Italian descent understand it because it is a game. Bocce is a game and bocce is a big ball.

Mr. Speaker: And the question is --

Mr. Reville: The boccino is a little ball. The little ball is the tenant, and BOCI, of course, is the big ball, the landlord. Will the minister tell the House how many times he is going to ask his colleague the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio) whether he can borrow an airplane to fly Mr. BOCI into communities to tell tenants they have to get hit by the big BOCI?

Hon. Mr. Curling: I do not want to be frivolous. We do not borrow planes from the Ministry of Natural Resources to do those things. I think the member really wants to hear the answer to the question. Too often when we have bills in the House, they are not understood by the people who are affected by them. I have charged my ministry and my staff to get out to the tenants and landlords so that they can understand this. Then we will have legislation that is understood by the people. We stand by the fact that it is a very good guideline, a very good bill and we feel we must sell it to the people.

I would like to get away from the rhetoric because this is a very important point on which we are moving. We have got together in the ministry. There are people working together to resolve this. I want to remind the members that this was done by tenant and landlord groups. There are people who are saying, "We are not represented in this advisory group." I can say the same thing for all of us here. I came here to represent 220,000 people in Scarborough North, but they did not all vote for me. I hope we have input from all people as we go along.

Mr. Reville: We will have input. It will depend on how many people can fit into the airplane.

I do not think the minister should stand in the House and deny that an MNR plane flew Bill Grenier into Essex South. I would like him to withdraw all this BOCI nonsense and all this RCCI nonsense and stand in his place today and tell the House that it is going to be four per cent.

Mr. Mancini: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: The member for Riverdale (Mr. Reville) stated that a government plane has taken certain people to the constituency of Essex South. I want to inform the House that the way the allegation was made seemed to imply that something improper was done.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Speaker, this is very important. Just as you allow them to give you a backdrop before they put their questions, it is important that I be allowed to continue.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member got up on a point of privilege; it is not a point of privilege. Does he have a point of order? What is his point of order?

Mr. Mancini: I am trying to respond to an allegation of impropriety referring to the constituency of Essex South.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the member tell me very briefly what the allegation is?

Mr. Mancini: I will, sir. The member for Riverdale seemed to imply that something was wrong when someone was flown by government aircraft to the constituency of Essex South. I want to inform you, Mr. Speaker, so that the record can show, that --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the honourable member take his seat? He is placing his own point of view.

Mr. Reville: My supplementary question for the Minister of Housing is this: We have waited a long time in this province for rent review legislation that protects tenants. Will the minister now stand in his place and withdraw RCCI and BOCI and bring in four per cent, which will honour his promise and not break it on New Year's Day, 1987?

3:30 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Curling: Let me quickly comment on what the member stated. If there is impropriety in the hiring of the airplane, I will look into that and get back to the member. I do not think it should go on like that.

Mr. Mancini: It was a tenants' council meeting, and he was invited by the tenants.

Mr. Rae: Let the Liberal Party pay for it.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Mancini: Steven Langdon was invited to be there too.

Mr. Rae: How does the member think we heard about the meeting? How does he think we heard about what was going on there?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Out of respect for the other members, will the member for York South (Mr. Rae) and the member for Essex South (Mr. Mancini) refrain from interjecting.

ALLEGED CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Mr. Brandt: My question is to the Premier. I want to advise him that on January 30, 1986, the Minister of Northern Development and Mines (Mr. Fontaine) made a statement to this House indicating that he had instructed his solicitors to execute his resignation from the boards of directors of lumber companies that were involved in forest management agreement negotiations, including United Sawmill Ltd. On the following day, the same minister filed disclosures to the Clerk of the House stating he had no share interest in public corporations.

I have here a document, which is the actual document filed with the office of the Clerk relative to a cabinet minister's holdings. I want to advise the Premier, and I will be more than happy to share this with him, that this document shows no indication whatever of Golden Tiger holdings, as required by the guidelines of this government and the previous government and as expected by each and every member of this House with respect to a cabinet minister's disclosures.

Is the Premier aware of the fact that his Minister of Northern Development and Mines filed a document that did not contain all the information required by law?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am completely unaware of the situation the member raises in this House. It is a very serious allegation he makes, and I assure him it will be dealt with extremely promptly. I will report back on the course of action I decide to take in dealing with this matter. However, I would like to know the facts, at least in a preliminary way.

Mr. Callahan: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: My rights as a member have been infringed upon. As a member of the government, I stood up to ask a question, and the Speaker went to the opposition.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I realized after I recognized the other member that the member was trying to get the floor at that quite noisy period. I did recognize the member for Sarnia.

Mr. Brandt: Does the Premier think it is appropriate for a minister, particularly in the sensitive portfolio of Northern Development and Mines, to be involved with a company by the name of Golden Tiger, which is doing business in Ontario and is clearly identified as being involved in the mining industry? Does the Premier not see any potential conflict in that relationship?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Of course I do. I have never heard of this situation. The facts the member has put to me in this House today are extremely disturbing to me. I have told the member I will look into it. I want to look at the facts. At face value, the case he has put is extremely disturbing.

CHILDREN'S AID SOCIETY

Mr. R. F. Johnston: My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services in regard to the strike of the Children's Aid Society of Metropolitan Toronto. The minister must be aware that the base subsidy to the CAS in Toronto for the past five years, through Frank Drea's policy, has only increased by 14 per cent, in comparison with the Catholic Children's Aid Society of Metropolitan Toronto increase of 34 per cent during that period.

Does the minister agree with his colleague to his left, now the Minister of Labour (Mr. Wrye), who as the critic for Community and Social Services waxed eloquent for many pages? He said such things as: "It seems to me that the policy of the government of this province is fundamentally shortsighted. By the budgetary cutbacks in the social service field and to social agencies, it has unfortunately forced them to suspend, ironically, the very preventive programs the minister spoke about."

The minister is continuing Frank Drea's policy of squeezing the CAS. Why is he doing it?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The honourable member is incorrect in his last statement. We are not continuing that policy.

I have to go back very briefly to 1983. At that time, it was evident to this ministry that the ratio of children in care who were the responsibility of the Metro children's aid society was decreasing while the ratio of children in care of the Catholic children's aid society and the Jewish Family and Child Service of Metropolitan Toronto was increasing. A decision was made at that time that the base budget of the Metro society would be reduced and the same amount of money would be applied to the base budget of the other two societies, simply to take account of the changing demographics.

That was the reality, and the decision was made at that time to reduce the budget by $2.8 million during four years.

Up until 1985, it was reduced by $1.6 million. As soon as we took over the government, the $600,000 that would have come off in 1985 was not taken off and the $600,000 that would have come off in 1986 was not taken off. That has not been changed. I also point out that, even with those changes, at present the Metro society is getting 60 per cent of the total children's aid budget in Metro, and it has 53 per cent of the case load.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: The minister is using the same arguments Frank Drea used when he called the Metro CAS a Cadillac program. Rather than maintaining it and bringing up the others, the minister is decreasing its capacity. Is it not a fact that during the past five years the CAS workers have borne the brunt, with only a 13 per cent increase during those five years? Is that fair? Is the minister going to use the supposed autonomy of the CAS board to keep himself out of this, even though his ministry will go in and take over the Family and Children's Services of the District of Kenora and will use budget cuts to force the preventive programs around the province to be forestalled?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: It has to be stated clearly that the autonomy of all 51 children's aid societies across this province is not supposed; it is real. Those societies are run by independent boards of directors. The Kenora society today is also run by an independent board of directors.

The budget available to this society compared to the entire province is certainly appropriate. As a matter of fact, at present the percentage of the child population in Metro is 21 per cent. The percentage of the budget in Metro is 32 per cent. It is most appropriate.

ACID RAIN

Ms. Hart: My question is to the Minister of the Environment. In the weekend press the United States Secretary of Energy, John Herrington, was quoted as saying about acid rain that "The known problem is small" and that "There is no indication of a near-term urgency." Does the minister agree with those statements?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Good question.

Mr. Brandt: Do not rush the answer.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: That is a good question.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I cannot hear for the opposition interjecting.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

3:40 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: It is a very appropriate question and members of this House of all parties, I am sure, will want to express concern about that statement, because we were under the impression after the last summit, and because of some activity in the US House of Representatives and to a lesser degree in the US Senate, that the level of activity related to dealing with the problem of acid rain in the US was going to be somewhat higher than had been expected previous to that.

To hear a person in this position -- and the member says he is the US Secretary of Energy -- make a statement that it is in hand and is not the problem that many anticipated is something with which members of all parties would not agree. I am convinced our federal government, which was involved in the negotiations with the US, would not agree with that statement.

Ms. Hart: What can we do at the provincial level to help persuade our American neighbours to take their heads out of the sand?

Mr. Grossman: The minister will say that is a very good question.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The Leader of the Opposition says it is a very good question, and I agree with him in this case.

As Canadians, we can continue to remind our American friends of the importance of this problem. For instance, we can encourage those who visit Canada from the US, particularly those who are cottagers in the Muskoka area and experience the detrimental effects of acid rain, to take the message back to the US and continue the dialogue with those who are sympathetic to abating acid rain there.

We had a major conference in Muskoka, members may recall, at which people from around the world pointed to the fact that it is a problem. Our federal counterpart, Stan Darling, who is chairman of the committee at the federal level, has on many occasions attended functions where he has brought this to the attention of the United States.

ACCESS TO ABORTION COMMITTEES

Mr. Andrewes: I want to return to a serious issue that even the member for York East (Ms. Hart) might agree is somewhat more urgent.

My question is to the Premier. The number of therapeutic abortion committees that are inoperable is growing. New cases are not being considered. Women do not have access to this service. Can the Premier tell me how Ontario women are able to gain legal access to this important health care service?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: There is no question a problem has been created as a result of the action some members of the medical profession have taken. I do not disagree with that. However, other services are available, as the member knows. I do not stand before the member and pretend it is not a problem for some people, but I believe it is being dealt with in other facilities.

Mr. Andrewes: I want to remind the Premier that on April 2, 1985, he said in an interview: "We believe that all women must have equal access to legal therapeutic abortions. For that reason we would remove, wherever possible, barriers which restrict access."

His answer breaks that commitment. It insults the women of this province. The Premier and the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston) have told this House that essential health care services are going to be provided in spite of the strike, in spite of the activities of the doctors in the province. Why is the Premier running and hiding from this issue?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: We are not running and hiding at all. We have been very straight and forthcoming on the situation. It is not a problem with respect to abortion services only; it is a problem in other areas as well. It is a very difficult, unique situation, as the member knows. What has been happening in the past 10 days is not the normal course of events.

I think my honourable friend will have to agree that this government has made a significant number of moves to bring equal access to all health care facilities, including our northern friends and in other areas.

Mr. Grossman: We would not. The Premier has destroyed it singlehandedly.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Let us be very fair about this situation. If the member is trying to take this particular job action and relate it to the grand problem, then I do not think he is being accurate.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr. Martel: I have a question of the Minister of Labour. On May 13, 1986, at 8:15, Tim Peacock, an employee of the city of Brantford, was seriously burned. Three workers were ordered by their foreman to burn out 500-gallon cola drums with gasoline instead of diesel fuel. When it was ignited, the drum blew up and the man went some 15 to 20 feet in the air, suffering third degree burns to his hands and burns to his face, his ears and his arms.

This accident was not reported to the health and safety representative immediately; he was advised about it some eight hours later. Why did the minister's staff take the word of management that this explosion only caused minor injuries and not investigate, even though the accident was reported some 24 hours later?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I am aware of the general nature of that incident and the issue of whether their injuries were minor or otherwise and whether we followed the proper procedures because the injuries were not minor in nature. Those matters are being looked into.

Mr. Martel: The city of Brantford official violated the Occupational Health and Safety Act by not reporting this serious incident immediately, as he was supposed to do. Can the minister tell me why this accident was not investigated until May 26, some 13 days later, and only after phone calls from Joe Divitt from the Canadian Union of Public Employees and the local rep? Is this how the new inspection system works, or is this the swamp at its best?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I will get back to the member as quickly as I can on the specifics of his question. I can only say, and the honourable member should know, that the health and safety division, like any other agency of government, is not perfect and is always open for second-guessing.

I suggest to the member that, in spite of what he says, the effectiveness of the division in ensuring that orders are complied with appropriately and promptly is better than it has ever been and the effectiveness of the division in ensuring, where there are substantive violations of the act and where orders are not complied with, the deterrent effect of prosecution is better than it is has ever been.

TECHNOLOGY FUND

Mr. Gillies: I have a question of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. I understand the government is tabling information today regarding the Exploracom grant. I am sure the minister has had a chance to familiarize himself with it. Can he tell the House whether this grant is being made on a matching fund basis, as is suggested in the throne speech, or has some special financial arrangement been made that will see funds flowing regardless of private sector support?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: I will be pleased to answer the question. First, the documents will be tabled later today and members will have them before the day is finished. One of the key conditions as part of that Exploracom grant is matching provincial funding. It reads, "Exploracom has no commitment to provincial participation unless this is earned through matching private sector contributions in cash or display credits."

Mr. Gillies: Is the minister aware that none of the promotional materials that have been put out to private industry by Mr. Schwartz indicate that in any way and that the financial statement shows quite clearly that it is expected that $8.75 million will be flowed during the months of April, May and June? Is the minister further aware that, at this point, only six computer companies have expressed interest in participating in Exploracom, which would represent a very small proportion of the proposed provincial funding?

3:50 p.m.

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: The key condition was what I just stated. The member may have a list of only six, but I have a complete list here. It includes such companies as Honeywell Ltd., Xerox of Canada Ltd., Hewlett-Packard Canada Ltd., Datapoint Canada Inc., Pitney Bowes, Omnibus Computer and General Datacomm. It goes on and on, listing companies that feel this project is important enough that they are willing to take

part in it.

DISMISSAL OF EMPLOYEE

Mr. Rae: I have a question of the Minister of Labour. He will no doubt be aware from discussions with his staff, and from having perused the newspaper over the past weeks and months, of the very unusual case at Consumers' Distributing and its relationship with Teamsters Local 419.

In particular, he should be aware by this time of the case of John Persaud, who was fired by Consumers' Distributing and has been involved since that time with an extremely lengthy, complicated and difficult series of proceedings in an attempt to get his job back. Consumers' Distributing has just taken a most recent decision by the Ontario Human Rights Commission not to ratify an agreement that Mr. Persaud allegedly made under duress --

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Rae: This case has gone to court. Can the minister tell the House what steps he intends to take to ensure that justice is done in a case where there is substantial evidence of collusion between the Teamsters and Consumers' Distributing and there have been extensive criminal charges? Mr. Persaud is still without his job and without industrial justice in Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I am aware of the Persaud matter, as I am sure the member knows. I have had a number of discussions with my staff on this matter. I am aware of the allegations and the information that was raised in yesterday's press reports. However, being a lawyer, my honourable friend will understand that because of where the matter is right now, it would not be appropriate to get into details of the case.

Mr. Rae: The minister's answer hardly comes as a surprise to me, because it is a cop-out and the easy way out in a case that is enormously complex.

However, consider the case of Mr. Persaud, an individual without means or income, who feels very strongly that he has been discriminated against on racial grounds. There is substantial evidence of criminal activity, both by the management of the company and by the leadership of the trade union at the time Mr. Persaud was fired. What are his legal remedies? What are the remedies of somebody who is clearly in a circumstance where he stands virtually alone and has no visible means of support and no job? Will the minister not help to cut the Gordian knot in this case?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I am sure the member knows that Mr. Persaud is currently pursuing certain remedies. Beyond that, I do not think it would be appropriate to comment.

ACCESS TO ABORTION COMMITTEES

Ms. Gigantes: I believe I have a point of personal privilege. I do not know if the minister responsible for matters affecting the Ministry of Attorney General (Mr. Scott) is out writing an apology to this House, but I believe he should be. In any case, we have not had any response from him on the question I raised, which was the deliberate misreading of a statement on our position concerning access to abortion services in Ontario. We should have some way of requiring the minister to deal with this question. Can you advise me what to do, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: The rules are quite clear. Any member has the right to ask any minister any question. Members have the opportunity to put any question in writing. We hope a response will come according to the time set out in the standing orders. There are many other opportunities to question the minister during the minister's estimates. Those are the times when this matter can be discussed with the minister.

Ms. Gigantes: Still on my point of privilege, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Speaker: A point of privilege?

Ms. Gigantes: Yes. I feel our rights as members are affected here. The minister has taken the words of a man now deceased and misread them deliberately, to create an impression which he now does not --

Mr. Speaker: Order. I believe the honourable member charged another member with deliberately misreading. I understand that is right. Will the member kindly withdraw that?

Ms. Gigantes: I do not feel that, in honesty, I can. I think the minister has deliberately --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: The member used the word "deliberately." Will she remove the word "deliberately"?

Ms. Gigantes: I did not say "misled," I said "misread" the words of my colleague.

Mr. Speaker: That is right.

Ms. Gigantes: He did that.

Mr. Harris: On the same point, Mr. Speaker: Many of us do things deliberately, and I suggest that if somebody deliberately misreads something, that is a conscious decision. If one takes a letter, one may misread it or read what one wants into it. I am not sure that is the same as accusing the member of misleading the House. The member has a point that something was misread and that it was intentional. I am not sure that is impugning a dishonourable motive to a member.

Mr. Grossman: Let him come here and defend himself.

Mr. McClellan: You put us in a difficult position, Mr. Speaker. As my colleague the member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris) has said and I believe, my colleague was simply stating the facts. The Attorney General took a statement that was very clear and complete and read part of that statement. I believe he knew what he was doing when he read that statement, and he conveyed an entirely inaccurate sense of the position of my late colleague Jim Renwick and of this party. I think it is proper for my colleague to bring that to the attention of the House and to ask the Attorney General of this province to correct the record or at least to apologize for the slight and, I may say, for the insult.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I might be of some assistance. I feel the matter is being expanded far beyond any intention on either side. The Attorney General very properly had examined the background of the matter and put forward the view of the late, revered Justice critic of the New Democratic Party. Both sides are correct when they say he read the part he thought was apropos of the issue before the House at the time.

The problem is in the use of the words "deliberately misreading." It is not the same as "deliberately misleading," even though it sounds the same, but it has a connotation of unfairness on the part of my colleague. I can assure members that was the furthest thing from his thought. I do not think there was anything unfair about it at all. Now that he is here, in spite of my best efforts to defend him, he might be able to say a word or two on his own behalf.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Scott: If I may be heard on this issue: last week, in the course of the debate, the words of Mr. Renwick in another context were used to make a point at my expense, very deftly and very effectively. I see nothing wrong with using the words of parliamentarians who have spoken in this House or elsewhere. Merely that they are deceased does not make it inappropriate.

Mr. Martel: The member stopped short of finishing the idea.

4 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Scott: The member should hold his tongue for a minute. If he wants to make a charge, he has to listen to the answer sooner or later.

The reality is that in this case I quoted a passage of a letter Mr. Renwick read to the standing committee on administration of justice. I provided a citation to the member for Scarborough East (Mr. Fulton) because he requested it. I read a complete sentence, which I said accurately reflected my views, as it does. I believed at the time and I believe now that sentence was a complete thought taken in context.

The other sentence the honourable member reads relates to the question she asked about the provision of health care services in the province. She can rely on that sentence if she pleases, but the sentence I read has to do with the illegality of abortion centres carried on in breach of the law, which I relied on to make my point. There is nothing wrong with that. It happens all the time.

I had no intention of doing, and I do not believe I did do, any injustice to the late honourable member, who, if he were here, would recognize that. I read the portion of his letter that made my point about the fact that illegal abortion clinics, carried on in breach of the Criminal Code, cannot be tolerated. I read the complete sentence. I read the whole thing.

Mr. Martel: And he said the act should be changed.

Hon. Mr. Scott: No, he was not speaking about the act. He was talking about the provision of medical services. I do not believe I have done anything wrong, but I want to make it clear that I would not have intended and I do not intend to misquote Mr. Renwick, a man who was long a friend of mine and for whose memory I have very substantial respect.

Mr. Breaugh: I might be able to help a little bit here. This is a little unusual. We do not usually have the Speaker ask someone to withdraw the words "deliberately misreading." I know of no precedent anywhere that forbids one to make such an accusation. If there is such a precedent, I would be interested in hearing it.

There is no question now, after the comments of the Attorney General, that what he did yesterday was deliberate. He chose to read the words he read yesterday. There is no question about that, and it leaves us solely to decide whether we can accuse someone of misreading. That is a matter of opinion, but I hardly think the member for Ottawa Centre (Ms. Gigantes) has to withdraw anything here. It seems to me, if anything, that subsequent comments have established very clearly that the Attorney General did what he did deliberately and that, in the member's opinion, he was misreading Mr. Renwick's remarks.

I do not believe anything has to be withdrawn on any side. If the Attorney General does not choose to apologize, there is nothing we can do about that, but I do not think my colleague has said anything unparliamentary here.

Mr. Speaker: I have listened carefully. I believe this same matter was brought up during members' statements earlier in the day. While I was listening to the member for Ottawa Centre and she stated that the Attorney General was deliberately misreading, I thought she was, in effect, stating that a member was misrepresenting something. I am open to the suggestions of the House. It appears to me, after hearing the discussions on all sides, that we have certainly been hearing a number of points of view.

PETITIONS

NATUROPATHY

Mr. Ferraro: It is my privilege to present a petition on behalf of the Minister of Housing (Mr. Curling) signed by 147 people, the majority of whom are in his riding of Scarborough North. It deals with the problem concerning naturopathy and petitions the Ontario Legislature to call on the government to introduce legislation that would guarantee naturopaths the right to practise their art and science to the fullest without prejudice or harassment.

Mr. Shymko: I have a petition that reads as follows:

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

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

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

"And

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

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

MOTION

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved that the standing committee on public accounts be authorized to meet tomorrow, June 25, in the morning, following routine proceedings in the afternoon and from eight to 10:30 in the evening.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ELECTION FINANCES ACT

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved first reading of Bill 103,

An Act to revise the Election Finances Reform Act and to amend Certain Other Acts respecting Election Financing.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I have a brief statement. I know the members would be delighted to welcome once again Donald MacDonald, the chairman of the Commission on Election Contributions and Expenses. He is sitting in the gallery and is much revered and respected.

It has been almost 11 years since election finance legislation was introduced into Ontario. The purpose of the legislation then and now is to ensure fairness, equity, openness and broad-based participation in the election process in Ontario.

It is to ensure that the financing process for elections is disclosed to the public for its judgement. In repealing the old act and introducing a new one, there are several major policy changes. Leadership contests, an integral part of our democratic system in Ontario, will now come under the purview of the act. Spending limits on election campaigns for candidates and political parties will be introduced. Provision is made for the orderly winding down of existing constituency associations on redistribution. For the first time in Ontario, individuals may contribute to the political party of their choice by using a credit card. What a breakthrough.

Recognizing that the value of the dollar has changed in the 11 years since the bill was first enacted, reasonable adjustments have been made to monetary limits established in the act for contributions for public funding of candidates and for subsidies to auditors.

I want to express thanks to the commission for its work through the years and to its staff and counsel, who provide advice, analysis and suggestions for improving the act; to volunteers and members of the three political parties represented in the House who participated in many hours of discussion, sharing points of view in a general and philosophical way, as well as debating and fine-tuning the very specific issues that will make the act stronger.

I also want to express thanks to hundreds of volunteers who, as treasurers, chief financial officers, candidates, etc., give their time freely to make our political system work.

TOWNSHIP OF MARA ACT

Mr. McLean moved first reading of Bill Pr11,

An Act respecting the Township of Mara.

Motion agreed to.

4:10 p.m.

LEGAL AID AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Scott moved first reading of Bill 107,

An Act to amend the Legal Aid Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Scott: This is the bill to which I made reference in the statement earlier in the day. I was going to introduce it with a quotation from Donald MacDonald. As he has now left the gallery and as I have some difficulty with quotations, I will leave the bill as it is.

The Honourable the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario entered the chamber of the Legislative Assembly and took his seat upon the throne.

ROYAL ASSENT

Hon. Mr. Alexander: Pray be seated.

Mr. Speaker: May it please Your Honour, the Legislative Assembly of the province has, at its present sittings thereof, passed a certain bill to which, in the name of and on behalf of the said Legislative Assembly, I respectfully request Your Honour's assent.

Assistant Clerk: The following is the title of the bill to which Your Honour's assent is prayed:

Bill 30,

An Act to amend the Education Act.

Clerk of the House: In Her Majesty's name, the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor doth assent to this bill.

The Honourable the Lieutenant Governor was pleased to retire from the chamber.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS IN ORDERS AND NOTICES

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to tell you that I am tabling the interim answers to questions 291 and 315 in Orders and Notices [see Hansard for Wednesday, July 2].

INTERIM SUPPLY

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved resolution 6:

That the Treasurer of Ontario be authorized to pay the salaries of the civil servants and other necessary payments pending the voting of supply for the period commencing July 1, 1986, and ending October 31, 1986, such payments to be charged to the proper appropriation following the voting of supply.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: This is a standard interim supply motion, which will, with the permission of the Legislature, allow the government to meet its financial obligations until the end of October. It is estimated that about $9.2 billion will be necessary for that obligation. The period of time is more or less the standard period for interim supply, and we welcome support from all sides, since the money will go to pay for the standard responsibilities of the government, which, in general, are supported by all thoughtful members.

Mr. Shymko: I want to take this opportunity to note, following the Treasurer's remarks, that these are standard responsibilities of government that must continue after the authorization to pay the salaries of our civil servants and other necessary payments.

Mr. Haggerty: The member is not opposed to that, is he?

Mr. Shymko: Absolutely not. I am concerned that, in the regular functioning of government and in the regular allocation of moneys, we keep in mind that this should take into consideration the vast numbers of citizens who are served in various capacities. My concern is that 40 per cent of the population of Ontario is to be negatively affected in any way by the lack of provision of services that normally flow from the equitable allocation of moneys in implementing some of our serious policies, which are the raison d'être for these services.

I refer to a very important responsibility and a tragic consequence for the 40 per cent of the population of Ontario that is represented by a council that advises the government on the delivery of services and on the equitable allocation of moneys affecting the lives of 40 per cent of the population of Ontario. I refer not to the citizens of this province who are of the founding nations' stock but to the various ethnocultural minorities whose concern for linguistic and cultural survival depends on the nature and wisdom of the advice given to this government through a body called an advisory council.

I refer to none other than the Ontario Advisory Council on Multiculturalism and Citizenship, which advises a key and important minister and member of the executive council, namely, the Minister of Citizenship and Culture (Ms. Munro).

4:20 p.m.

I will quote the concerns of the president of that council, Stan Frolick. By the way, I would share with members the fact that he is currently hospitalized at St. Michael's Hospital. We wish him a speedy recovery so that he may continue to discharge his responsibilities effectively and responsibly. I am sure some of my honourable colleagues who know Mr. Frolick will send him a card or best wishes for a speedy recovery.

I would share the concerns affecting 40 per cent of our communities from a communiqué dated June 6, 1986. It begins with the following words: "We are, as OACMC members, faced with three serious threats to the existence of this council as such, or to a viable ability to continue to carry out its role and functions."

The very first paragraph by the president of this advisory body, representing 40 per cent of the citizens of this province, says it is faced with serious threats to its existence and to the carrying out of its role as its mandate provided when this council was established some 12 years ago.

It is of concern to me as we allocate moneys that a main, important council advising this government is about to be disbanded because it cannot fulfil its mandate, because it does not have the ability to carry out its role and function, because it is faced with serious threats to its existence. There is something wrong in a budget in the millions and billions of dollars.

I am very pleased to see the Minister without Portfolio responsible for citizenship and culture (Mr. Ruprecht) enter this great chamber as he dialogues with the Minister of Housing (Mr. Curling). I hope he will listen for the next few minutes to the concerns of an advisory council whose services and advice are so closely related to the minister's responsibilities.

Three serious threats are described in the communiqué by the president of this council. Since we are dealing with moneys, I will refer in a major way only to the financial problem threatening the existence of the council and its civil servants, who will be paid, we hope, from the allocation of these funds from July to October.

The communiqué says the following:

"The third crisis we face is funding. First, some background information.

"The budget for fiscal year 1985-86 (ending on March 31, 1986) was $323,100. This budget did not provide for salaries for the requested and agreed upon additions to the council's office staff, namely, that of executive co-ordinator and research consultant to replace the two positions that my predecessor, Dr. Mavis Burke, had abolished: that of executive officer...and public relations officer... I agreed with the then assistant deputy minister, Mr.

Randolph Norberg, to give up a substantial part of my own remuneration and my own benefits, on condition that the two additional positions would be filled by the ministry. I kept my part of the bargain. The ministry did not.

Upon taking office in June 1986, I was also unequivocally promised by the minister (and as confirmed by the assistant deputy minister) that when the new budget was set for the fiscal year 1986-87, we would, as a matter of ministry's number one priority, get sufficient funds, not only for salaries for the two long-awaited staff additions, but also to meet the added financial demands which the regional structure and rising costs for transportation, accommodations and meals of a 60-member council imposed on us. I requested an allotment of $460,000.

However, the then assistant deputy minister submitted a budget request in December 1985 for $408,000, assuring me that if that proved to be inadequate, she would find additional funds for us. I was the last to learn, a considerable time after the budget was set in March 1986, that the council would not even be given what we had last year. In fact, our budget was drastically reduced to $252,600!

"Moreover, the unused portion of my predecessor's salary and benefits, in the sum of $68,800, which was sitting in the council's classified salaries account, disappeared at the end of the 1985-86 fiscal year in March without notice to me or leave. I had been informed that moneys in a classified account could only be used for payment of classified salaries, which I therefore could not touch. In addition, the new budget of $252,600 makes no provision whatsoever for the council president's remuneration -- whether in the unclassified salaries allotment or in other departmental operating expenses (ODOE) fund.

"The Premier, on April 4, 1986," and, I am sure, with the full knowledge of the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon), "when advised of this financial problem," and I refer to a problem affecting the survival of a council representing 40 per cent of the citizens of this province, "as another predicament we now face, and that I had secured a meeting with the minister, Dr. Lily Munro, and the newly appointed deputy minister, Mr. David Silcox, for April 22, 1986, expressed his hope that the meeting would resolve the problem.

"Accompanied by a member of the executive committee, Alderman George Maroosis, I presented a very elaborate budget request for $455,000 to the meeting, a copy of which is enclosed." I have a copy of it here. "None of the aspects of this presentation or of the funding were discussed, apart from the promise given to us that our budget would be reviewed. More than six weeks have now gone by," and we are facing now the entire summer after we recess, "without any word on this matter of financial resources for the council," and I say the survival of that council, "or, as stated, on the question of human resources.

The deputy minister made a comment at the time of the meeting on April 22, 1986, to the fact that the government is practising a general policy of fiscal restraint in its spending. Facts," unfortunately, "prove otherwise.

"The subsequent budget brought down by the Treasurer of Ontario revealed a substantial windfall financial surplus.

"Here are only some of the grants and additional funding provided in May 1986 alone."

I will not list them. We all know them as members. We have heard the budget. From $84 million to the faculty renewal to universities, one can go through the entire list.

"In the light of the above spending" --

4:30 p.m.

My honourable colleagues to the left, for whose sensitivity I have the greatest respect, are on record in this House and in Hansard. For years they fought for equity in multiculturalism so that these would not just be policies expounded at political meetings, but would be delivered. I hope my colleagues, who signed the alliance and pact with the present government, will have some impact and influence in convincing the party in power to deliver on empty promises.

When I raised this question in the House, the minister asked what I was talking about. She had not even seen a copy of this communiqué, dated June 6. Today is June 24. I hope she has a copy. I sent her one with my press release so that she would at least be aware of it. This is the conclusion reached by the president: "In the light of the above spending" -- referring to funding for a garage for the Royal Botanical Gardens and so on -- "only one conclusion is possible as to why this council's budget suffered a severe cut.

"In addition, a comparison of our Ontario Advisory Council on Multiculturalism and Citizenship with the Council for Franco-Ontarian Affairs (which of all agencies is most closely related to our own in its aims) is very illuminating."

I hate to do this, because as responsible legislators we cannot divide and rule, pitting one minority against another in seeking responsible allocations of moneys. I compliment the minister responsible for francophone affairs (Mr. Grandmaître) on the way he is assisting his 13-member council, the Council for Franco-Ontarian Affairs, which represents the aspirations and needs of 5.5 per cent of the population of Ontario. I will make some comparisons because it is the only council for which the mandate and similarity of obligations closely resembles that of the advisory council. I ask the members to take note.

Regarding staff, the CFOA had seven full-time staff members and the advisory council had two. Each has had one full-time person added. That makes a total of eight for the 13-member council serving 5.5 per cent of the population of Ontario and three for a 60-member council serving almost 40 per cent of the population.

Let us look at meetings. The CFOA meets once a month. The advisory council holds the following meetings, which are held at a minimum of once a month, five regional committees, three ad hoc committees and one executive committee. A full council meeting is held not less than twice annually.

What is the budget of the two councils? In 1984-85, the CFOA had a budget of $379,000 and the advisory council one of $331,000, a difference of approximately $48,000. That is not bad; there is a difference, but basically it is close. In 1985, the CFOA budget increased to $397,000, while that of the advisory council was cut by almost $10,000 to $323,000. For 1986-87, the CFOA budget is $433,000, while that of the advisory council is cut to $252,600.

This is an interesting trend. The minister constantly assures me that there is no intention to eliminate the advisory council. However, there is strangulation; there is paralysis. No funds are allocated to make that council viable and operational. The president has to appeal to us, saying that the council is in crisis and cannot deliver its mandate. There is a gap in logic between the promise and commitment made by the minister to this House in the allocation of moneys and in understanding the operation and mandate of that council, and reality and monetary facts. I am not inventing these things; they are facts.

Because we are the critics, the estimates of the minister come before us. It is interesting that one cannot find the budget of the Ontario Advisory Council on Multiculturalism and Citizenship in the estimates. It is not listed. It is hidden somewhere in the bowels of the expenses of the administration of the minister's office. The Ontario Arts Council is there. All the other agencies and boards, and I am sure the Royal Botanical Gardens and its $570,000 garage, can be found in the estimates, but one cannot find the budget of this advisory council. One has to look, to ask and to telephone.

One has to speak to the members of the council to get them to provide that information. We cannot get it through the estimates figures published year after year and presented before the critics.

I would like to conclude with a comment on the constituency that is served by these two councils. On the one hand, there is a very positive increase in the budget of the Council for Franco-Ontarian Affairs, for which I compliment the minister responsible for francophone affairs, who is also Minister of -- what is the minister's responsibility? Is it Northern Affairs? The member for Ottawa East (Mr. Grandmaître) is the responsible minister.

Mr. Ashe: It is Municipal Affairs.

Mr. Shymko: He is the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

Mr. Laughren: It is typical of that caucus not to know that.

Mr. Shymko: My apologies. We cannot know everything. At least we admit we are infallible -- fallible; pardon me. Some parties are infallible. It must be divine guidance or something.

The minister responsible for francophone affairs is to be congratulated. I went to see the minister and said: "Speak to the Minister of Citizenship and Culture. Tell that minister to deliver. Show her the comparison. She does not read the communiqués from the president of the advisory council that advises her and which, I am sure, sends copies to both the minister and the deputy minister. You may be able to urge her at a cabinet meeting or privately, but somehow point out this dilemma."

The Council for Franco-Ontarian Affairs has a $433,000 budget and 13 members serving 5.5 per cent of the population. The Advisory Council on Multiculturalism and Citizenship has almost half that budget and 60 members serving, to be exact, 39.7 per cent of the population of Ontario.

I wanted to point this out as we discussed the allocation of moneys. The previous chairman, the very capable civil servant, Dr. Mavis Burke, was seconded from the Ministry of Education to be chairman of that council. Therefore, her salary was paid by the Ministry of Education. It was not even paid through the minister's estimates or the minister's budget. Normally, when Dr. Mavis Burke left, the minister would have seen a saving of some $60,000 or whatever. The chairman was not paid; it was another ministry that paid the chairman's salary.

We now have a part-time president of the advisory council, who is receiving much less remuneration and who is expressing concern. As a matter of fact, his remuneration was not even addressed in the budget. I know the minister will be commenting or responding at some stage, whether privately, by letter or in the House.

4:40 p.m.

This is to give authority to pay the salaries of civil servants. I mentioned the so-called classified salary earlier. These two positions were asked for to help that council. It is my understanding some $70,000 of frozen moneys for that purpose were apparently used in some other area. I know that a new government has to decorate offices. It is my understanding that the deputy minister's office was redecorated. I do not know the colours. I have not seen his office. However, I am sure some thousands of dollars were used from the ministry's administration operations budget to redecorate the office. It may have been close to $70,000, if not more.

I have never been a cabinet minister, so I cannot comment on the offices or on the cost and moneys allocated for redecoration that are approved in this House, sometimes through budgets, debates or concerns. I am sure that the $70,000 to hire two important staff members, badly-needed for the survival, operation and viability of that council, was not there. However, there was enough money, some tens of thousands of dollars, to redecorate the deputy minister's office.

I am concerned. I read to this House the communiqué from the president of the council dated June 6, 1986. Some may wonder to whom it was sent. I will tell the House. That communiqué was sent to all members of the advisory council, with copies to the minister. Four days later, on June 10, 1986, the president of the advisory council wrote another memorandum to all council members. It is interesting to read what he said. He did not appeal to the council members this time, Mr. Speaker. He appealed to you, to me and to every member of this Legislature.

This is what he said: "A number of inquiries have been made by members and others for whom the fate of this council and multiculturalism generally, is of concern. Speculation of all kinds is rampant. Rumours abound. You are, therefore, entitled to have the facts placed before you."

I want to be fair to my colleagues in the New Democratic Party, but among the rumours was one that the member for Oakwood (Mr. Grande) was asked by the chairman of the standing committee on government agencies whether he could name any agency, board or commission he wished reviewed. The member indicated that he wished the Ontario Advisory Council on Multiculturalism and Citizenship to be reviewed. I believe a sunset review was done in 1984. All agencies, boards and commissions were to be reviewed every five years. In 1984, the review of that council was completed.

The recommendations following the review were that the council's existence and mandate be continued for another five years because it was doing an excellent job.

That review was done. The member for Oakwood wanted a review of that council simply to get these facts out. He wanted to ask whether the recommendations of this council were followed up by the government. He wanted to ask whether this council could survive and deliver its mandates. The member for Oakwood wanted these facts presented, probably with a call for the president of the council to appear before the committee. I compliment the member for doing this. However, rumours abounded that the member for Oakwood was used by the Minister of Citizenship and Culture or by the Minister without Portfolio responsible for citizenship and culture to axe the council.

Since the alliance and all sorts of arrangements were struck last year, people simply came to the conclusion that a member of the New Democratic Party, a very eloquent and responsible member of this Legislature, was used to eliminate the council. I spoke to the member about it and that was not his intention. I want this to be on the record and to assure anyone spreading these rumours that it was not the case. The president wrote, "Rumours abound," perhaps as they relate to the member for Oakwood.

He wrote: "As president, I believe it is my duty to inform you as fully as possible of all the events that have recently taken place and the position we now find ourselves in as a result of these various acts of commission and omission taken against the council."

The members know very well that this advisory council is at arm's length. I would not want the remarks of any member of this Legislature expressing and reading these concerns to be used in any way by the minister or the government to do unpleasant things -- whatever that may mean to various members -- because that council operates at arm's length and the president has the responsibility to communicate these concerns.

Do the members know to whom he appeals? As a member of this Legislature, I must read this. "It is up to you to weigh these facts, assess the situation, and if you conclude that this council deserves to continue to exist and function, in order to bring to the attention of the government of the day the `needs, desires, aspirations and expectations'" -- that is from the order in council creating that body -- "of ethnocultural communities in the province, and to advise it on all `those matters which pertain to multiculturalism a