Hansard Transcript 1986-Dec-11 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

That, in the opinion of this House, the Ontario government further encourage the use of Canadian-grown and Canadian-processed food products by all ministries, government agencies and provincially funded institutions.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Morin): The honourable member has up to 20 minutes for his presentation and he may reserve any portion of it for the windup.

Mr. G. I. Miller: It is a pleasure on a Thursday morning before Christmas to have the opportunity of debating this resolution, which I feel very strongly will support the agricultural industry in Ontario. It should help to strengthen it.

In opening, I might indicate that the apples we have put on the desks this morning are Empire apples. These are new apples that have been developed over the past years at Guelph. I believe they are named after the state of New York. They were grown at Vittoria, just east of Simcoe, which I feel is the Garden of Eden of Ontario. They were grown on the farm of Tom Haskett and his family. They were given to all members before Christmas as a reminder of the good things we grow in Ontario.

I rise today in favour of the resolution, which I believe is of great importance to everyone in this House, in this province and in Canada.

Every person on this earth needs three things to survive: air to breathe, water to drink and food for nourishment. I do not know whom you want to thank for the air or the water, but I feel compelled to thank the farmer for our food. We can show our gratitude to the farmers of Ontario, Quebec, Alberta, Saskatchewan and all provinces of Canada. As true Canadians, we cannot just zero in only on Ontario and its food production. We have to think of Canada as a whole. Under the leadership of our new government, the Premier (Mr. Peterson) has made it very clear that we want a united Canada. Therefore, when we speak of food products, we speak on the broad base of Canada as a whole.

The purpose behind this resolution is that Canadian farmers deserve our support. They deserve the chance to compete and they deserve the chance to prosper as other segments of our society have prospered, but most of all they deserve to have a fighting chance to survive. I do not have to tell the members of this House about the many problems facing farmers in this country; many of us are farmers ourselves. The men and women who produce our food have been forced to watch helplessly as the bottom drops out of their income, their equity and their confidence.

The government, or more specifically the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food, is doing its part to give the farmers of this province a fighting chance, but that is not enough. This resolution is not asking the government to put more money into its agricultural budget. This resolution is asking that we, as individual elected members of this Legislature, do what we can to put more money into our farmers' pockets.

Nine years ago the Ministry of Agriculture and Food developed a consumer marketing program designed to achieve maximum penetration of the Ontario market by Ontario-produced fresh and processed agricultural food products. This program was developed to counteract the falling market share of Ontario foods, the increase in imports and the constant surplus stock situation at the end of the crop year.

Ontario is the largest producer of agricultural foods in Canada and our farmers account for almost 30 per cent of Canadian agricultural food production. This province's food and beverage industry is valued at $14 billion a year. The Foodland Ontario program has proved to be a successful vehicle for expanding public awareness of Ontario's food products.

A survey taken last year shows that two thirds of all grocery shoppers are aware of the advertising of Ontario food products, 83 per cent of grocery shoppers recognize the Foodland Ontario symbol and 80 per cent of consumers consider the Foodland Ontario program a worthwhile effort.

On July 31, 1986, the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Riddell) unveiled a $1.7-million advertising program designed to accentuate the great taste of Ontario's fruits and vegetables. The essence of this campaign is captured by the new slogan, "Ontario, there's no taste like home."

Our new slogan rings true. The taste of our fresh and processed products is unsurpassed. As the minister indicated, our peaches are juicier and sweeter-tasting than imports, our apples are unsurpassed for eating enjoyment and our tomatoes are rich with sweet and good tomato taste. Together with an increase of $1 million in the budget for other non-advertising activities of Foodland Ontario announced today, this campaign represents an important new thrust in the marketing of fresh and processed Ontario products.

This resolution will be supportive of that and is an extension to that. The minister said it best when he said, "We want to use as many tools as possible to increase the consumption in this province of Ontario-produced fresh and processed products."

The federal government is doing its part to increase the awareness of and the use of Canadian food products as well. A think Canadian campaign for the retail food sector began in October in 4,000 supermarkets across the country. This campaign is designed to encourage Canadian food shoppers to buy Canadian food products. It is the kind of co-operation between governments that I believe is essential if we are to continue to help farmers help themselves.

10:10

The question we all must ask ourselves is, how do we further encourage the increased use of Canadian food products by Ontario consumers? I think there are many advantages, both to the farmer and to the consumer. In 1985, this province purchased $2.9 billion worth of food products from other countries, and in that same year Ontario exported $1.8-billion worth of food products. That is a deficit of $1.1 billion. That is an area I would like to see our farmers compete in, to reduce that deficit and put themselves in a positive exporting position. I feel that can be achieved with proper co-operation between the ministers of agriculture at the provincial and federal levels.

I think it is a crime that in the same year Ontario exported $1.8-billion worth of food products and in a province that produces $5 billion worth of food products every year, we find ourselves with a $1 billion trade deficit. This deficit amounts to more than $3,000 for every person living on a farm in Ontario. It is easy to see how buying the foods produced here can translate into enormous benefits for the farmers who grow here.

In 1985, Ontario imported $24 million worth of apples; 53 per cent of those apples entered the province during our domestic growing season. In 1985, we imported $15 million worth of strawberries, 26 per cent of those during our growing season. We imported almost $8 million worth of peaches; more than $1 million worth of those peaches came to Ontario during our growing season.

The story is much the same when we look at vegetable imports during the 1985 growing season: $2 million worth of asparagus; $6 million worth of lettuce; $4 million worth of potatoes; $3 million worth of carrots; $12 million worth of onions; almost $4 million worth of tomatoes; and well over $1 million worth of cabbage. These products were imported into Ontario during their respective growing seasons. That is when our products are at their prime and when we should be given the opportunity of taking advantage of these markets. Again, we have to stress that quality is important. We should be stressing markets so that we have access to those markets. Again, I hope this resolution can put on some emphasis and get some results as far as bringing the farmer and the end user together is concerned.

The examples I have just mentioned total almost $50 million. That money is going somewhere other than into the pockets of the farmers of Ontario. As members of this Legislature, we must not allow ourselves to be satisfied with the situation as it now stands. It has been estimated that the consumers of Ontario spend about $200 million a week on food. If we could increase the amount they spend on Canadian food products by even one per cent, it would mean another $2 million a week back into the farm economy.

Here is an indication of how important a role the farmer plays. If he can get the dollars, it means money for people in urban communities. Farmers buy products. They need farm equipment and all the essentials of life that city folks do. If they have the money, they will certainly make it go around to help the economy overall.

The purpose of this resolution is to encourage the government to increase our use of Canadian food products. It is our obligation to take the lead in this effort. The government of Ontario is in a position to help farmers help themselves. Every ministry, every government agency, every publicly funded institution must be encouraged to make Canadian food products a priority in their dining rooms, in their cafeterias and at every event where food is being served.

The dining room here at Queen's Park would be a fine example of using Canadian products, and it would be a step forward to specialize when our fresh vegetables are in season. Our asparagus is one of the first vegetables that comes on the market. I know the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) has brought in asparagus himself for the dining room so we could have that special taste fresh from the field.

That should be done automatically. The Minister of Agriculture and Food has requirements to develop marketing, and I know he would be willing to co-operate with the dining room. When they come on stream, there is nothing better than our Ontario fresh-grown strawberries. They should be made available. We also have our beef products, which play an important role and could be focused on. Our pork, our chickens, and our fish from the Great Lakes could be utilized on special occasions.

I bring to the attention of all members of this Legislature, representing every part of Ontario, that every consumer in Ontario is represented here in the Legislature. We should play a very important role in promoting our own farm products and our agricultural industry. The farmers of this province deserve no less. Each and every one of us must keep in mind that every dollar spent on Canadian products is another dollar in a Canadian farmer's pocket. I am positive that if every government function involving food served nothing but Canadian food products, it would prove to be a giant step on the road back for Canadian farmers.

I am personally going to write to every minister urging further consideration of this matter and I ask every member in this House to give serious thought to doing the same. As a government, we have done a great deal to help the farmers of this province. At the same time, we must be constantly on the lookout for ways in which, as members of this provincial parliament, we can further help our farmers.

I do not think for a moment that by adopting the sentiments contained in this resolution we are going to turn the farm economy around. I am sure we will not. This resolution does not ask for much. It asks us to remember the farmer when we buy our food; it asks us to give our farmers a reasonable chance. In short, it asks us to do what we can do and nothing else. I believe that with the support of all members of this Legislature it could be a very important resolution.

I hope all sides, all parties, all members support it, so that we can encourage and strengthen our farm industry and reduce our deficit of $1.1 billion of imported food products and we can be, if the quality is right, an exporting province rather than an importing one. It will be interesting to see, as we go on year after year, what progress we are making. We should set a goal, a benchmark--it could be the benchmark that we have today, the $1.1-billion deficit--to see if we cannot reduce the deficit and become an exporting province. I think that can be achieved.

Quality is the important thing. The new technology to provide storage facilities is important because the consumer wants quality. We cannot emphasize too much that we all want quality, and I think working together it can be achieved.

I would like to reserve the remainder of my time to wrap up after the debate is completed.

Mr. Sheppard: It is a pleasure for me to be addressing the House today on the resolution proposed by the member for Haldimand-Norfolk (Mr. G. I. Miller). I appreciate the apple the member has delivered to each member in the House today. I might mention that we have good apples in the great riding of Northumberland, as well as peas and corn. We have more than 100 growers who grow peas and corn in the great riding of Northumberland.

10:20

The member proposed that the Ontario government further encourage the use of Canadian grown and Canadian-processed food products by all ministries, government agencies and provincially funded institutions. This is a realistic resolution and, quite frankly, I am surprised it was not proposed earlier. Promoting and using Canadian-grown and Canadian-processed food should come naturally to all of us here.

It is important, however, that the resolution not be limited to government agencies and institutions. It should encompass further promotion of Canadian-grown and Canadian-processed foods all across Ontario. We are all aware of the promotion program, Foodland Ontario. The program's general mandate or objective is to stress to the consumer the nutritional value and variety of Ontario foods and the economic benefits both to the consumer and the province as a whole. Basically, the program is to help increase purchase by Ontario consumers of Ontario-produced fresh and processed agricultural products. Further, the program provides information to the consumer on food purchasing, preparation and storage, which will enable him or her to obtain the best value in Ontario foods.

Since the inception of this program in 1977, studies have indicated high awareness of the symbol as an identifier of Ontario food products. The recall of the slogan, "Good things grow in Ontario," is also extremely high, about 90 per cent. We can therefore conclude from these studies that the consumer is more aware of the wide variety of food products grown in Ontario. The potential domestic market in this province is tremendous. Foodland Ontario was able to take advantage of that potential by expanding domestic markets and educating the consumer about the benefits of buying Ontario-grown products.

Unfortunately, however, the Foodland Ontario symbol and the slogan, "Good things grow in Ontario," have basically been associated with fresh fruits, vegetables, dairy products and meats. The Foodland Ontario symbol has little influence on choices among canned and packaged products such as canned apple juice, tomatoes and peaches and packaged meats such as bacon. In the case of both packaged and canned products, it appears that brand names continue to overshadow the consideration of buying domestically. This is definitely an area that needs further consideration by the government to fulfil this resolution to its maximum potential.

Another important aspect of the Foodland Ontario program is the various trade missions that assist Ontario in expanding its export market of agricultural and food products. Ontario's international trade missions have been very successful in the past, not only to the United States and the United Kingdom, but to other countries and regions such as Japan, Europe and the Caribbean as well. As I mentioned earlier, this is a positive resolution. I agree that the government could be doing more to promote and encourage the use of Canadian-grown and Canadian-processed foods.

If ministries are not already following this practice, they should be doing so. To begin with, without exception, ministries should be serving Canadian foods and beverages at functions and meetings. Ads promoting Ontario foods should be included in ministry newsletters and other government publications such as Topical and Job Mart.

Some Ministry of Correctional Services institutions produce and process their own foods. A co-operative effort to pursue this alternative is definitely a means by which the government could regulate and control the use of Canadian grown and Canadian-processed foods in government institutions.

The Ministry of Government Services could stimulate the use of Canadian-grown and Canadian-processed foods in government building cafeterias. At present, this service is contracted out to private companies that are not obligated to buy and sell only Canadian products.

I will emphasize again, however, that promoting the use of Canadian food products by ministries, government agencies and institutions is only a small part. We must continue to broaden the Foodland Ontario campaign through television, radio, newspapers and magazines to make consumers even more aware of the high quality of Ontario-grown food available year-round.

As I said earlier, maybe a special campaign could be launched to promote not only fresh products but also Canadian canned, frozen and packaged foods. Consumers want to buy from their own province and will do so if they are aware of the products.

We must also continue to promote the concept of fewer imports and more exports. Programs such as the export promotion program and the export sales aid program provided added incentives for Ontario companies to develop overseas markets. The shared-cost program provided incentives to commodity groups. As I mentioned earlier, trade missions have resulted in an increased awareness among Far East buyers of a wide range of Ontario agriculture and food products.

Continued support of the BILD food processing assistance program is required to provide an efficient food processing sector in Ontario. The main objective here is to increase the value added processing of Ontario agricultural products so that we may replace imports and create exports expansion, increased agricultural production in Ontario and, last but not least, jobs for the people in this province.

Mr. Charlton: I too rise in support of the resolution this morning. I compliment the member for Haldimand-Norfolk for bringing it forward. As he said, this resolution will not turn around the farm economy in Ontario, but at least it allows us to discuss the perspective of what is happening in agriculture in Ontario and right across Canada.

The resolution is a symbol of the lack of commitment we have had to our agricultural community and the continuous decline of agriculture in Ontario over the past century. During the course of that century, the governments in this province have paid lip service on a regular, almost daily basis to the agricultural community in this province and--I do not fully understand why--have largely maintained the support of that community, in electoral terms at least.

The member for Haldimand-Norfolk is correct to point out that we have a $1.1-billion deficit in agricultural products in Ontario. For any province in Canada, let alone Ontario, to be a net importer of agricultural products is a disgrace.

This resolution, as the member for Haldimand-Norfolk and the previous speaker have suggested, will not solve the problems in the farm economy, but with support for this kind of resolution we can focus some of the commitment that is ultimately going to be necessary to start to turn around the farm economy.

The previous speaker mentioned that the problems in the agricultural community in Ontario are far bigger than this resolution addresses. We all know that. It is a basic commitment to an economic structure that ultimately has to be addressed. That is what this resolution does not address. I believe the resolution is put forward as a symbol of the problem that exists, as the member for Haldimand-Norfolk said, but it does not address the problem of the basic economy in the agricultural community.

We must have some major commitment coming forth in this country, not a commitment to patchwork, as we have seen for the past 20 years, not a commitment to staving off foreclosures, a commitment to this and a commitment to that, to putting out fires as the fires arise in the agricultural community, but a commitment to building an agricultural economy that is viable in Ontario. It is all part of the other economic discussions that are going on in Ontario and in Canada.

10:30

It is not good enough for us to have resolutions such as this, although we support them, or to have the kind of piecemeal programs the Minister of Agriculture and Food has been announcing over the course of the last year, one at a time. After each program, he assesses how much of the fire he has managed to put out, how much remains to be dealt with, how many farmers we are going to let go down the drain and how many we can save.

We are talking about an economy in the same way we talk about free trade, and that is unfortunate. I recall when the free trade issue was first raised some two years ago by the Mulroney government in Ottawa, a government that is supposed to be committed to the agricultural community in Canada. I have not yet once heard Mulroney, Michael Wilson or Pat Carney talk about the effect an overall, universal free trade package will have on the agricultural community in Canada. I have heard them respond to some of the trade union concerns about jobs. I have heard them attempt to respond to some of the other concerns about cultural and sovereignty questions in Canada.

A number of times during the free trade debate I recall the agricultural organizations in this country, specifically those in this province, saying repeatedly that free trade will destroy the family farm. I believe that to be true, but we are not addressing that issue here as we should be. It is certainly not reflected in the statements the Premier has made about free trade negotiations. He has not been the most supportive Premier in terms of the one-package free trade approach Mulroney has taken; on the other hand, he has not opposed it either.

This government has not come forward in strong, demanding terms to protect the agricultural community in those negotiations. That has to be part of it. It cannot be a token resolution here, a token program there and the implementation of a temporary program over here to stave off some foreclosures in 1982, 1983, 1985, 1986 or 1987. Either there should be a commitment to building an economic base for the agricultural community or the government should let it go.

It is no different from discussing any other industry in the economy of Canada. Either you decide it is a viable industry you want to keep and are prepared to make the commitment to build the economic base for that industry or you let it go to die.

As long as we are saying the agricultural industry should survive, there is no point in our standing in this House and talking about the problems in agriculture and passing resolutions such as this, although we have to support them, if we are not prepared to go the five steps beyond that in our relationships with the other provinces and the federal government. We must negotiate and fight for the development of an economy for agriculture that will allow it ultimately to survive without the continual need for patchwork programs.

There is no point to it if we cannot get beyond having token resolutions that say ministries, crown agencies and provincially funded institutions should buy Ontario food because we have a problem; if we cannot get beyond saying, as the member for Northumberland (Mr. Sheppard) said, that we have to continue to support the advertising campaign; and if we cannot get beyond having to listen to the announcements from the Minister of Agriculture and Food, all of which are reflections of the problem we are failing to deal with, all of which are made necessary by our failure to deal with the problem in real terms

The other two parties in this House, because they largely represent the agricultural communities in this province, like to take unto themselves the claim that they represent the farmers. It is difficult to deny that when a farmer stands up in the House today and moves this resolution and the first speaker for the official opposition is a farmer as well. I remind members it was this party, which at that time did not have any farmers at all, that started raising the issue in the mid-1970s of the disappearing agricultural land in this province.

We still have not come to terms with that issue. It is still out there. Agricultural land is still going out of production every day of every week of every month of every year that passes, and we are doing nothing in concrete terms to address that problem. We are doing patchwork things by trying to prevent farmer A or farmer X from going under in week three or week seven, but we are not addressing the problem of why it is happening. Until we are prepared to come to terms with that, although we have to support resolutions like this, they will mean less and less each time we deal with them in terms of supporting the agricultural community and getting at what the resolutions express, which is this emotional support we continually give to the survival of the agricultural community in Ontario.

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

Mr. McKessock: It is a pleasure for me also to rise in favour of the resolution of my colleague the member for Haldimand-Norfolk, "That, in the opinion of this House, the Ontario government further encourage the use of Canadian grown and Canadian-processed food products by all ministries, government agencies and provincially funded institutions."

By promoting the use of Canadian food products in our ministries, we are helping to increase consumer awareness of commodities produced here at home. We are also taking the lead and encouraging consumers to choose domestic products when and where possible. Encouraging consumers to buy home-grown products has a spinoff effect that will be felt throughout the economy.

First, buying locally grown produce will help ease the burden of imports from the United States and other countries, which puts so much pressure on our farmers. Farming in Canada is heavily tied to the world economy, and competition for agricultural commodities is high. Our farmers are in a position where they have to try to market their products against the highly subsidized imports of the US and the European Community.

The problem is that both the US and the European Community receive vast subsidies on their farm products and can afford to sell them on the Canadian market at well below the cost of production. If Ontario farmers were allowed to compete, let us say on their knowledge and good practice of farming, they could compete without any trouble, but it is hard to compete against the treasuries of other countries.

Encouraging all Canadians to buy fresh Canadian produce and foods that have been processed here at home will help our farmers and the producers to maintain their market share. If we lose too many farmers, we may become dependent on imports in this country. We should never let ourselves get into that position. If we ensure that our agricultural industry is kept strong, we will not have to rely on imports. We should always keep ourselves in a position of being able to feed ourselves.

This resolution is not just for farmers. In the longer term, it will also help create jobs and keep food dollars within the economy. When I talk about it creating jobs, we know that one out of five jobs in Canada is related to the agricultural and food processing industries. Many jobs are created in food processing, packaging and sales of agricultural products. If we lose our share in the Canadian market for agricultural products, then we also lose the jobs that go along with it. This resolution is very important not only for farmers but also for everyone in Canada, to help keep our economy strong and to keep our jobs in the agricultural sector at a high level.

10:40

Canadians can also choose to buy substitute products. This favours our producers. We can drink apple juice in the morning instead of orange juice. As has been pointed out, we have nice apples on our desks this morning, given to us by the member who introduced this resolution. It is an indication of the good products grown in this country. We have to watch that we do not choose imports when we go to the food stores to buy products. We should make it a habit to ask the manager or whomever is selling the product where this product comes from. Where are these apples grown? If the apples are from outside Canada, we should ask whether he has any Canadian products.

There are good reasons for that besides economy. The quality of our produce in Canada is outstanding. Freshness is something on which we have a monopoly, because it is hard to bring in products from outside this country and keep them fresh. Freshness is of great importance. Freshness and taste go together. We feel the products we develop and produce in Canada are the tastiest and the freshest.

It does not require any legislation to continue to promote a buy Canadian philosophy. It is something each and every one of us can undertake. Buying Canadian products is the simplest and most direct way we can ensure that Canadian products receive their market share and put new life into our agricultural sector.

I feel Ontario has already taken large steps in this direction. After all, Ontario is Canada's largest producer of agricultural food products and accounts for almost 30 per cent of the total Canadian agricultural food production. The potential domestic market in Ontario is very high. Programs such as Foodland Ontario, which recently got a budget increase of $1 million, take advantage of that potential by expanding domestic markets and educating the consumer about the benefits of buying Ontario-grown products. These campaigns stress the nutritional value and variety of Ontario foods and the economic benefit to consumers and the province as a whole which results when they buy domestically produced food.

I feel it is important that we continue to set an example and create opportunities to help competitive Canadian food products maintain their rightful place in the marketplace.

The great number of products we have in Canada was mentioned, but some of them are being squeezed pretty hard by imports. Fish was mentioned. We have a large importation of fish into this country; the same is true of lamb. We have the ability to produce all the fish and lamb we need in this country and of course all the other agricultural products. But we must have a price on that product capable of paying the farmer his cost plus a reasonable profit. One way the consumer can help bring that about is to make sure he or she buys Canadian products. When we are buying fish or lamb we should also ask, "Where is this product produced?" If it is not a Canadian product we should ask where we can get such a product.

I was travelling on Air Canada a while back. I noticed they served wines on the plane, but they did not ask whether you wanted a Canadian wine; they asked whether you wanted French or German wine. When cases such as this come up, passengers should always request, "Do you have a Canadian product?" They should make sure the opportunity is there.

Often the people who are serving these products do not know what the product is, or if they know they are following directions from the owner. We should write Air Canada, A & P, Loblaws or whoever is promoting imported foods and try to get across to them that we want a good display of Canadian foods on the shelves and the opportunity to buy them.

By buying more Canadian products we are stimulating the growing, producing, processing, distribution and retailing sectors of our economy. We are also helping to create and maintain jobs.

In conclusion, taking steps that encourage the use of Canadian products makes good sense. It is a non-tariff barrier to imported foods to our country that is legal and beneficial to our economy. It is a program in which everyone can take part and do his share to help maintain and strengthen this great country of Canada.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: I rise to support the resolution presented by the member for Haldimand-Norfolk, "That, in the opinion of this House, the Ontario government further encourage the use of Canadian-grown and Canadian-processed food products by all ministries, government agencies and provincially funded institutions." I repeat that for the third time this morning, but we should emphasize to the government and its agencies that it should be using Canadian-grown produce and foods.

I also thank the member for Haldimand-Norfolk for the apple. I am sure my colleague the member for Wentworth (Mr. Dean) will eat most of those distributed in his row, since he loves apples.

I have the honour to represent a rural riding, as does the member for Haldimand-Norfolk. It is good common sense to encourage the agencies and institutions that are funded by the government to use Canadian-grown food and products from that food.

Several years ago, the then Minister of Correctional Services, Frank Drea, requested that the institutions under his ministry give his friendly boarders the benefit of Canadian-grown produce. He served them tomato juice, grape juice and vegetable juice instead of imported orange and grapefruit juice. It makes a lot of sense. There is as much nourishment in our fruit and vegetables as there is in citrus fruits from the south. If medical people feel citrus fruit is required on occasion, they can use it, but not every day. In my opinion, it is just as healthy if not healthier to use our food, because we know how it is treated.

Hospitals, nursing homes, homes for the aged, day care centres, schools and universities all receive government funding and assistance. There is no reason they could not follow the proposal of this resolution and use Canadian fruits and vegetables instead of imported produce.

The same example could be followed in the use of fish, poultry, meat and other vegetables. We grow excellent potatoes in the Shelburne area of Dufferin county. As the member for Grey (Mr. McKessock) knows, they are some of the best potatoes in Ontario and Canada. There is no reason to import Idaho potatoes. Excellent lamb is raised in Ontario. We do not have to serve imported New Zealand lamb in these government institutions. If the government sets an example and does not serve imported food in institutions, the people themselves may do the same in their own homes.

We should go further than this resolution. We should educate our citizens, especially our children, about the benefits of eating good-quality Canadian food. Many imported fruits and vegetables are grown in conditions that are not acceptable in Ontario and Canada. Chemicals, pesticides and herbicides that are not licensed to be used in this country are used in other countries.

10:50

As one example, in my riding, our government and the Department of National Health and Welfare say we cannot use certain chemicals for red wheat, which goes into cereal, and many fruits are not allowed to be sprayed with certain chemicals, yet we import them from other countries. They use the spray in these other countries. The other people are using it without knowing.

While we are trying to protect our people by saying we cannot use the chemicals, we are allowing them to be imported into the country and there is no control on them. It does not make sense. What we need is a pure food act. Either they are not acceptable in any form or they are acceptable.

I understand Florida welcomes tourists, but it does not welcome produce from outside the state. The Florida government has an economic incentive to encourage residents to use Florida produce.

These are examples of states and other countries that will not allow our food to come in, and yet they send us many million of dollars worth of food.

I remember many years ago--12 or 15 years anyway--I was travelling with my family, and we were going from Canada into the US by way of Duluth. The border patrol searched the car, and the only thing they were concerned about was citrus fruit. We had some oranges in our cooler, and they refused to allow the oranges to cross into the country. Everything else was okay, but not the oranges, not the fruits or vegetables. Their concern was contamination or disease, but they also feel they are protecting their markets.

As I have mentioned, for health reasons alone it is better to eat Canadian fruit and vegetables. It has always been my contention that the Minister of Education (Mr. Conway), who was here earlier this morning--I hope the member for Haldimand-Norfolk will speak to him later should work very closely with the Minister of Agriculture and Food to develop better programs to educate our young people to the many reasons they should be using Canadian and Ontario food.

As I mentioned, health is one very important reason, but there are others as well. Economic benefits would be high on the list. Many of the people in the city are not knowledgeable about the dramatic economic impact in rural Ontario today--the declining markets and the inability of many farmers to meet their financial needs because they think only of buying what appears to be cheapest. There are very few countries that at some point in the calendar year cannot produce something and ship it into Canada for less money.

If we are concerned only about the cost and nothing else, our farmers will not be in existence for many years, and then we will have no choice but to pay the import price. At that time they can set the price at whatever they desire and we will be forced to pay it. If more people realized how it impacts on our farmers, they would be more interested in buying Canadian and Ontario food and helping to preserve the farmers.

The Americans, who brought out the US farm bill, have poured many billions of dollars into their farm economy. Our governments are not doing the same thing. The American consumers are indirectly supporting the farmers through the US farm bill. Our consumers should consider that. It is a direct subsidy, yet we do not seem to appreciate the impact it is having on our farming population.

I would like to close by giving one example of a concern I have about the education process and maybe the lack of it. One of the fruit farmers in my riding told me of an experience he had this past spring. A teacher brought a group of young students out to look at his orchards. One of the things he asked the fruit grower was to show the students the poison they spray on the apples. That is an example of some of the problems we have. If those young people think there is poison on apples, they will not be so inclined to eat the apples the member has presented to us this morning.

The government has a responsibility to make sure this type of misleading information is not spread. We have a very controlled program in Ontario and in Canada to make sure the pesticides and chemicals that are used are safe for human consumption and far safer than any of the countries we import from. That message should be given to the public and especially to our young people in the school system.

Mr. G. I. Miller: I thank all members in the House who participated in the debate on the resolution this morning. The member for Northumberland indicated they grow good apples and vegetables down there. We are well aware of that and appreciate that. There are many areas in Ontario that produce excellent fruit. I know the member for Grey put apples from his area on the desks only a few weeks ago.

We know the resolution is not the answer to all the problems in the agricultural industry, as the member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Charlton) indicated. It is a small step and a benchmark we would like to achieve by getting a balance of trade in Ontario as far as the agricultural industry is concerned.

We would also like to establish an outlet here at the Legislature where our food might be bought or apples might be made available to all members. I know in our caucus we have apple juice available; I assume that is so on all sides of the House. We could increase that to include apples, grape juice and even peanuts.

I would like to give these to the leaders of our three parties, if I could have one of the pages deliver them to the Leader of the Opposition, the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Grossman). These are kernel peanuts. We have three peanut producers in Ontario. I am also sending some to the leader of the third party, the member for York South (Mr. Rae), and the Premier, just to indicate that we do grow peanuts in Ontario. They could be available here in our little store where we could all have access to them.

At the domed stadium, which the province is putting so much money into, there is a market there for them, because anybody who goes to the ball game always buys a bag of peanuts. We could be using our own. If we are going to subsidize a facility such as that, agriculture should be able to play a role and get a return for our producers. Those areas are so important.

The other thing at this time of the year, Christmas, is that we have the people lining up at the soup kitchens because they do not have food available and we have to look for handouts from our society to help our fellow man. I am not against that, but it seems to me there must be excess food sitting around that could be provided to food banks so people do not have to go hungry or do not have to go begging. Something that bothers me more than anything else is to see somebody have to go cold, without shelter and without food. Those are three ingredients we should not have to contend with here in Ontario, because we have all the resources to work with to provide them.

I am pleased to have the opportunity of presenting this resolution, and I ask not only for the support but also for the help of all members of the Legislature in trying to achieve and accomplish what the resolution suggests.

The Deputy Speaker: In view of the fact that no peanuts were shared with other members of the Legislature, we certainly cannot let the member go further over his time limit.

Mr. G. I. Miller: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: If the members had been in agricultural estimates the other day they would have been aware that peanuts were available. You just have to be in the right place at the right time. They are available, and we would love to see all caucuses have them in their caucus rooms. I am sure the producers would appreciate that, and it would be something for the leaders to suggest.

11:00

SATELLITE DIALYSIS UNIT

Mr. Turner moved resolution 69:

That, in the opinion of this House, recognizing that there is no haemodialysis unit in any hospital between Toronto and Kingston and recognizing that people requiring dialysis must travel long distances several times weekly to receive this treatment, the Minister of Health should approve and facilitate the supplying of a satellite dialysis unit to a hospital in Peterborough.

The Deputy Speaker: The honourable member has up to 20 minutes for his presentation and may reserve any portion of it for his windup.

Mr. Turner: I think I can say everything I have to say within the 20 minutes. I will not reserve any further time.

I am pleased to move this very important resolution today, since I feel it addresses an important and somewhat neglected issue in the field of health care in this province and, certainly, within the constituency of Peterborough. This area of concern has been identified for me by the constituents in Peterborough. However, I am well aware that it is a concern that touches the lives of many residents across Ontario.

Health care and the provision of excellent services in this area have long been priorities of this province. We are privileged to live in a province able to benefit from the high standards of medical care that have been developed through the years. In the past, we have seen that as concerns have arisen, they have been addressed, with attention paid and care given to provide the best possible health care in the most efficient manner possible.

We work within the framework of a system where needs, as identified, are evaluated and fulfilled in the best possible way. Bearing this commitment in mind, within the past few months I have become increasingly aware of the growing and urgent need for an improvement and rationalization of services in one particular area of the health care field. The area to which I refer deals with the realm of internal medicine, specifically with patients with kidney disorders who require haemodialysis.

From letters written to me by various constituents, from conversations and petitions, I have come to appreciate that the provision of haemodialysis in the Peterborough area is not satisfactory and actually creates a great deal of undue hardship for those who must rely on these services. Currently, the system is one that poses frustrating and upsetting roadblocks, pitting the need for treatment against the desire to pursue what most of us would consider to be a normal life.

It has been pointed out to me that the remedy for this situation is actually very simple and has been effected with great success in other regions of this province. The solution of the current problems created for kidney patients in their pursuit of life-sustaining treatment lies in the establishment of a minimal-assistance, self-care dialysis centre or a satellite haemodialysis unit. My understanding of the issue leads me to believe that such a system could be established quickly and relatively economically. In the long run, the benefits in terms of care and convenience and the overall improvement that this minor adjustment can make for health care in general are such that the time has come for the foundation of such a unit in Peterborough and in many other centres in this great province of ours.

I have asked, in the form of a resolution, that the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston) approve and facilitate the supplying of a satellite haemodialysis unit in Peterborough. This is not to minimize in any way the importance of this subject to other major population centres in this province that have exactly the same problem.

This is a consideration of utmost concern to a significant number of residents in Peterborough and the surrounding area. In the early fall of this year, I provided the Minister of Health with a copy of this petition, which was signed by more than 90 constituents, all of whom are affected to some degree, either directly or indirectly, by the availability of haemodialysis services in Peterborough, or the lack thereof.

The petition is signed not only by kidney patients on, or expecting to be on, dialysis regularly, but also by patients who have had kidney transplants, by volunteers of the Peterborough chapter of the Kidney Foundation of Canada and by a number of professional people with an understanding of the issue who support the request for a satellite dialysis unit in the area of Peterborough.

Let me say very clearly and very quickly that I am far from being an expert on medical matters, but the positive implications of locating such a facility in Peterborough are quite obvious and very clear.

I am informed that there are two different types of dialysis used in the regular treatment of kidney patients. One of these is known as peritoneal dialysis. This is an ongoing process which allows a good deal of freedom to a patient, who is not hampered by having to break his or her daily routine for the treatment. The other method, known as haemodialysis, is a different, more cumbersome system, the provision of which is of concern to me. Although I cannot give a detailed account of why one patient uses one system and another patient uses the other, it is clear that while one system is satisfactory for one patient, it does not suit another.

The process of haemodialysis requires that the patient be hooked up to a stationary machine for anywhere between two and eight hours at a time, on an average of three times a week. Mr. Speaker, I ask you to reflect on that. While you were sitting in the chair, you could be hooked up.

I think we should all take a moment to reflect on the effect that such a time requirement would have on each and every one of us. I say this with the greatest of respect. Not only does it take valuable time out of the average working day, but it does so on such a regular basis that it would also indeed be very difficult for any one of us to function as we do in our various roles in this Legislature.

This effect is compounded in many areas of the province by the lack of easily accessible treatment facilities. As was mentioned recently by the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere (Mr. Warner), who is in his seat this morning--and I am very pleased to see him here--there is currently not a single facility between Toronto and Kingston, a travelling distance of three hours, which is set to provide kidney dialysis service.

Therefore, for patients of the riding of Peterborough, regular treatment by dialysis requires a round trip of four hours made to a kidney centre three times a week. This involves a massive commitment of time, energy and money on the part of kidney patients seeking regular and essential treatment. Time and again, this point has been brought home. The interruption to normal life is a serious problem.

Recently, I was made aware of a young girl who is going to begin dialysis treatments in Toronto on a thrice-weekly basis. Not only will such treatment make it exceedingly difficult for her to carry on with her regular school activities, but the time and energy spent by her whole family in this process will also have a profound effect on all their lives.

Because there are currently no available facilities in the area, Peterborough kidney patients spend up to $40 per trip in pursuit of this treatment. They lose out further from difficulties presented in securing employment, which will afford them the necessary time for this essential travel.

Right now, I believe 16 people from Peterborough make the trip regularly to Toronto or Kingston for these treatments. The human toll taken in frustration and inconvenience must be devastating. Being dependent on such treatments must be difficult. I suggest that driving at least two hours, at this time of year, on our infamous Highway 115, perhaps through snowy blizzard conditions, to receive this treatment does very little to lessen the burden.

An alternative means of receiving dialysis is provided through the use of machines installed in the homes of individual patients. For eligible candidates, this treatment provides a welcome relief from the burden of continuous travel. In many cases, however, the benefits of this convenience have been tempered by problems with the aged machines provided.

My understanding is that machines are made available to certain patients who have family members or friends willing and able to take the training required to run the machine and monitor the care of the patient while he or she is undergoing treatment. Eligibility as a candidate in this program is limited to those who have adequate facilities at home, and it is therefore not a means of treatment that is suitable to every patient.

11:10

The benefits of this system to the patients, through convenience, make an appreciable difference. However, the limitations of this system cannot be denied. Equipment breakdowns force patients to make frightening emergency trips to a hospital with dialysis services, and even booking time on these machines can be extremely difficult. The time delay this can cause presents not only an additional worry to patients, but also, if prolonged, can become dangerous to their health. I cannot help but sympathize with the uncertainty that these people must deal with every day of their lives.

What of the family member responsible for giving the assistance with these dialysis treatments at home? The stress and physical strain involved in monitoring the patient and the equipment and the time commitment required in the process create an additional burden on the rest of the family. Should the assistant take ill, there is the additional worry of finding someone else who can take over provision of care in the interim period.

I sincerely hope the Minister of Health will immediately focus his attention on this facet of the health care system in our province, one that is obviously lacking. I respectfully suggest that improvements are warranted, not only for efficiency's sake but also for the standard of care provided in Peterborough and other centres in this province.

At best, the system seems to me to be inefficient. At worst, I fear for the danger posed in many instances and for the frustrations caused to the patients. I regret the continued waste of human and financial resources caused by a system that can be so easily and hastily remedied. I am convinced that a simple and efficient means to improve this area of health care lies in the establishment of a satellite dialysis unit for the central Ontario region at a hospital in Peterborough. There are a number of satellite programs currently active, and apparently very successful, in Ontario today. One of these is located in Hanover. It was established in 1977 as a satellite of Victoria Hospital in London. As a satellite unit, the dialysis machines are located and beds provided at the Hanover and District Hospital and nursing staff are made available for monitoring and care of the patients.

As such, it is a skin-and-bones type of dialysis operation, providing treatment on an outpatient basis with any detailed specialized care being given at the base hospital in London. Care of the patients is closely monitored and in-depth reports are submitted to the kidney specialist at the base hospital. The entire operation is geared to the provision of this treatment on an efficient outpatient basis with a minimum of confusion or inconvenience to the patient and a high degree of patient care.

The benefits of this program are obvious. Machinery is less likely to break down, and if it happens, there are people on the spot who are trained to deal with the problems created. With a structured reporting system and medical staff available, the patient is guaranteed that the treatment will progress as it should. Furthermore, to name the obvious, the availability of treatment closer to home cannot help but be a tremendous relief to patients accustomed to travelling long distances and to the rest of their families.

Another concern that has been presented in terms of Peterborough arises directly from the immediate problem of distance, especially in Toronto cases, such as accident victims or in the case of kidney failure. In such cases, time spent transporting the patient to the proper emergency facilities cannot in any way benefit the patient. From that standpoint, the need for a local facility is undeniable.

The statistics speak for themselves. Of all the kidney patients in the Hanover area since the establishment of a satellite unit, 60 per cent now are using the unit on a regular basis, leaving only 40 per cent on home dialysis machines. In Hanover, the minimal assistance self-care program has been encouraged as an alternative to home care. It is obvious that the program has been very well received, so much so that a satellite program has recently been developed to run out of the base hospital in London. As an outpatient program, this service has proved itself to be a cost-efficient and manpower-efficient means of providing this much-needed service to kidney patients in this region.

Again, I call upon the Minister of Health to facilitate the provision of the same standard of care throughout the province. I propose Peterborough as the most logical geographical location to consider for such a unit in the east-central Ontario area. We have a number of excellent medical facilities in the city, and the need for this additional facility is clear.

I know the Minister of Health is well aware of the demand for such a facility in the Peterborough area, and I understand and sincerely hope he is looking into the matter actively. I urge him as strongly as I can to evaluate the services currently provided and take steps immediately to approve the establishment of such a unit.

I have been in contact with Sam Majic, president of the Peterborough chapter of the Kidney Foundation of Canada. Among the many activities of this organization, they have spearheaded numerous successful fund-raising drives. I am told much of the money raised is currently being used to finance the travel necessary for kidney patients receiving treatment in centres away from Peterborough. I find this extremely disturbing, and I question a system that fosters the inefficient use of time and places such a strain on people, especially when there is a simple and effective solution to the problem.

I have been asked to pass on a challenge from this chapter of the Kidney Foundation, and to notify the minister that this organization based in Peterborough will come up with the funding to buy the machine. It asks only for ministry approval and operating costs to run such a program in a designated Peterborough hospital.

In the Peterborough area, we have medical personnel trained and willing to work in such a dialysis unit, and we have excellent hospital facilities, with access to the kidney centres of Montreal and Toronto for follow-up visits. The need for this unit has been demonstrated. The solution is obvious, very simple and highly effective.

On behalf of kidney patients in Peterborough and surrounding area, and indeed those in the rest of the province, who ask only for a chance to lead normal, productive lives, I ask the Minister of Health to re-evaluate the program of services currently available in our area and in other parts of the province, and I urge him to work with us towards the establishment of a satellite dialysis unit in a Peterborough hospital.

Mr. Warner: I am very pleased to support the resolution brought forward by the member for Peterborough (Mr. Turner). He is to be congratulated, because he raises a very serious problem which especially affects the area between Toronto and Kingston but, no doubt, other areas in the province as well.

At the outset, I want to pay tribute to two doctors in my area with whom I have been working closely and who are to be personally congratulated on their determination to achieve for the people of Scarborough the appropriate services in the renal dialysis program. They are Dr. Paul Tam and Dr. Allan Toguri, both of whom have worked exceedingly hard on this issue.

I want to quote Dr. Tam, who said one of his patients died while waiting to get on a renal dialysis program for kidney failure. "There was no room at a downtown Toronto hospital, so he had to wait. He finally died from complications while waiting to get on a dialysis machine."

Each year, of every one million people in Canada, about 60 people go into end-stage renal failure and are in need of dialysis to stay alive. There is no such program between downtown Toronto and Kingston. It seems to me it is quite a shame that in a society we pride as being civilized and well organized, we cannot provide the kind of service that would prevent that tragedy.

11:20

Scarborough General Hospital commissioned a study by Peat Marwick. The study was extremely useful. One of its conclusions was that patients in need of chronic dialysis cannot be handled at Scarborough General Hospital since it lacks the facilities for patient teaching to begin a chronic program, and for ongoing patient management. The need has been clearly identified, not just by the hospital and by people living in the community but also by a very thorough study completed by Peat Marwick.

In addition, a Department of National Health and Welfare guideline for regional renal failure programs estimates 200 to 300 people per million population are at risk. Of these, 25 per cent may require full care; that is, 50 to 75 cases per year will require three dialyses a week in hospital. Of the total population at risk, 10 per cent will require a period of hospitalization in any given year. The patient load for a regional dialysis centre should not exceed 50 to 75 full-care patients. Each region of one million population will require approximately 20 ambulatory dialysis treatment stations. This allows sufficient capacity to treat patients for end-stage renal disease and still leaves a reserve for dialysis of patients with other indications.

Using the federal guidelines, the at-risk population for the city of Scarborough would be approximately 100 to 150, and a 10-bed dialysis facility would be warranted. The centre could also serve surrounding communities as treatment space is available. Of course, we have been attempting to assist people in the surrounding communities of Pickering, Durham and so on.

In attempting to achieve a modern approach to health care, we are looking more and more at what can be done in the community and relying less on hospital facilities. Indeed, this program falls into that category very nicely. Patients on renal dialysis fall into one of three main programs of patient care: centre dialysis patients, who are dialysed in hospitals by staff; self-dialysed patients, who are dialysed in hospitals by themselves; and a home dialysis program, where the patients care for themselves and are assisted by family members. That aspect means that with only a 10-bed unit we can accommodate up to 100 people per year. That is making efficient use of very scarce resources, which are always a problem in communities and particularly in hospitals.

The issue at Scarborough General has been known for some time. A great deal of study has been done, as I mentioned, by an outside source, Peat Marwick, and by the Department of National Health and Welfare. The community has been aware of the problem. Doctors in the hospital have pushed hard for a long time. The matter has been before the district health council for almost three years, yet no decision has been made. To me that is inexcusable. I do not know how in good conscience the government could have allowed this decision to drag on for almost three years.

I am going to read a little quote from Mrs. Helen McBrien, the widow of Dr. McBrien, a long-time and well-respected family doctor in Scarborough. Last year, Dr. McBrien died of kidney failure. In his three years on dialysis, he spent 254 days at Toronto Western Hospital. His wife drove him downtown three times a week, and each trip took 35 minutes to an hour. The couple lived two blocks from Scarborough General Hospital, and Dr. McBrien was attempting to maintain his medical practice as a family physician. Here was a doctor attempting to serve his patients and not let them down, yet three times a week he had to make a trip downtown while, ironically, he lived only two blocks from our hospital. That says to me we have failed. When we know how to handle problems and do not handle them, that is failure.

On this issue, the previous government failed to deliver the program that was identified and needed, and the present government continues to fail. I am becoming very frustrated by it all. I have raised the matter in the House on more than one occasion. I have written to the minister, but to date we still have no answer. I know, as the member for Peterborough knows, that there are people in our community who are suffering from kidney disease who could be assisted, both in the hospital and in their own home, at a relatively low cost, yet they are not being helped. We have the knowledge, the expertise, the equipment and the money; but there is no action.

I am pleased this morning to rise in support of the member for Peterborough. I hope other members in this assembly will do as the member and I have done and continue to put pressure on this government to deliver, because there is nothing more important in our lives in Ontario than our health care system--nothing. We have a lot of work to do to provide the health care services that people in Ontario need and deserve.

When Dr. Tam and Dr. Toguri came in to see me about this, I made a pledge to them, which I will repeat, assuming the minister will be reading it. I said I would not rest until Scarborough General Hospital has a renal dialysis program. I assume the member for Peterborough will do likewise in his community.

Mr. Polsinelli: In rising to speak to this resolution, I want to describe to the members of this assembly a number of aspects of our health care system that must be considered before a decision such as that proposed by my colleague here today is enacted.

In the past three decades, we have seen phenomenal increases in our use of health care services and in health care costs. Ministry of Health expenditures have been growing at an average of 12 per cent in the past 10 years, far surpassing the rate of inflation. Only 10 years ago, the total actual expenditures of the Ontario Ministry of Health were slightly more than $3 billion. This year, the budget will be more than $10 billion, representing approximately 32 per cent of all provincial expenditures.

Health care in this province is big business. The system, which employs more than 200,000 people, outranks many of Canada's largest corporations. If ministry expenditures were compared with the sales and operating revenues of Canada's largest industrial companies as reported by the Financial Post, it would rank in the top five.

In recent years, ministry spending has increased by five per cent per year in real terms. If these trends continue, the increase in our health care budget, excluding inflation, will be $3 billion over the next five years. While a one-third hike in real health care spending is projected, no one seriously believes we are going to be one third healthier as a result. It is apparent that more health care is not necessarily better health care. We must now focus on quality and value rather than on quantity and volume.

11:30

We need only look south of the border to see that quantity of care is not directly related to quality of care. In 1985, our American neighbours spent proportionately more on health care than we did: 10 per cent of the US gross national product, compared with 8.5 per cent of the Canadian gross national product. However, on the basis of many indicators, such as infant mortality, Canadians are healthier than Americans.

In Ontario, growth in health care spending has occurred despite the fact that no major new universal health care programs have been introduced in the past five years. We are largely buying more of the same, but buying more of the same can restrict our ability to buy what is new, different or innovative. What is more, health care is only one of a number of government programs that people expect to be funded and provided. Housing, job creation, education and social services are all competing for a legitimate share of government revenue.

These demands are coming at a time when the federal government is cutting back on transfer funds in health care and education and is looking to the provinces to shoulder a greater portion of the financial load. With the revolution now occurring in medical and health care technology, it is certain there will never be enough money to cope with the growing demand for services unless the health care system is carefully managed.

The cost of health care affects all of us, whether we are health professionals, businessmen, politicians or private citizens. It is an issue we must respond to as a society, because it raises not only financial considerations but also moral and ethical values.

What kind of health care system do we want? What kind of system can we afford? What kind of system will benefit the most people? What kind of system provides compassionate and necessary care, with prudent managers? These are questions we all have to answer; ones we all must propose and discuss.

Let us identify some of the pressures within our health care system. In the past five years, we have recorded a 54 per cent increase in the volume of private lab tests. In other words, in 1985-86, Ontarians utilized half again as many lab tests as five years earlier. Over the past seven years, the cost of prescription claims under the Ontario drug benefit plan increased by almost 300 per cent. That is an astonishing and alarming figure. While rising drug costs and expanded benefits in a growing elderly population are significant factors in these developments, they alone do not account for the volume of increases we are seeing. We have to ask ourselves whether there is some inappropriate use of our drug benefit plan.

In 1985, a record 1,405 new physicians registered to practise in Ontario. These new registrants represented an almost six per cent increase in the number of physicians in the province in just one year. Our general population growth, by the way, is averaging about 1.2 per cent annually. Today in this province, our physician-to-population ratio is one doctor for every 495 people. Twenty years ago, the ratio was one doctor for every 762 people.

In health care, technological innovations create whole new areas of demand and increased costs. For example, the computerized axial tomography scanner does not replace the X-ray machine; it is basically an add-on in the system. Similarly, magnetic resonance imagers will not replace CAT scanners; they will become add-ons to the X-ray and the CAT scanners. In health care, the new rarely replaces the old.

It is because of these many pressures in our health care system that effective management is so important. We must ensure the most effective use of our health care resources through a management structure that allows for consultation and consensus.

The district health council program of the Minister of Health is a prime example of such a management structure. District health councils provide an effective means for local groups, associations, health care providers and individuals to participate in planning health care services in their regions. Councils assess community health requirements, develop plans for comprehensive and co-ordinated services and advise the minister on local priorities for health care spending.

The Minister of Health has stated that all proposals for new health care programs, regardless of the source of funding, will have to be reviewed by the district health councils. This approach will ensure that valuable health dollars are spent on the co-ordinated development of health care programs needed by each region.

Earlier in his remarks, the member for Peterborough indicated that "needs, as identified, are evaluated and fulfilled." Particularly because of those remarks, I say that in the light of my understanding to date, the minister has not received any indication from the local district health council as to the need for a dialysis unit to serve the Peterborough area.

As my colleague knows, any new hospital-based program in the province must be reviewed and priority ranked by a district health council before funding can be approved. For that reason, I would be hesitant to show my support for the resolution at this time in the absence of an endorsement from the local district health council, an endorsement that would legitimize the true community need for the proposal and reflect the responsible decision for the effective management of our health care system.

I can understand the pressures the member for Peterborough is under in trying to have this resolution endorsed by the House. As a local member, I have similar pressures on me from York-Finch General Hospital, which is currently preparing plans for an $8-million expansion of its emergency wing. It is a long process. We are halfway through that process. I believe we are now past the master plan stage. We are looking at the functional stage, which would provide a detailed narrative document, proposed by the hospital in co-operation with the ministry, showing the actual diagrams of the new expansion of the wing. These are very real pressures that each of us is under.

Each one of the members of this assembly has very real pressures from local hospital organizations, local district health councils and local people saying there is never enough in health care services. It is our responsibility as a government and it is the minister's responsibility as the Minister of Health to analyse these in cooperation and consensus with the local district health councils and to allocate the resources as fairly and as equitably as possible.

Mr. Pollock: I am proud to have this opportunity to stand and support the resolution of my friend and neighbour the member for Peterborough. Those members who have lived in large centres such as Toronto or Ottawa do not realize that people in the rural areas have to spend many hours travelling to hospitals to receive haemodialysis treatment.

As the resolution points out, there is no haemodialysis unit between Kingston and Toronto. It is inconceivable to me that in the latter part of the 20th century we are not able, and in some cases not willing, to bring adequate and convenient health care to all the people of Ontario. In fact, the Liberal record in the health care field can only be described as poor.

One area in which very little progress has been seen is the Liberal promise of no Ontario health insurance plan premiums. On this, as with most areas where the public would benefit, the government is moving at a snail's pace. On the other hand, when it comes to raising taxes, the government has shown amazing speed.

Today, my friend the member for Peterborough is giving the government a chance to redeem itself. Should the Minister of Health today announce allocations of funding to purchase, set up and operate a haemodialysis unit for the Peterborough or Belleville area, he would be bringing a great deal of benefit to those people living between Kingston and Toronto who must spend hundreds of hours each year in travelling time to receive dialysis treatment.

In my riding, there are several people who must travel two hours or more in each direction to a hospital in Kingston to receive dialysis treatment. For example, Mrs. Armstrong from Marmora is currently recovering from transplant surgery in which she received a new kidney. Until only a few weeks ago, Mrs. Armstrong was required to travel to Kingston three times a week, on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays, for treatments that lasted four to four and a half hours each time. There was another one to two hours of preparation and recovery time. This, along with almost four hours spent travelling, made for a very long and exhausting day for Mrs. Armstrong.

11:40

Also, members may not be aware that the treatment often left Mrs. Armstrong feeling very sick. On several occasions, Mr. Armstrong had to pull off the side of the road on the way home so that Mrs. Armstrong could be sick to her stomach. This type of reaction is not uncommon. If there had been a dialysis unit closer to home, Mrs. Armstrong might have been able to reach home before becoming ill and not have had to suffer the indignity of being sick on the roadside.

Mrs. Armstrong is one of the lucky ones. Her doctors were able to find a donor. Others are not so lucky. Many spend years on the dialysis machine and eventually die, without being able to resume active and normal lives.

The very least we as legislators can do for these people is make them as comfortable as possible until they receive new kidneys and provide them with haemodialysis units within reasonable distances of their homes.

Chapters of the Order of the Eastern Star and the Royal Canadian Legion in Hastings county have raised, and are willing to raise, money to fund a haemodialysis machine in that area. It is not fair for these people to have to travel a long distance, particularly in emergency situations or in extreme weather conditions, for treatment which keeps them alive. We have the chance today to show we care. I urge the unanimous support of this resolution.

A few years ago, Keith Norton allocated funds for a unit in Belleville, but all the details could not be worked out and the dialysis unit was never installed. I urge the government to take immediate action and announce today the funds to purchase, install and operate a haemodialysis unit for the Peterborough-Hastings area.

Mr. Cousens: I am pleased to rise in support of the motion before us prepared by the member for Peterborough. It shows the sensitivity of the member to the needs of the people in his community and in Ontario. I respect greatly the kind of initiative he is bringing to us today.

I was with our task force on human and social issues this past summer. When we visited the great town of Peterborough, this very subject was discussed at that time. We were aware not only of seniors having this problem but also of many other people in the community who had to go long distances to other parts of Ontario to receive their dialysis treatments for kidney disease.

As the honorary chairman of the York region kidney unit, I have a personal involvement with the Kidney Foundation. I also have a very personal contact, because my brother was one of the 409 patients who died of kidney failure in 1983. It is in that context that I have always had a special interest in the needs of kidney patients and what we as citizens in Ontario could do to help them.

It is amazing how large is the number of those who suffer. In 1983, 2,922 patients in Ontario suffered total kidney failure. Of these, 47 per cent have since received functioning transplants, a large number of people with kidney disease who would otherwise face a very bleak future. There is no cure for kidney disease. One of the three approaches used is the living organ transplant. Indeed, there has to be far more done in this province to encourage people to donate their organs so that we can have this as the most cost-effective and best method of helping people who will otherwise face a very unhappy, bleak and sick future.

We should do everything we can in this Legislature to advance the educational knowledge of people, to get them to sign organ donation cards and to get the government to improve and streamline the system so that people who otherwise may not think of this will increase the possibility of other people having a remedy.

In the 1983 figures, 628 patients in Ontario were using the treatment known as peritoneal dialysis. This method of treatment frequently causes patients to have infections. In 1983, of all the people in this form of treatment, 52.7 per cent got peritonitis; 320 of the 1,313 patients using this treatment had to stop using it as a result of complications.

Another alternative form, the third way in which kidney disease is treated, is through haemodialysis. This is done by taking the body waste out of the blood by using an artificial kidney machine. I think the member for Peterborough was asking for this approach in satellite cities such as Peterborough, so that they could serve the needs of their local communities.

There are 23 hospitals in Ontario that offer haemodialysis. While they cover the major population centres, they do not by any means serve all the people in the province conveniently. For example, aside from Peterborough, Barrie, Belleville, Chatham, Cornwall and Guelph do not have a treatment centre within their boundaries or in the adjacent municipalities. At present, in all but Guelph, the travel time to the cities with a treatment centre is substantial.

Hundreds of thousands of Ontarians live well beyond the range of any of these centres. For them, kidney failure means a major move as well as a loss of capacity to function normally. For those who suffer from kidney disease, there is a need for immediate expansion of kidney treatment into satellite centres.

Let us also see expansion of other services, such as in-home dialysis. The cost of a patient dialysing at home is approximately $20,000 a year compared to the in-hospital cost of $35,000 a year. This does not mean that hospital treatment centres should be eliminated, but based on British experience, 50 per cent of all haemodialysis patients could be dialysing at home. In Ontario, this would mean that rather than 680 patients in hospital centres there might be 340, at an annual cost saving of $5.1 million.

I would like to see a better rationalization of in-hospital treatment facilities. At present, apart from the need for satellite facilities, which I have already mentioned, Ontarians with kidney failure are well served by the Ontario health care system. However, at the present growth rate of net new patients per annum, facilities of all types will need to expand.

I would also like to see a fresh effort and an enthusiastic response by the Minister of Health and the government as they face up to this opportunity to serve those people with kidney disease.

I had a phone call this morning from a parent whose three-year-old child is in the Hospital for Sick Children. All last week this child was on hold, waiting for an analysis of his problem. The child needs a procedure that requires time in surgery. He had to wait without food for two days in preparation for surgery but was unable to be scheduled because of the heavy load in that hospital.

There is one very important key to the future of people with a disease such as this. Those of us who are healthy and who care must make sure the system is ready to respond; and not only here in Toronto, where it should be ready, where there is service, support and a very meaningful and caring group of doctors, surgeons, nurses and health care specialists, who want to do their best, it should also be expanded throughout Ontario so that kidney disease is not something that causes a person to be isolated from the rest of the community, isolated from life and forced to go into a different kind of lifestyle.

We have to put this as a matter of high urgency. I trust that through sharing our concerns today in the House, we will all do more to help in this great crusade.

11:50

Mr. Breaugh: I want to speak briefly to support the resolution. I would probably move an amendment, were that possible, to remove one word, "Peterborough," and insert the word "Oshawa," but I will not do that.

The problem that has been pointed out is one that needs to be addressed by the province as a whole. Many people from the region of Durham use this kind of facility in downtown Toronto, and that is the problem. If you live south of Bloor Street in Toronto, you have the finest medical equipment and personnel in the world at your disposal. If you live north of Bloor Street, you do not, or at least not to the same degree. Part of what the resolution points out is that there are, I suppose, thousands of people in the catchment area from here to Kingston who would make use of this type of facility. I know that in the region of Durham there are probably close to 100 people who make use of facilities of precisely this nature in downtown Toronto medical centres.

The difficulty is that in addition to the normal trauma that is associated with this kind of technology and this kind of medical problem, there is the added trauma that you have to travel on a regular basis, two or three times a week, to receive the treatment. You have to leave your home community, providing additional trauma to your family, to your friends and to yourself to receive care. Many of us have been trying to get some better design in the system. It is probably not as important, as the resolution points out, to establish this in the community of Peterborough, because as the member knows, it will not serve just that one community. There is a huge catchment area that needs to be served, which in this instance extends all the way to Kingston.

It would be a bit of a problem to determine the best geographic site for the unit. Peterborough, I suppose, is as good as any, and Oshawa is as good as any. There might be several other hospital facilities between here and Kingston that could serve the purpose just as well.

Transportation is a problem for many people, for example, coming from the northern part of Durham in the winter months. What in the summer months is an aggravation in the winter months becomes something much more than an aggravation. With travelling conditions getting a little more difficult the further north you get, you add that to the trauma. As one who commutes regularly from Oshawa to downtown Toronto to go to work, I can attest to the fact that on some days it is not a bad drive. It is never a pleasant drive, but on some days it is not bad. However, on some days it is a treacherous drive. People who are making that drive on a regular basis to receive medical care do not need that added trauma.

The resolution brings to the House a problem that we ought to be concerned about, and that is, where are these medical facilities located? It points out that there is an imbalance in our medical care system. I have a group that is meeting in Durham now to try to get this kind of unit put into a hospital somewhere in Durham. Perhaps it would be better left to the health councils to make the determination as to precisely which hospital could best utilize the facility and where the placement of the unit would be ideal for the community.

It might turn out, and I have heard some discussions to this effect, that Peterborough would be a good location. I do not want to deny that for a moment. Although the drive to Peterborough is more pleasant than the drive to Toronto, in wintertime it can get a little chancy too. I have heard that the government has just shut down its plans to do what it ought to do on Highway 115/35, and that is a terrible disgrace. I am sure that just prior to the election they will rectify it by building the road they ought to build, so that will solve that problem.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Next week.

Mr. Breaugh: It is coming next week.

The resolution deserves the support of all members. It points out a problem in medical care in Ontario, that specialized units of care such as this one were not always placed according to need. They were often placed according to who in the medical profession could get together the best offer, could put together the justification in terms of expenditures of money, expertise in terms of staff and find a hospital board that was prepared to proceed on that basis.

The imbalance is clear. I suppose this is a little startling, but in many respects it is probably just as difficult for people who need specialized care who live in Durham or Peterborough as it is for people in the far north, except that for the far north we now recognize that there is a severe problem and we have an air transportation system to provide for that. Many of our citizens live much closer to the specialized facility, but they have to get there on their own hook, so to speak.

The resolution is certainly worthy of support. Even though it does state that the facility will go to Peterborough, I still invite all members to support the resolution because it does point out that there is a serious problem. The problem is one we have known about for some period of time. The member for Scarborough-Ellesmere (Mr. Warner) has been very active in trying to get that kind of unit in a hospital in his area. That would serve my purposes just as well as the one in Peterborough. Frankly, I am not going to be strident about where the unit is placed. All I am saying is that somewhere between downtown Toronto and the city of Kingston there ought to be such a unit just to make it accessible to the public at large.

Mr. Stevenson: I would like to thank the member for Oshawa for leaving me a few moments.

I rise to support the resolution of the member for Peterborough. I would also, mildly or quietly, support the thoughts of the member for Oshawa. Certainly, a haemodialysis unit is needed east of Toronto. We would be happy to see it either in Peterborough or in Durham region. Some of the people who live in my riding use the Ross Memorial Hospital in Lindsay. There is no question that those requiring this service could certainly make use of the unit in Peterborough as opposed to coming to Metro Toronto.

I would also like to take the opportunity to say a few words relative to York County Hospital. We are fortunate to have a person by the name of Whipper Billy Watson living in East Gwillimbury, in Sharon. He is a former famous wrestler, but more important, he is a great humanitarian. Anyone who has followed his tremendous successes in working with disabled people will be very much aware of the millions of dollars he has raised to help disabled people.

Right now, he is undertaking a new project, which is to raise $2 million for a computerized axial tomography scanner unit for York County Hospital. That will be a tremendous new service for people in the south Simcoe and York areas. Unfortunately, Whipper finds it necessary to raise this from the community because the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) is not coming forth with the money to put the unit in the York County Hospital. In the past, Whipper raised money for a pool in the York County Hospital to help in the rehab unit there. We wish him well in this new undertaking. I am sure he will succeed and he will have a tremendous amount of community backing in undertaking this project.

That is somewhat aside. I know from the resolution at hand, however, it is the same sort of idea in that we as members are seeking to improve health care services for the people in our area. Just as some of the people on the east side of my riding might well use the haemodialysis unit that we hope will go into the Peterborough hospital, the people from the whole west side of my riding in Georgina, East Gwillimbury and soon Whitchurch-Stouffville would have the opportunity of using the CAT scanner unit in York County Hospital.

For many of them, it is a considerable drive. If they are in poor health, it becomes an extra burden. The closer we can get these very important services to their homes, the better it is for the health care of those people.

Mr. Speaker: That completes the allotted time for discussion on private members' public business.

PROMOTION OF CANADIAN PRODUCTS

Mr. Speaker: The time has come and we will now deal with the first item, the motion by Mr. G. I. Miller. If any members are opposed to a vote on this resolution, will they please rise? Seeing none able to get up, is it the pleasure of the House that Mr. G. I. Miller's motion carry?

Motion agreed to.

SATELLITE DIALYSIS UNIT

Mr. Speaker: The next item we will deal with is Mr. Turner's resolution. If any members are opposed to a vote on this resolution, will they please rise? Therefore, I will place the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House that Mr. Turner's motion carry?

Motion agreed to.

The House recessed at 12:01 p.m.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1:30 p.m.

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I have a message from the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor signed by his own hand.

Mr. Speaker: The Lieutenant Governor transmits supplementary estimates of certain additional sums required for the services of the province for the year ending March 31, 1987, and recommends them to the Legislative Assembly. Signed by the Lieutenant Governor, Lincoln Alexander.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

INTERNATIONAL PLOWING MATCH

Mr. Pollock: September 16, 1986, was the official opening day of the International Plowing Match and Farm Machinery Show, which was held in the riding of Hastings-Peterborough. The motto of the ploughing match was "The Big Cheese." The big cheese has now been cut into small pieces and packaged, and I want to present a package of this cheese to all the members who attended. These are with the compliments of Cooney brothers, rural route 3, Stirling. I ask the pages to come forth and deliver them and I will read off the names:

The member for London Centre (Mr. Peterson), the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Grossman), the member for Essex North (Mr. Hayes), the member for Huron-Middlesex (Mr. Riddell), the member for Durham-York (Mr. Stevenson), the member for Northumberland (Mr. Sheppard), the member for Middlesex (Mr. Reycraft), the member for Kingston and the Islands (Mr. Keyes), the member for Don Mills (Mr. Timbrell), the member for Carleton-Grenville (Mr. Sterling), the member for Victoria-Haliburton (Mr. Eakins), the member for Kent-Elgin (Mr. McGuigan), the member for Elgin (Mr. McNeil), the member for Simcoe East (Mr. McLean), the member for Quinte (Mr. O'Neil), the member for Erie (Mr. Haggerty), the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry (Mr. Villeneuve), the member for Wellington-Dufferin-Peel (Mr. J. M. Johnson), the member for Wentworth (Mr. Dean), the member for Leeds (Mr. Runciman), the member for Frontenac-Addington (Mr. South), the member for Grey (Mr. McKessock), the member for Haldimand-Norfolk (Mr. G. I. Miller), the member for Chatham-Kent (Mr. Bossy) and the member for Timiskaming (Mr. Ramsay).

SUNDAY RACING

Ms. Bryden: Today I am introducing a private member's bill to ban Sunday racing at Greenwood Race Track on Queen Street East in Toronto. The bill also protects the democratic right of residents affected by racetrack activities to be heard and to have their concerns taken into account by the government-appointed Ontario Racing Commission, which regulates racetracks in Ontario.

Greenwood is the only racetrack in Ontario located in a large, high-density, urban residential area. It has had a long tradition of no Sunday racing since it opened in 1875. Yesterday the Ontario Racing Commission approved the Ontario Jockey Club's request for 52 Sundays of racetrack activities for 1987, including both live racing and inter-track betting.

This will mean racing activity seven days a week for 19 weeks and five or six days a week for the other 33 weeks. The residents will lose their one day of respite from parking traffic congestion, noise and tow-away zoning. They will no longer be able to entertain family and friends on Sundays or have quiet enjoyment of their homes and property on that day.

SANTA LUCIA DAY

Mr. Henderson: I want to take the opportunity to recognize Santa Lucia Day, which is celebrated by the Scandinavian community on December 13 each year. In Sweden, according to the old calendar, December 13 was considered to be the longest night of the year. At this time of year, in the midst of an unforgiving winter, the northern regions of Sweden endure what must seem like eternal darkness. Santa Lucia Day welcomes the returning light. Santa Lucia is the Scandinavian Queen of Lights who brightens the northern darkness with her crown of candles.

In Toronto, a contest is held each year by the Scandinavian-Canadian Club to select the young woman who will represent Santa Lucia. The winner is chosen for her charm, beauty and gentleness. Today the Scandinavian community helps to celebrate Santa Lucia Day here at the Legislature by performing traditional Scandinavian hymns and carols.

This year marks the 26th consecutive year we have held a celebration of Santa Lucia Day here at Queen's Park. In closing, I would like to thank the Scandinavian-Canadian Club for sharing with us this beautiful light-bringing tradition.

PROPERTY RIGHTS

Mr. O'Connor: On November 27, this Legislature passed a motion put forward by the member for Waterloo North (Mr. Epp) requiring the Canadian government to enshrine property rights in our Constitution. In his statement, the member said his resolution would "... protect property owners against unnecessary or unfair government actions against their property. The amendment protects against unjust infringement of an individual's rights. That is something that Canada has always stood for." The resolution passed 44 to 20.

On Tuesday of this week, I proposed an amendment that would protect the rights of property owners, that being an exemption for condominium owners from the ban on adult-only apartment buildings, an amendment that would allow those property owners the right to enjoy a lifestyle that they had chosen, paid for, earned and that we as legislators should respect. That amendment was defeated by the combined will of the Liberal and New Democratic parties.

I find it somewhat puzzling that the Liberal Party supported the resolution to enshrine property rights, but when put to the absolute test which would see it enshrined in legislation in this province, it failed to do so. Is support for the rights of property owners something this government will accept only when it is not backed up by the force of law?

SCHOOL BOARD TRUSTEES

Mr. Allen: In many important respects, this week represents a changing of the guard for the boards of education and school boards around the province. The separate school trustees, who have for so long inhabited those boards as representatives of the Roman Catholic ratepayers whose children were in the public system, will now be leaving those boards of education. Our party would like to pay special tribute to the role they have played over the years as stewards not only for their own ratepayers but also stewards for public education in general.

When they came on the boards, I think there was some concern about their presence, but one and all functioned as representatives acting for the best interests of public education in general in the province.

Plusieurs de ces conseillers porteront désormais un autre chapeau comme représentants francophones minoritaires de leur nouveau conseil scolaire de langue française. Ils commencent une nouvelle ère de la gérance de leurs propres écoles et de l'épanouissement de la culture française en Ontario.

In some sections of the province, there are also English-language education councils which will be taking on new responsibilities at this time.

To all the trustees of all the boards that are engaging in their newly restructured responsibilities, we say bonjour, bonne chance et bons résultats.

APPLE PRODUCTION

Mr. G. I. Miller: I would like to point out to members of the Legislature that the apples that are on their desks today are compliments of Tom Haskett and Bill Courtnage, apple producers in Vittoria.

The peanuts on the desks of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Grossman), the leader of the third party (Mr. Rae) and the Premier (Mr. Peterson) are from the same area.

I would also like to say thank you to the member for Hastings-Peterborough (Mr. Pollock), who gave us the cheese. I think it indicates to all members of the House the good things we grow in Ontario. Christmas is a fitting time to point out to our fellow citizens who live in urban areas the good things we do have. We want to wish them season's greetings and all the best in 1987.

PAY EQUITY LEGISLATION

Mr. McLean: In view of Bill 154, the bill on pay equity that the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) has before the House, I wonder why he has not cleaned up his own front porch before attempting to have his neighbours clean up theirs.

Within the government there is a wide variance of pay levels for persons performing similar functions. Worse than that, to add to this inequity, it appears that the Attorney General's own ministry, the one that put forward this pay equality legislation, is the most guilty of the very discrimination he has brought the bill forward to address. I am surprised that neither his staff nor his New Democratic Party colleague, the member for Ottawa Centre (Ms. Gigantes), has noticed this.

The Attorney General has stated in many words that pay equity will be possible and practical to put into effect. Why can his own office, his own ministry and the other government ministries not get their act together? He is reported as saying that his pay envelope is fixed by the government. Is he not the government? Can he not change a bad situation and bring equity into his own offices on a fair basis? Let this House see a demonstration from the minister in charge, a demonstration of fairness and credibility.

13:41

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

SPECIAL MUNICIPAL GRANT

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The Hemlo gold mines are creating welcome jobs and investment in northwestern Ontario. This development is placing heavy demands on nearby municipalities, particularly Marathon and Manitouwadge, which face cost pressures associated with providing municipal services to the employees of the mines. These communities do not have the ability to raise needed revenues because the mining operations are outside their boundaries. As a result, they are faced with a need further to increase their debt loads as well as increasing property taxes on existing industries and home owners.

Today I am announcing a special grant of $500,000 for 1987 to the township of Marathon. This will greatly reduce pressures for mill rate increases next year and allow Marathon to proceed with necessary development. Regarding the impact of the Hemlo development on Manitouwadge, we will be consulting with that community to determine whether it requires special assistance as well.

We will also be working with northern communities, the northern development councils and the resource industries to determine the most appropriate way to expand the revenue base available to northern resource communities so that they will be better able to cope with the impact of resource developments outside their boundaries.

Mr. Pouliot: We welcome the feeble attempt by the Treasurer to address the fiscal injustice in Hemlo. Unfortunately, he has missed the boat. While he recognized to some extent the needs of the communities that have to provide essential services at Hemlo, we still have a system whereby we have socialism for the rich gold mines and a true free enterprise system for the poor taxpayers who have to pay for those essential services.

During the past two years, the Liberal government has done rather well at taking our policies; it should do so today. I invite the Treasurer to take one more proposal from the New Democratic Party of Ontario. We have it here. We are talking about nothing less than a fair system of assessment. We are not asking the Treasurer to impose undue or unfair taxation on the gold mines. We know they provide jobs, but they and he have a problem of distribution; they are paying it to the wrong people.

That impasse, that injustice, that dilemma is recognized for another essential service: education. When it comes to sewers and water and recreation, we do not have the same conciliation from the minister. What is going on? We have the solution. Give us the kind of social justice that will permit and allow the richest people in Canada, in terms of the free enterprise system, finally to pay at least five cents of taxes. We want a style, a method, an approach to bring forward fiscal responsibility and justice for the people of Lake Nipigon.

Mr. Wildman: I rise to support my friend the member for Lake Nipigon and to ask the Treasurer why on earth White River is not mentioned, since it is a community affected by the Hemlo development as well.

This is a continuation of the inadequate ad hoc approach of the Tory government in giving money to the municipalities when they come cap in hand. Why does the minister not accept the recommendations of the Association of Mining Municipalities of Ontario, which asked for an expansion of the assessment so its members would have regular funding and not have to beg for it from the provincial government?

Mr. Harris: I want to respond briefly to the Treasurer's statement on Marathon. This announcement is a charade; it does not come close to one half of what Marathon calculates is the necessary offset. The government still has no policy in place to deal with these situations throughout northern Ontario. It would prefer to deal with this situation at the last minute.

The statement is far too late for Marathon to be able to plan and far short of what Marathon expected was coming. The government can go through with its benevolent little cheque without having a policy. It is a disgrace. There is no policy in place, and the amount of money is simply not adequate to provide the offsets required.

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I am pleased to announce Strategies for Renewal, which I now table, a new program to revitalize the public service. The program is based on three major commitments by this government: (1) the compensation of the Ontario public service will more closely reflect the diversity of the Ontario population; (2) government will reflect the best management styles and be responsive to changes in the work place; and (3) recruitment for the public service will be based on planned staffing initiatives which provide equality of opportunity.

These strategies will be achieved in a number of ways, including more open recruiting among the public to attract more people from outside the public service, improved access to jobs among ministries for current civil servants and equity programs to provide fair and equal opportunity.

Fundamental to the success of this initiative will be increased turnover to provide flexibility. To accelerate this, a program of voluntary exit options will be introduced effective April 1987.

I have outlined the components of the program and I refer members to the brochure I am tabling today.

Mr. Harris: I will take a brief moment to respond to the Treasurer's statement today on the Strategies for Renewal program.

I note the Treasurer stated: "Fundamental to the success of this initiative will be increased turnover to provide flexibility. To accelerate this, a program of voluntary exit options will be introduced effective April 1987."

I will be interested to see whether those voluntary exit options are similar to the type of voluntary exit options faced by the Clerk of the Legislature, Kirk Foley and the president of the Ontario Advisory Council on Multiculturalism and Citizenship.

If this government would spend less money and time on printing glossy brochures on all the things it is going to do and would carry on and do some of the programs that should be done on an ongoing basis, we would be a lot better off.

ANNUAL REPORT, OFFICE OF THE PROVINCIAL AUDITOR

Hon. Mr. Eakins: In keeping with the government's commitment to openness and accountability to the people of Ontario, I am pleased to join with my cabinet colleagues to report to the House in my ministry's response to the Provincial Auditor's report.

In general, the auditor found that my ministry's financial controls and grant expenditures in its accounts payable system were operating adequately and satisfactorily.

Since June 1985, my ministry has followed a rigid agenda aimed at realizing the full and tremendous potential of tourism and recreation. That is why we have acted immediately to correct those areas identified by the auditor as needing improvement. We received the report on September 30, 1986. By October 16, we outlined to the Provincial Auditor what we proposed to do. Today I am pleased to describe briefly some of the initiatives we have already put into place and others we are actively planning.

In his review of my ministry's operations, the auditor's primary concern was with the management processes and procedures related to the ongoing monitoring of the projects and the activities we fund.

With regard to recreation grants, he expressed concern about the monitoring of grants to ensure that all funds were being used according to the grants' terms and conditions. Other issues included our duplication of efforts in controlling grant payments, the incomplete documentation of expenditures by clients and the occasional lack of tendering by grant recipients.

These are not new problems. I was surprised to see that many of these comments were made in the auditor's report in 1983, and I can only wonder why the previous government did not take corrective action.

We have begun to take corrective action, however. Files have been reopened and reviewed. Current projects are being monitored closely to ensure they meet the terms and conditions of grants, including tendering and purchasing procedures. In fact, new, stricter guidelines on tendering procedures were implemented months ago, even before the auditor expressed his concern to my ministry.

With regard to sports and fitness grants, the auditor detailed similar activities needing improvement. We have taken immediate steps to improve our control in these areas. Specific instances raised by the auditor regarding clients who may have received ineligible funding are being reviewed, and recoveries will be made where appropriate. We are also currently developing a set of new funding guidelines for amateur sports bodies.

The examples I have just given are from specific program areas, but I emphasize that our plans for corrective action extend beyond that. Our initiatives are directed towards improving our operational and management controls of all my ministry's grants programs.

The role of our regional offices in the monitoring process has been clarified. New monitoring and reporting procedures have been developed and will be implemented shortly.

In addition, the capacity of our computerized grants administration system is currently being expanded. For the longer term, we are finalizing an information systems strategy. This will avoid duplication in controls and provide valuable data to regional staff as they administer their files.

The changing nature of the job being done by our sports consultants demands additional skills, particularly in the area of financial management and control. While their prime role will remain in organizational and leadership development, my ministry agrees that the consultants must be trained to scrutinize more closely the financial statements of client organizations. Also, this will now be incorporated into job requirements.

Financial and operational reviews of sports governing bodies will be undertaken in 1987, where necessary, to assist those organizations in improving their internal controls.

In conclusion, I point out that in April 1986 my ministry, in following this government's desire to give better value for the taxpayers' money, established its own audit services branch. We had previously shared these services with another ministry.

Our newly developed multi-year audit plan recognized the importance of the ministry's transfer payments, and a substantial amount of audit time will be devoted to these areas in the next year.

I began these remarks by referring to my ministry's new agenda. Our response to the auditor's report is part of that agenda. Problems were identified, and we have moved quickly to solve them, as we did last year with respect to lottery distributorships and Ontario Place passes, for example.

Our response today is a sincere reflection of the ongoing initiatives in my ministry to give better value for the public's money. It also reflects my ministry's fundamental goal to make the tourism and recreation systems in Ontario the best they can possibly be.

Mr. Rowe: In response to the minister's statement regarding the Provincial Auditor's report, it amazes me why the minister seems surprised. He has been there for 18 months and he now is finding out and telling us what a great job he is doing.

It is not ineligible funding that we on this side worry about; it is the lack of funding to those eligible that bothers us. Church groups and athletic associations that should be receiving funding assistance are being turned down. Programs are announced by his ministry late in the year, and then there is little or no funding in place to cover the programs.

I note with interest his statement on Ontario Place passes. For the first time in history, they now are controlled completely by political office, his office, where they were not before.

DOWNSVIEW REHABILITATION CENTRE

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I know the statements are just arriving. They should be here momentarily.

Mr. McClellan: Sit down until they get here.

Mr. Martel: Are you going to do something? Another study?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: It is so nice to see my friend the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) here.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: The ink is drying. They are coming now, if I might begin. The pages are distributing them even as I begin speaking.

Mr. Speaker: The minister will proceed.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I rise to report to the Legislative Assembly on a matter I take very seriously, namely, the recent allegations of mismanagement, and perhaps even criminal activity, at the Workers' Compensation Board's medical rehabilitation centre at Downsview.

As members know, these allegations were made on Tuesday by Wally Majesky and Maria Minna, the co-chairs of the Ontario task force on the vocational rehabilitation services of the Workers' Compensation Board. The co-chairs expressed their concerns after a round of task force hearings throughout the province.

I would like to inform members that I met early today with both the task force and the management of the Workers' Compensation Board to review matters and determine a course of appropriate action.

In that connection, I have several announcements to make.

First, the office of the worker adviser will open an office at the Downsview facility as soon as is practical. This means patients will have access, right at the hospital, to people who can provide expert assistance in dealing with their concerns.

Second, Dr. Robert Elgie, the chairman of the WCB, has asked the police to conduct an investigation. Dr. Elgie has been in contact with Chief Jack Marks of the Metropolitan Toronto Police force, and the investigation has begun.

Third, I wish to announce that I am appointing a five-member external review team to investigate and examine a number of matters connected with the Downsview centre. The chairman will be Vickery Stoughton, president of the Toronto Hospital, which is the amalgamation of Toronto General Hospital and Toronto Western Hospital. Members are Dr. Ralph Garber, dean of the school of social work at the University of Toronto; Angelo Persichilli, news director of Toronto's multicultural television station, CFMT, from the vocational rehabilitation task force; Edward Thornton of King City, administrator-director of the training and rehabilitation trust fund of the Labourers' International Union of North America, Local 183; and John D. Corrigan of Coniston, senior claims administrator and rehabilitation co-ordinator for the Ontario division of Inco Ltd.

I am asking the team to conduct a general review of the role of the Downsview rehabilitation centre, its administration, programs and systems for protecting patients' rights. I will be announcing its specific terms of reference shortly.

Finally, members may recall that several months ago I first suggested a broad external review of the Downsview rehabilitation hospital might be in order. This was at the time the WCB initiated an internal inquiry into specific allegations made by members of the Canadian Auto Workers union in Windsor. I am now making that report public.

Mr. Gillies: The announcement made by the Minister of Labour would seem to indicate that after months of winding down, the ministry has ground to a complete halt in its ability to deal with the problems of Workers' Compensation Board rehabilitation services.

In effect, what the minister has announced today is that the report put out by Dr. Kummel appears to necessitate an inquiry into the inquiry. As we see layers of inquiries, police investigations and similar studies being piled up upon each other, the minister has failed to deal with the main question.

The question is this: should the injured workers of this province, while these matters are hanging over the head of the Downsview hospital and its officials, have any confidence in that institution, and should they be required to continue to seek services there? That is the question the minister should have answered. I believe in his heart of hearts he would have known the answer is no.

Until this matter is cleared up, as an interim measure at least, the government should be allowing patients to seek services they require at hospitals in their local communities from doctors with whom they are familiar and in whom they have confidence.

I am not saying the minister should not appoint another five-man panel. This government's reaction to just about everything is to appoint another inquiry. How can the minister allow this matter to go on in the interim?

My understanding is that the minister indicated to reporters after question period yesterday that he does not have a lot of confidence in the charges that workers are making at this time; he believes they may be open to question. On balance, I have to say that when we have the number and type of complaints we are getting from injured workers throughout the province, we have to attach a lot of credibility to those complaints.

The minister should let the injured workers go somewhere they have confidence in the services and treatment they will be getting. He should clear up this mess. As my colleague the member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope) suggested in the House yesterday, the time has long passed when the minister has to move towards decentralizing the assessment and rehabilitation services of the board and doing something about that rats' nest the minister appears to have in Downsview.

Mr. McClellan: Thanks to, I must say, the most inadequate Minister of Labour I can recall in my time in this House, we now have the most extraordinary situation of three separate task forces commissioned by the same Minister of Labour on the same problem, the problem of the Downsview rehabilitation centre of the Workers' Compensation Board.

The first task force report, which was appropriately issued in a white cover, was conducted by none other than the director of the hospital himself into allegations against his own facility. To nobody's surprise, he found the allegations were unsubstantiated. The same day that the whitewash report is tabled in the House, the minister stands in his place and indicates a police investigation will be initiated into the affairs of the Downsview rehabilitation centre.

At the same time, the minister refuses to change the terms of reference of his own task force on vocational rehabilitation, which has asked for a mandate to investigate the Downsview rehabilitation centre. Instead, he says the allegations of the task force headed by Wally Majesky and Maria Minna are untrue. He said that yesterday in interviews in the scrum. On television, he said the allegations were untrue. The executive assistant to the chairman of the Workers' Compensation Board said the allegations were untrue.

He has attacked his second task force, headed by Majesky and Minna, and at the same time he has commissioned a third task force composed of five new people to study the Downsview rehabilitation centre. I suppose, if we include the police investigation, we have a fourth task force under way into the affairs of matters under the jurisdiction of this Minister of Labour.

The reality is that this is the most pathetic performance I have witnessed in this portfolio since 1975. If the minister is unable to deal with his responsibilities, he should ask to be relieved from those onerous duties.

SECURITIES INDUSTRY

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I wish to make a statement in my capacity as Minister of Financial Institutions regarding the government's intention to strengthen provisions governing illegal trading on insider information.

In this connection, existing penalties in the Securities Act are a maximum of $2,000 for an individual and $25,000 for corporations. There is no prohibition against trading by a tippee.

As members know, a tipper is an insider who, by virtue of being a corporate director, officer, employee, professional or business consultant, has insider information. A tippee is a person who receives information from an inside source.

I will be proposing an amendment to Bill 156, An Act to amend the Securities Act, which is currently before the House.

What I will be bringing forward during second reading of Bill 156 are the following measures: to make trading by a tippee an offence, giving rise to both criminal and civil sanctions; to expand the group of persons who are prohibited from trading and tipping to include persons who learn that a takeover bid is about to take place from a person connected with the offerer such as an offerer's lawyer, accountant, fiscal agent or printer, and employees of the issuer and persons closely connected with the issuer; to increase the fines for offences under the Securities Act to a maximum of $1 million and/or two years in jail; to establish a minimum fine for insider trading in violation of the act equal to the profit incurred by the insider, with a maximum fine of the greater of $1 million or three times the profit.

Obviously, the principle we have in mind is that everyone trading in the securities market should have equal access to information.

USE OF TIME IN QUESTION PERIOD

Mr. Cousens: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order that arises from yesterday's discussions following question period, when the member for Essex South (Mr. Mancini) rose in his fullness and asked a question of the acting Solicitor General (Mr. Scott) rather than just going over and talking to the minister.

There are two things I would like to have confirmed by the Speaker before we get into question period. If the minister is asked a question before question period expires and does not complete answering the question, will you allow that time to be extended so the question at least can be asked and completed within the time of question period?

Failing that, are you changing the rules of the House so that in the future when a question is asked, if there is no time to answer it, it will be answered outside the House, inside the House or outside of question period?

Mr. Speaker: Very simply, 60 minutes are allotted for questions and responses. If a member asks a question and completes that question prior to the time question period expires and if the members allow the minister to respond while the clock has still not passed that 60-minute limit, I will allow the minister to respond.

Mr. Cousens: Mr. Speaker--

Mr. Speaker: Order. You asked for clarification. I hope you will give me time.

If the minister desires to answer that question after the time has elapsed and makes that request, I am certain the chair and the members in the House will allow the minister to answer. That is my response. I hope that has clarified it for you.

14:07

ORAL QUESTIONS

IDEA CORP.

Mr. Grossman: My question is for the Premier. It relates to the very important question of responsibility to the public by the Premier for the activities and behaviour of his administration and the propriety of certain things that appear to have gone on.

I want to tell the Premier we discovered this morning that the Ontario Provincial Police have been called in to investigate the Wyda Systems circumstances. The standing committee on public accounts subsequently voted this morning to have a judicial inquiry into all the circumstances surrounding all the things that have happened with regard to the grants given to Wyda by the government.

In view of the OPP investigation, the various serious allegations, the fact that the Premier has a responsibility to set certain standards and the fact that the public accounts committee has asked him to appoint a judicial inquiry, is he today willing to appoint such an inquiry?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am like my honourable colleague. I believe we should get to the bottom of all these matters. It is not just Wyda; it is Spectrum-LSI as well and the relationship between those two companies and grants that were given.

Mr. Pope: No, it is not.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: It is. The police have been into Spectrum. The member knows the relationship of the individuals. I am sure he knows the facts even better than I do.

It is my view that we should get to the bottom of this matter very quickly. Two things are going on concurrently. At the request of the Ontario Development Corp., there is a court-appointed receiver, and a forensic audit has been instituted. In other words, officials of the court are looking at those two situations at this very moment. In addition, the police are looking into any alleged impropriety. It is my view that this is the quickest way to get to the bottom of the situation immediately.

Mr. Grossman: First, I do not know more about these facts than the Premier does. That he does not have control of many of the facts either reinforces the importance of saying to the public that he will put out for total public inspection and inquiry all the circumstances that happened. I also remind the Premier that the question here is not only whether a group of receivers is going to be there and recover some money, it is not only a question of finding out where the technology is now, but the question the public accounts committee and, with respect, the public is also concerned about--

Mr. Speaker: Is this your question?

Mr. Grossman: --relates to maladministration by his government and knowing who influenced what in what is turning out to be a serious problem.

Given that the director of ODC said to the public accounts committee this morning that the matters under scrutiny include, and I use the words he used, potential fraud, misrepresentation and possible breaches of the Income Tax Act, does the Premier not agree that when such serious words are used by his employee, it is important that the public know exactly what went on in the administration of his government and that a judicial inquiry ought to be called right away?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I absolutely agree with my honourable friend that all these facts should be made public. The question then is how to do that. I have described to the Leader of the Opposition what is going on; at the moment, I gather there is some suggestion in the things that were mentioned by Mr. MacKinnon, the chief executive officer of ODC. There will be thorough and absolute scrutiny of every detail. The important thing is to get those facts out and to get them out quickly for all to see.

If there is maladministration, it should be rooted out. If there is fraud, it should be rooted out. Whatever the suggestions are, any proof should be shared with everyone. I share my honourable friend's view in that regard. The question is how to do it very quickly and, at the same time, recover any assets for the benefit of the taxpayers. I believe all those things are being done expeditiously.

Mr. Grossman: With respect, I suggest there are two issues, not only how to do it and how quickly it is done, but also how thoroughly that is done. There have been several attempts by committees of this Legislature to get to the facts. Every time that happens more information comes out, so it is a question of how thoroughly it comes out.

I remind the Premier that he now has the circumstance where one of his ministers refused a forensic audit of the corporation as long ago as last August, when some of this might have been averted. He has a self-described "Liberal Party hack," who got $30,000 of the money for having a lunch and lobbying on behalf of the firm. He has the husband of a former cabinet minister who was clearly involved and perhaps got at least $16,000 out of the government grant. He has an Attorney General (Mr. Scott) who met with all those players prior to the investigation by the public accounts committee into all these matters.

Mr. Speaker: The question?

Mr. Grossman: He has a former law partner of the Attorney General representing the Liberal caucus in trying to assist in organizing the evidence given to the public accounts committee. Therefore, does the Premier not agree that to have an honest, open and thorough investigation and analysis of what happened in this circumstance, the only option he has left, given the involvement of his minister, a former minister, a self-described Liberal Party hack fund-raiser and his Attorney General, is to have a judicial inquiry?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: My honourable friend is getting rather carried away in the circumstances. If he has a suggestion that the police are not thorough or objective, he should stand up and say so. If he has a suggestion that the court-appointed receiver is not thorough, honest or objective, he should stand up and say so.

This government has nothing to hide. It referred the matter to committees of this House. There have been very long discussions on it, and the committee can discuss it any time it wants to. We are very happy to share the information, but the member and some of his colleagues have been making allegations. We invite them to prove those. We invite them to call the people before the House. We are very happy to share the information. The member and some of his colleagues have been making allegations and we invite him to prove them. We invite him to call the people before the House. We will be very happy to share all the facts with him. There is no suggestion we are not. The question is how to deal with it expeditiously and quickly. I think the police should be allowed to do their job.

Mr. Grossman: I have another question for the Premier. Does he not understand that every one of the allegations raised by my colleague, which he calls sleazy and unfair, have so far been substantiated? We have worked hard and long to pry information out of the government, which we had a tough time doing. Every one of those allegations has been proved correct so far.

The circumstance we are facing is not whether the OPP will do a thorough criminal investigation and it has nothing to do with whether the audit being done by Peat Marwick will turn up what happened in terms of the flow of funds. The judicial inquiry is necessary to determine finally how much involvement the Premier, the government, members of his office and members of the Liberal Party had with regard to all the things that happened in terms of maladministration in allowing this grant.

Mr. Speaker: The question is?

Mr. Grossman: That is the judicial inquiry that is needed. It has nothing to do with all the other things that have been brought out.

Mr. Speaker: The question is?

Mr. Grossman: Every time this goes a step farther, another minister, another member of that party, seems to be involved.

Mr. Speaker: Question?

Mr. Grossman: Given all that involvement, does the Premier not understand the difference between the investigations that are going on now and the need to say to the public that this grant, which may result in criminal charges, needs to be investigated in terms of the involvement of his administration in that grant?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I described to the honourable member the relationship between Spectrum and Wyda and the various people who were involved. It has been going on for a long period of time. I believe the member, as the former minister, was involved specifically in that matter. I have no problem with the member's relationship coming out. I am very happy to have all these facts come out for everyone to know. The question is how to do it.

If a committee of this House--it has gone through a couple of reports--or the police or the court-appointed receiver cannot get the facts, I do not rule out a judicial inquiry. The important thing is to move expeditiously and immediately.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the members will give the member for Cochrane South the opportunity to ask a supplementary question.

Mr. Pope: It was the opposition parties in this Legislature that forced the Premier to refer this matter to the public accounts committee. The Premier and Mr. Carman refused to provide documents to the public accounts committee that they said were subject to executive privilege. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. O'Neil) and his officials refused our request for a forensic audit, which we called for in August. He then claimed he would do an audit on his own, and it turned out to be a financial review, not an audit.

We now have a receiver appointed only for Wyda, and for no other person or company involved in this whole thing. We have an audit going on only into Wyda. In August, we called for a forensic audit of the affairs of Avi Dobzinski personally, Wilf Caplan, Damaza, Ivan Fleischmann and Canadian Intercorp. We still have no action from the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology with respect to that request.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Pope: Why will the Premier not allow us to have a judicial inquiry into everything, including any insinuations he may want to make to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Grossman)?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: What does "into everything" mean? I believe all the facts should come out. My recollection of the facts is that when this allegation was raised in the House some time ago, it was this government that said to refer it to the public accounts committee. As I recall, we had to force the issue for the public accounts committee to look at the situation.

We have absolutely no secrets over here at all. I believe it should all be there for everyone to see. If mistakes were made, those who were incompetent or made mistakes have to be punished. The committee has investigated for a long period of time. There have been a couple of reports on it and lots of debate. They are welcome to continue that. I have no problem with that.

14:20

Mr. Pope: The Premier can engage in whatever selective revisionism he wants. The fact is that we are talking about such things as commercial fraud, misrepresentation and potential breaches of the Income Tax Act. We are not just talking about Wyda, but about the whole array of individuals who were involved in this. It is far broader than anything the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology is willing to do.

Given the whole history of this matter and the attempts of the public accounts committee in the past six months, surely to goodness the Premier can stand up right now and say: "You are right. It is time to have an immediate judicial inquiry into the whole Wyda matter." Why does he not do that?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: As I said to the member, that is not something I rule out. We have to look at the best way we can to get to the facts and circumstances quickly. He has a number of suggestions and allegations he wants to cast against certain people. We referred this to the committee, and he had every opportunity to summon anyone he wanted to ask questions. With his great powers of advocacy and cross-examination, it was all there for him to do.

The government co-operated in every way. As a matter of fact, as I recall the history, we suggested that approach. All the facts have to come out. We think this is an expeditious way to move on the situation. If there are any issues the member is not happy about, I invite him to call those people before the public accounts committee, to get the advice of the ODC, the accountant and/or the police in that matter. He has the right to look at these matters and make any inquiries he wants.

The member is no doubt aware that there is some suggestion of scientific research tax credit manipulation, and there are other suggestions. All that is going to be looked into by the police and the auditor and all that information will be shared with the member.

Mr. Speaker: New question.

Mr. Philip: My question is to the Premier. From the evidence given in the public accounts committee today, it is fairly clear there are police investigations into the three matters concerned with Wyda: the possibility of fraud, income tax evasion and violations of the Business Practices Act.

Does the Premier think those matters should be studied by the public accounts committee? Could they not be studied more expeditiously and more evenly by a judicial inquiry? That is what we have called for. Why does the Premier not agree to a judicial inquiry?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I just dealt with that in the previous six questions, but I will deal with these matters again for my honourable friend. I think they are best dealt with by the police, and the police are looking into exactly those matters. I have faith in the police. They should be allowed to do their job. The member had his go at the whole matter. As I recall, the member was not happy with his first interpretation, so he put another interpretation on it. Maybe he wants to put a third or fourth on it. Go ahead.

Mr. Philip: We were happy with our interpretation. We were not happy with the interpretation leaked by the Office of the Premier. That is what we were not happy with.

It is fairly clear we have a serious matter of $3.7 million which has disappeared and has been used for purposes that were clearly not intended when the IDEA Corp. was set up. It is fairly clear that there was political influence in some manner and tinkering with the system. If the Premier has nothing to hide, why does he not agree to a full judicial inquiry into this matter?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: My honourable friend likes to stand up in this House and make a bunch of unsubstantiated allegations, and he is entitled to do that.

That is what the police are there for. The member will have an opportunity to look at all the facts and then he can draw his own conclusions. Sometimes people get loose-tongued about charges that are made. I have heard of many instances when my friends opposite have had to apologize and retract some wild things they have said on occasion. This will give the member an opportunity to have the facts, and in his usual fair-minded way he can form a judgement thereon.

Mr. Philip: Will the Premier not agree that it is fairly clear that Wyda Corp. and its representatives, those present at that last presentation to IDEA Corp., made gross misrepresentations? Is that not in itself a justification for a judicial inquiry, considering the principals involved?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: My friend is getting rather repetitive, and as a result of that, I have to get rather repetitive too. He has just made a prima facie allegation and surely that is a matter for the police. We will be very happy to share that with the member.

TRITIUM REMOVAL

Mr. Rae: I have a question to the Minister of Natural Resources about radioactive water.

Mr. Cousens: Change the subject.

Mr. Rae: The member may not think the transportation of radioactive water is a problem in Ontario, but we do.

Can the Minister of Natural Resources explain why there has as yet been no public hearing or public inquiry of any kind dealing with the transportation of tritium-contaminated water from Bruce and Pickering? Why has there been no public inquiry of any kind when these shipments are supposed to start as early as this month?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I am sure the leader of the third party understands that there is another player involved here. The containers and the safety of the device transporting heavy water which contains tritium--to have it removed--involve the federal government.

I am not sure that it should go beyond that or that there should be any kind of an inquiry. We are talking about low-level radioactive material. It will be done in a way that will not jeopardize anyone's safety as it relates to the containers the material will be in and the low levels of radioactivity.

Mr. Rae: The minister has just contradicted himself in his own answer, and I congratulate him for having done that. First he says it is not in his jurisdiction to deal with the problem and, second, he says there is no problem. He should make up his mind. If indeed there is radioactive, tritium-contaminated water being transported through town after town, from the Bruce Peninsula all the way to Darlington, is the minister seriously standing in his place today and saying that the government of Ontario has no jurisdiction to protect the citizens living on those highways and byways?

Is he seriously standing in his place and saying he has no authority to order any kind of an inquiry or public discussion about the safety of those citizens who are going to be affected by trucks passing by their homes day and night?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I did not say that at all; the member did.

I am not saying there is not some danger. I said there are low levels of radioactive material. The material is being transported, to take the tritium out for the safety of the workers at our Candu reactors. I think that has to be done and should be done. We are going to do it in Ontario within the safety of the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act. The federal government plays a very important role in designing the containers and being sure the material is moved safely. That is what I said.

Mrs. Grier: When I asked a similar question of the minister some months ago, he allowed that he had a number of options. Transportation was the first. Allowing the tritiated water to stay there and decay was the second. I would like to ask the minister about the third.

Why is the minister even contemplating transporting this tritium around the province? Why is he not prepared to build tritium removal plants at Bruce and at Pickering, as he has done at Darlington?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: It is simply because what we are talking about is tritium being considerably more radioactive than heavy water. They are absolutely two different things. To have the tritium removed at one site is considerably different from moving the tritium around.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That question and response have been completed.

IDEA CORP.

Mr. Gillies: I have another question of the Premier on the Wyda matter. I am disgusted to hear the Premier revert to his original defence of June 10, talking about unsubstantiated charges in the Wyda matter. I remind the Premier that $3.5 million of the public's money is jeopardized in this affair and that a committee report unanimously found that the nature of this investment was changed at a meeting of IDEA officials, Mr. Caplan and Mr. Dobzinski.

I remind the Premier that the principal of the company has skipped the country. I remind the Premier that the Ontario Provincial Police are now talking about commercial fraud, breaches of the Income Tax Act and overvaluation of assets.

Does the Premier really believe the charges I made on June 10 are unsubstantiated or will he admit now that his government has fiddled while millions of public dollars burned and that a public inquiry is more than called for in this matter?

14:30

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am not in a position to help my honourable friend any more than I helped his leader or the member for Etobicoke (Mr. Philip). The police are there. I have faith in the police investigating these matters. If he has anything he would like to refer to them to look at, on his behalf I would be very happy to make any suggestions he has and share the information with him. There is no problem.

Mr. Gillies: The nature of the inquiry in this matter becomes very important. The Premier cannot have officials of his government investigating a mishandling of a matter by his government. He cannot have officials of the Ontario Development Corp. gathering information when there has been mishandling of this matter by the OCD. We cannot have the Attorney General (Mr. Scott), who attended meetings that resulted in the assembling of evidence for this inquiry, involved in this. The Premier has to go outside.

When will the Premier end the stonewalling and call a public inquiry into this tawdry mess?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: There is no stonewalling at all.

Mr. Stevenson: You are sitting on a dung heap. Let us open it up and find out what is involved.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: It is opened up and it is all there.

I think the honourable member made one of the most outrageous propositions I have ever heard in this House. He said he does not have faith in the OPP to be objective and go into this matter.

Mr. Gillies: That is not what I said.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: That is what he said. If my honourable friend would want to think carefully about some of the allegations he makes about the independence or the ability of the OPP, particularly as a former minister of the crown, albeit somewhat briefly, the honourable member would want to retract that and stand up and say that we do have faith in the objectivity and the ability of the OPP, just as they investigate many other matters that involve members of Parliament. They are an independent group and so they should be. I have faith in their ability to get all the facts out.

Mr. Gillies: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: I would invite the Premier--I do not know how long his memory is; I would have thought it would extend back 60 seconds--to point out to me where I said I did not have faith in the OPP. I said I did not have faith in the ability of officials of his government to investigate a mess for which they are responsible.

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of privilege. Order.

Mr. Harris: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I fail to understand your ruling that it is not a point of privilege. Perhaps you could explain it to me. When one member of the Legislature alludes to something another member said that is totally false, as the Premier did, surely it is a point of privilege to correct that?

Mr. Speaker: I will check Hansard. I distinctly heard the member say, "I invite the Premier to tell me where I said that."

Mr. Grossman: It was a point of privilege.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Gillies: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege--

Mr. Speaker: No. Order.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I honestly wish the members would take a look at the standing orders and find out what the difference is between a point of order and a point of privilege.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: What the member stood on is not a point of privilege.

Mr. Gillies: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I really feel this is very important. Perhaps you could guide me and other members of the assembly. When a member of this assembly, in this case the Premier of the province, makes an accusation that is false about something a member said in this House, under what standing order should I stand and invite that member of the assembly to correct the record, rather than leave a lie on the floor of the House?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think we should take a little time to calm down. I remind the member that there have been many occasions when there have been disagreements about facts in this House. Members have the right to stand up and disagree with that, and they have on many occasions. Members have the right to stand up and correct their own records but not to correct the record of anyone else.

Mr. Harris: Even when somebody else lies about you, you cannot do that? I do not understand, Mr. Speaker, I am sorry.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I really wish the member for Nipissing would stay calm.

Mr. McClellan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I wish to participate in this discussion. In another parliament I recall the Attorney General of the day making exactly the same imputation against a member of the opposition, that he somehow lacked respect for the police because he disagreed with the position of the Attorney General. The then Speaker, the member for Peterborough (Mr. Turner), ruled it was a matter of privilege and forced the Attorney General to withdraw the remark.

I think this is a matter of privilege. I do not think this is consistent with the rules of conduct for debate, and I think it would be appropriate for you, sir, to ask the Premier to withdraw his remark.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, since we are going to spend some time discussing this, I point out to you that the member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies) indicated he had no confidence in the officials of the government investigating a matter associated with the government. The Premier said the police are investigating it. If you fit that together, you can see there is rationale on both sides.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are getting into a debate and we are missing a lot of time for questions. The member for York South on this point.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, on the same point, with great respect, there is a difference between an argument between members with respect to things that have or have not been said or views that are or are not held. That is not in question.

What is in question is a statement by the Premier with respect to the lack of faith of a member of this House in the administration of justice in this province. If the statement was made outside the House, it would be taken very seriously indeed by any member against whom the accusation was made.

In the light of the nature of the accusation that has been made by the Premier, I think we are all entitled to a clear statement from him with respect to his inference about the views of another member. It is not simply a question of arguing about what was or was not said; it is a question of whether it is a fair comment for one member to make about another, that the other member does not have faith in the administration of justice in the province.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not believe it is up to the Speaker to decide what is true and what is not true. It is up to the Speaker to decide whether it is a point of privilege or a point of order. After all this lengthy discussion, I will be glad to look at Hansard and I will certainly report back to the House.

14:40

PREMIER'S REMARK

Mr. Shymko: On a different point of privilege, Mr. Speaker--

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Shymko: It is a different personal privilege, a different point of privilege.

Interjections.

Mr. Shymko: With respect, it is a point of personal privilege.

Mr. Speaker: We have points of privilege and we have points of personal explanation. Which is it?

Mr. Shymko: It is a point of privilege on which I rise.

Yesterday a racist remark was labelled against me. I would like to send the Premier a copy of Hansard and I would like to read the reference.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the member wait until the end of question period? That is the usual procedure.

Mr. Shymko: I understand I can rise on a point of personal privilege at any time, according to the standing orders.

Mr. Speaker: If the member wishes--

Mr. Shymko: Yes, that is my wish.

Mr. Speaker: --to waste the time of the members, that is fine.

Mr. Shymko: Yesterday I was called Ivan the Terrible. To quote the words of the Premier, he said, "My friend opposite, Ivan the Terrible."

I find this an ethnic slur. More, I find it a racist remark because of my Slavic origin. I am of Ukrainian background. Ivan the Terrible is known in history as the most brutal, sadistic murderer in the history not only of the Czarist empire but also in world history. The term "Ivan the Terrible" has been used for individuals such as the one who has been accused as a war criminal in murdering millions of people in the Treblinka Nazi concentration camp, and who is being tried today in Jerusalem.

I demand a retraction.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not a point of privilege.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I apologize. It is a term of endearment and affection for the member that is commonly shared by members of the House, but if the member is offended in any way, I will withdraw it.

Mr. Martel: You should add at least 10 minutes on to question period, Mr. Speaker, since they have destroyed it all.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr. Martel: I have a question of the Minister of Labour regarding the courthouse in London and the complete distortion of facts by the Ministry of Government Services. The minister will be aware that renovations started on June 8 without notification to the contractor, his employees, the employees of the building and the public that asbestos was present in the building. No precautions were taken to protect these people, despite the fact that MGS was fully aware of a 1980 report concerning asbestos in the building, and the new regulations were passed in March 1986 regarding asbestos.

Given that a stop-work order was put in effect on June 12, can the minister tell me why the district manager of MGS blatantly violated the order and instructed the contractor to resume work on June 17 while the Minister of Labour's order was in effect? Does he intend to prosecute the Ministry of Government Services?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: Most of the information the honourable gentleman put in his preamble is several months old. The only real question is what will be the appropriate disposition of this matter in terms of a decision to prosecute or not. I do not have the answer to that. I do not know whether a prosecution has been launched. I will check for the gentleman and inform him of the status of that matter.

In fairness, I should indicate that decisions to prosecute in this government and in this province are not made by the government of the day, to remove them from political tarnish. They are made by ministry bureaucrats, the senior officials of the ministry, and by officials of the ministry's legal branch.

Mr. Martel: The minister may say these facts were known for some time. I have managed to get my hands only on the three various reports, one by MGS, one by his ministry and one by Trevor Harris and Associates. Can the minister explain to me the following discrepancies?

In the Ministry of Government Services report, why did they say they were going to remove two to three square feet of asbestos when, on one floor alone, 1,500 to 2,000 square feet were removed? Why did the Ministry of Government Services say there was 0.1 per cent of asbestos in its report when the minister's report says there was five to 25 per cent? Finally, why is it that MGS, according to the Ministry of Labour's doctor, took his statement out of context and said there would be no health hazard? Dr. Sullivan said there would be a health hazard if the material was moved.

What is the minister going to do to put all these facts on the table and conduct an inquiry--

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

Hon. Mr. Wrye: The unfortunate thing for the honourable member is that the acting Minister of Government Services (Mr. Conway) is not here today. As I heard the question, it might more properly be put to the acting Minister of Government Services. Obviously, the member has the views of the Ministry of Labour. Should there be a prosecution, these matters might be raised in the prosecution. I know there are some differences between the two ministries and we will simply let those differences exist. They may lead to matters in the future, so I am not willing to get into them any further.

PROPERTY RIGHTS

Mr. Epp: I have a question for the Attorney General. The minister is aware, as we were reminded in the House today, that my resolution on the inclusion of private property rights in the Canadian Constitution was passed here by a vote of 44 to 20 two weeks ago. Given that British Columbia, New Brunswick and the Yukon Territory have passed similar resolutions, will the Attorney General indicate to the Legislature whether attorneys general across the country are discussing this matter and, if so, what the progress of those discussions is?

Hon. Mr. Scott: I thank the honourable member for the question about the property rights amendment proposed for the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. He refers correctly to the fact that three other assemblies have passed the requisite resolution. Regrettably, two of those assemblies' resolutions have expired by virtue of the passage of time, so at present there is only one outstanding resolution.

The Ontario resolution, as the members will know, was passed not long ago. Regrettably, while it was passed by the House, it did not obtain the support of a majority of the members of the assembly, which is required by the Constitution Act. It obtained the support only of a majority of the members voting and is therefore not a resolution that qualifies under the Constitution Act.

However, I should tell the member that the attorneys general at their last meeting agreed that a study should be done by them and their officials on the impact, positive and, if any, negative, that such a proposal might have if effected.

IDEA CORP.

Mr. Pope: I have a question for the acting Solicitor General, the cabinet minister who is responsible for police in this province and who therefore has some responsibility with respect to the Ontario Provincial Police, who are now investigating the Wyda matter.

On July 3, 1986, Mary Eberts said that there was a meeting in this building. She said: "We went over the documents that I would be obliged to disclose, and we also went over the meetings I had with them that I would be obliged to tell this committee about." She is referring to Mr. Caplan and the member for Oriole (Ms. Caplan). "I had to tell them what evidence I would have to give pursuant to the subpoena that I had received. And I did that so as to allow them to consider whether they would waive the privilege." That is on page 35 of Hansard, public accounts committee, July 3, 1986.

On page 37: "Was there anyone else there, other than the people you have just listed?" "At the conclusion, when the decision of the waiver of privilege was finalized, there was a very brief attendance by the Attorney General. It was very short."

Will the acting Solicitor General indicate to me and to the members of the House that he agrees that a judicial inquiry should be conducted into this matter so there can be some separation between the members of the cabinet and the acting Solicitor General in this matter?

Hon. Mr. Scott: I think there is some confusion as a result of the fact that Ms. Eberts had associated with her in that inquiry a lawyer whose name was Scott. I gather from the press reports that the lawyers and clients met together to discuss evidence. I was not present at any such meeting.

On the morning the first witness was to be called at the committee, I was notified that the first witness was to be Blenus Wright, who is a staff member of my department. He indicated that he would not be able to attend because the position had been taken that he could not give evidence as he was bound by solicitor-client privilege in respect of advice he had given to Mr. Caplan in the course of advising him with respect to conflict. I was advised by his office and by the office of the secretary to the cabinet that he would not be attending.

14:50

I considered the matter with my officials and we determined that the exception of solicitor-client privilege did not bind Blenus Wright and that he was compellable by the committee and was obliged to give evidence. I therefore attended on the lawyers to advise them the government view was that Mr. Wright would attend the committee and would give evidence if asked questions by members of the committee. I attended for only a few moments, made that point and left.

Mr. Pope: On page 35 of the transcript of July 3, Mary Eberts, a lawyer, under oath, indicates that yes, there was a Mr. Scott there; he was her lawyer. On page 37, she very clearly indicates he attended that meeting. At that meeting, information and documents were reviewed with Stephen Goudge, of the law firm of Gowling and Henderson, before they were presented to the committee.

This is now a matter that is subject to an Ontario Provincial Police investigation, with the potential of criminal charges. Will the Attorney General and acting Solicitor General not agree that it is now time for a judicial inquiry or that he should step down from his position until the investigation is finished?

Hon. Mr. Scott: I do not have the transcript in front of me at the moment, though I have seen it. My friend has now been good enough to send it over to me. I want to take a moment to look at it.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Scott: There is no reference to me on page 35. On page 36, Ms. Eberts says this: "At the end of the meeting, after all the discussions had finished and the Caplans had taken the decision to waive their privilege and permit me to talk to this committee, the advice that I had been authorized to talk to this committee was given to Mr. Goudge, who I understand is representing the caucus."

Questions go on: "Was there anyone else there, other than the people you have just listed?" We must remember we are talking about the end of the meeting after the discussions had finished. Ms. Eberts says: "At the conclusion, when the decision about the waiver of privilege was finalized--"

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: New question; the member for York South.

PROTECTION FOR HOME BUYERS

Mr. Rae: I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations and the Minister of Financial Institutions. I have in my hand a copy of the agreement of purchase and sale between Felicia Petrocelli and Madelina Cisti with Appleford Estates Inc. It is a document that is a masterpiece of obfuscation, and really a masterpiece of oppression when one looks at the relationship between vendor and purchaser.

This is the standard contract that is being imposed on purchasers of new homes. It is a contract that literally gives the purchaser nothing, as we now can see only too clearly, and gives the vendor, the seller, absolutely everything. It is a standard written contract, two pages of fine print, all of which establishes that at the end one may not have a home at all, as we now know only too well.

Is it the minister's view that this is a fair contract to be standardized in this way and imposed upon purchasers?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The member of the third party is a gentleman learned in the law and I am not, but as someone who has been in the real estate business I can tell him there is no such thing as a standard contract. The contract he showed me may be purported to be a standard contract, but any purchaser who gets involved in any transaction that in most cases is the largest transaction in his lifetime should get legal counsel. The purchaser should get legal counsel to take a look at that document and, if it is as outrageous as the member says it is, the purchaser should not sign it.

Mr. Rae: I do not think I have ever heard, even from the minister's own lips, a more moronic response to what is literally an oppressive contract. For the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations to say there is no such thing as a standard contract is an unbelievably naïve statement; that is the kindest interpretation one can put on it. The minister knows full well that in a tight market there are standard contracts and that purchasers are faced with virtually no choice; it is a take-it-or-leave-it situation. That is the reality.

Given the minister's pathetic response to the first question, is he going to do anything at all for the dozens, indeed now, we understand, hundreds of purchasers who are being cheated of the homes they thought they were buying because of the very unfair nature of the contracts they had to sign to be able to get their foot in the door in the first place?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I do not want to prolong the discussion about contracts. There is a standard form. As the member knows, a contract in law has nothing to do with the form; that is the form that is used. When we talk about contracts, the member is supposed to be a lawyer, but when he suggests these things are moronic, he is showing his lack of knowledge on this issue.

When it comes to a document, it is there to be amended or altered in any way the purchaser chooses. When we are talking about a market, the market may be tight but that has nothing to do with the document. We have to make sure consumers are protected from unscrupulous vendors, and we are doing that. We will be making announcements shortly. That is the role we are playing.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Financial Institutions has a response to a question asked previously by the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart).

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: On December 8, the member for Welland-Thorold asked me whether I could determine the number of drivers who are not insured. I told him I did not have that information but I would try to get the answer to him. In his question, he suggested that because the Ministry of Transportation and Communications estimated the figure was 1.6 per cent of all drivers involved in traffic accidents, it is possible there are 70,000 uninsured drivers.

The member must appreciate that, because it is illegal to drive without insurance, I cannot very well go out and canvass everybody and ask, "How many of you are breaking the law?" What we have been able to do is to monitor claims against the uninsured coverage which every auto policy in Ontario includes, plus the claims against the motor vehicle claims fund as a percentage of all auto liability claims.

These have fallen steadily in the past three years. In 1983, we find the uninsured claims as a percentage of auto liability claims were 2.5 per cent; in 1984, 2.2 per cent; in 1985, 1.9 per cent. The current estimate is that the percentage is less than 0.5 per cent of all liability claims.

Mr. Swart: I remind the minister that under the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Act most people have to launch suits and, therefore, they do not bother; and that many people do not have the uninsured coverage.

Neither of the methods the minister mentions seem to be nearly as accurate as checking with the police officers who determine at the time of an accident whether there is insurance. Is the minister saying the figure of 164,000 that was given to the committee when it was studying the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations estimates two years ago was false? If not, can he tell me what the figure is, using the same technique of evaluation at present?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I am not saying the figure is false. I am saying we are dealing with a situation where we are trying to determine how many people out there are breaking the law. It is very difficult to find that out because nobody is going to come forward as a volunteer to say, "I am breaking the law and I should be counted." I am suggesting we think this is probably a more accurate way of gauging that number.

15:00

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

Mr. Cousens: I have a question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications. The phenomenal growth that has been taking place in York region for the past several years has continued to put pressure on every ministry of this government, and people are becoming concerned about many issues. One of the most stressful issues now affecting the people of York region is roads. Will the minister tell us when his government plans to begin construction of Highway 407?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: If I were a member of the previous government, I would be embarrassed to ask a question about the transportation needs of this province. Along with his colleagues, that member sat in cabinet for years and allowed the bludgeoning of the budget of this ministry.

Mr. Andrewes: What?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: I said he allowed the bludgeoning of the budget of this ministry.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Lincoln might want to control himself.

Mr. Cousens: I cannot believe the answer from that minister. This is an affront to the House and an insult to the people of York region. It is a simple question: when will the government begin to build Highway 407? Nothing has been done to add services or additional trains to GO Transit. We have 15,000 new homes being built in south York region right now.

Mr. Speaker: The question has been asked.

Mr. Cousens: All I want to know is when this government will begin construction of 407. That is the question I asked before, and I ask it now.

Hon. Mr. Fulton: The member is well aware that the 407 is one of many priorities we inherited that the previous government did not bother to fund.

We recognize the rapid growth in the region to which the member refers. We are also aware of it from tours of his riding on two occasions in the past 10 days. The minister is very aware of that need. However, we have had to take a budget that was beaten to death for more than 10 years. The generosity of the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) has allowed us to add money in the past couple of years and I hope we will continue to do so.

To answer the member's question, we are working on property acquisition and other matters related to it. As funding becomes available, I will make the appropriate announcement at the appropriate time.

Mr. Cousens: I waited two days for that.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Scarborough-Ellesmere.

[Applause]

Mr. Warner: Thank you. Now, if the members who applauded will only donate to my campaign.

YOUTH UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr. Warner: I have a question of the Minister of Skills Development. This government has but one major program directed towards youth unemployment. After one full year, the success is that it has reduced youth unemployment from 12.2 per cent to 11.2 per cent. At this rate, it will be 11 years before we solve the problem. Does the government have any plans that will really cope with the problem of youth unemployment?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I would donate to my friend's political campaign; not very much, but I would donate to it. I did not watch the show, though. I missed it. We do not have a television in the family.

First, my friend says unemployment has gone from 12.2 per cent to 11.1 per cent. I think that is what he said. In fact, the figures for November, year over year, are from 12.2 per cent to 10.1 per cent. Are we satisfied? No, we are not satisfied.

He suggests we have one program. When another party was the government, he was saying: "You have too many programs. You should make a concerted effort." I think my friend is trying to recoup from statements he made about how successful our Futures program is and will be. For that, I thank him.

Mr. Warner: The minister can accuse the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission of distorting the facts and figures. The fact is, unemployment has decreased by only one per cent. We still have 115,000 unemployed young people in this province, and the minister has no response for it.

I asked the minister whether he had seriously considered the statement made by the Social Planning Council of Metropolitan Toronto that a stimulative monetary policy could create jobs for employment-disadvantaged youth at a lower cost to the taxpayer than the Futures work experience program. When will the government be prepared to bring in some realistic programs that will help the 115,000 young people who are currently unemployed in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: This is like a rerun of estimates. The member for Scarborough-Ellesmere prepared the question and delivered it very well then, and I think I delivered a pretty good answer. I will try it again.

I acknowledge there are still 115,000 young people unemployed, but my friend should acknowledge the statistics indicate that of those 115,000, some 48,000 are full-time students who would like part-time jobs. Yes, they are unemployed, but they are full-time students. We discussed that.

My friend has asked when the Minister of Skills Development is going to bring in a stimulative monetary policy. That is not yet in the mandate of the Ministry of Skills Development. I think it resides with the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon), where it belongs. That part of the question ought properly to be directed to him.

COURTHOUSE

Mr. Baetz: I have a question for the Attorney General, if the member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Sargent) will allow him to listen to it.

Leaders of the legal community in Ottawa continue to disagree sharply with the Attorney General's assessment of courtroom needs in Ottawa's new courthouse. There are comments all over the place. For example, Mr. Wakefield, president of the Defence Counsel Association, says: "The backlogs are there, the delays are there. If Scott refuses to see the problem, well, there is none as blind as those that will not see." Robert Houston says: "It is misleading"--strong language; we may not even use it in here; it is misleading, it is bamboozling--"for Scott to suggest that the number of cases handled by local courts does not warrant more courtrooms."

In the light of all this, what specific steps has the Attorney General taken during the past two weeks to meet with these leaders and to resolve these obvious misunderstandings of our courtroom needs in the nation's capital?

Hon. Mr. Scott: I guess the honourable member was at home or elsewhere when this question was asked not long ago, because it is not different from the one asked then.

As I indicated, I have discussed the matter with Mr. Houston in person on a number of occasions and very recently by telephone. I have indicated that the courthouse has the capacity to be expanded by the completion of an additional four courtrooms, which I think cost about $500,000 each to complete. Now that the courthouse is open with, I think, 27 courtrooms in place, I have indicated to Mr. Houston and others that we will watch for the next month or two and see the extent to which there is a need for additional courtrooms before those millions are spent.

As Mr. Wakefield very candidly concedes in another quotation, which the honourable member has not taken care to read, it is not the absence of courtrooms alone that is the problem in Ottawa; one of the major difficulties is the absence of judges, who are appointed by the federal government in Ottawa. There are now four judicial vacancies in the Supreme Court of Ontario, which the federal government, of a political stripe the member knows, has not yet filled.

The solution to the backlog problem is a joint solution. We have indicated clearly that when a need is demonstrated in the next month or two, if it is, those courtrooms will be completed.

15:10

PETITIONS

SUNDAY TRADING

Mr. Warner: I have a petition to the assembly. It reads:

"We, the undersigned persons, by voluntarily affixing our signatures, indicate:

"That we are opposed to the general opening of retail stores in Metropolitan Toronto; and

"That we wish to indicate to legislators at the municipal and provincial level that we consider the general opening of retail stores as an infringement of our Christian Canadian heritage."

There are 180 signatures, and I support the petition.

SUNDAY RACING

Ms. Bryden: I have a petition about Sunday racing signed by 47 residents of my riding, Beaches-Woodbine. It reads:

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

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

"Whereas the Ontario Racing Commission in its hearing into the Ontario Jockey Club application for Sunday racing at Greenwood Race Track has ruled that it does not have the jurisdiction to hear the concerns of residents surrounding the aforesaid racetrack;

"And whereas many residents have shown their concern with the impact of Sunday racing at Greenwood Race Track on their neighbourhood and have indicated their wish to voice that concern;

"That the government amend the Racing Commission Act to ensure that the rights and concerns of residents in the neighbourhood of the racetrack and in the surrounding community be considered and protected by the Ontario Racing Commission in setting racing dates, times and schedules;

"Further, that the legislation provide that the long tradition of no Sunday racing at Greenwood Race Track be maintained."

I support the petition.

Mr. Speaker: Before I recognize any other members to present petitions, perhaps many of the members who are having private conversations will refrain in order that these members may be heard.

SUNDAY TRADING

Mr. Jackson: I have a petition for the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor from 80 citizens from the Halton and Hamilton-Wentworth regions. It states:

"We, the undersigned, are opposed to retailers opening on Sunday. We feel that the Legislature should be more stringent."

Ms. E. J. Smith: I have five individual petitions, all saying roughly the same thing and containing 354 signatures. I will read one of them:

"We are adamantly opposed to any changes in the law that will allow an extension permitting more stores to open on Sunday. Signatures of our friends and neighbours who feel the same way are enclosed. It is our hope that you will exercise your powers in support of our petition."

REPORTS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

Mr. McCague from the standing committee on general government presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bill as amended:

Bill 131, An Act to amend the Assessment Act.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for third reading.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Laughren from the standing committee on resources development reported the following resolution:

That supply in the following amounts and to defray the expenses of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1987:

Ministry administration program, $13,304,600; agricultural marketing and standards program, $29,513,300; agricultural technology, development and field services program, $113,006,700; and financial assistance to agriculture program, $182,509,400; and

That supply in the following supplementary amount and to defray the expenses of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1987:

Agricultural technology, development and field services program, $1,211,800.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

Mr. Breaugh, from the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly, reported the following resolution:

That supply in the following amount and to defray the expenses of the office of the chief election officer be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1987:

Office of the chief election officer program, $359,600.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

Mr. Runciman from the standing committee on public accounts presented the committee's report and moved the adoption of its recommendation:

Your committee has reviewed matters related to the $3-million investment received by Wyda Systems (Canada) lnc. from IDEA Corp. last year.

During its investigation, your committee received evidence indicating: that more than $2 million of the $3 million was used to pay off debts instead of being applied to research and development; that debts included $462,000 to Abraham Dobzinski and $585,000 to Budgrove Ltd.; that $30,000 was paid to Canadian Intercorp Ltd., a firm belonging to a self-confessed Liberal lobbyist, Ivan Fleischmann; and that on April 17, 1986, Wyda issued a cheque to Abraham Dobzinski in the amount of $3,451,922, presumably to reimburse for retirement of a long-term indebtedness of his company.

Neither the committee nor the Provincial Auditor of Ontario has received an explanation that would justify the complexity or reconcile the accounting.

In view of the very important matters on the committee's agenda, your committee advises that it is not in a position to investigate further this complex matter and therefore recommends that a judicial inquiry be initiated forthwith into this matter.

On motion by Mr. Runciman, the debate was adjourned.

MOTION

COMMITTEE BUSINESS

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved that the standing committee on resources development be directed to review the circumstances of the announced closure of the Goodyear tire manufacturing plant and the various closures of other manufacturing facilities, particularly in northern Ontario.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

THEATRES AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Kwinter moved first reading of Bill 173, An Act to amend the Theatres Act. Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The bill I am introducing today will bring the management structure of the Ontario Film Review Board in line with other public agencies, boards and commissions.

Under the amendment, separate individuals will be appointed as chairman of the Ontario Film Review Board and director of the theatres branch. The chairman will be appointed by order in council rather than being a civil servant. Administrative and support services will become the responsibility of the director of the theatres branch.

Under the current act, the director of the theatres branch is automatically chairman of the Ontario Film Review Board.

My new proposal is consistent with earlier administrative changes, which expanded the number of board members, all of whom are now part-time non civil servants. This is designed to reflect broader community input.

15:20

PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE CROWN AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Scott moved first reading of Bill 174, An Act to amend the Proceedings Against the Crown Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Scott: In 1983, as members will perhaps remember, an amendment was made to the Proceedings Against the Crown Act to make the crown subject for the first time to garnishment proceedings in respect of the wages of its employees and moneys owing to persons contracting with the government.

During the process of developing the administrative procedures implementing that amendment, it became apparent that the complex and decentralized nature of government called for more specific procedures for binding the crown by a garnishment order.

Members will recall garnishment is to apply not only to wages but also to moneys owing under all government contracts for goods or services wherever payable across Ontario.

Accordingly, the purpose of these amendments is to assist the crown in identifying which payments made in the vast and intricate network of government operations will be bound by a particular notice of garnishment. These amendments will bring about long-awaited relief for creditors of persons entitled to receive payments from the crown.

GREENWOOD RACEWAY ACT

Ms. Bryden moved first reading of Bill 175, An Act to Ban Sunday Racing and Intertrack Wagering at Greenwood Raceway, and to provide for public input into decisions of the Ontario Racing Commission.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: The title sounds self-explanatory, but the member may have some further explanation.

Ms. Bryden: This bill bans Sunday racing and intertrack betting at Greenwood raceway, which is the only racetrack in Ontario located in a high-density urban residential area. It also provides for public input into the decisions of the Ontario Racing Commission, which regulates racetracks in Ontario.

CITY OF TORONTO ACT

Mr. Offer moved first reading of Bill Pr53, An Act respecting the City of Toronto.

Motion agreed to.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS IN ORDERS AND NOTICES AND RESPONSE TO PETITION

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I wish to table the answers to questions 500 and 505 to 510, the interim answers to questions 501, 502, 503, 511, 512 and 514, revised interim answers to questions 210, 289, 411 and 454, the response to a petition presented to the House, sessional paper 233, and an interim response to petition sessional paper 232 [see Hansard for Monday, December 15].

PUBLIC OPINION POLLS

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I wish to table the following public opinion polls: from the Ministry of Natural Resources, a forestry research survey, and from the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, a survey on equine technology.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

REPORT, STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS (CONTINUED)

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for adoption of the recommendations contained in the report of the standing committee on public accounts on the allegation of conflict of interest concerning Elinor Caplan, MPP.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: If honourable members will allow me to lead off in this debate, I want to express a few thoughts to the House on this very important matter. Unfortunately, I have another commitment in a half hour, although I do not intend to use all that time in expressing my views.

I do not recall a situation in my political career where I felt more personally disappointed at what I consider to be bad luck that overtook a valued personal friend and colleague, the member for Oriole (Ms. Caplan), who is present in the House today. We came into the ministry together, and although I had sufficient experience in opposition for several members, neither of us had any experience in government; however, she, having been a valued and effective member of North York council, at least had been associated with executive decisions and was not so daunted by them as I perhaps was and to some degree still am.

Since one of her principal responsibilities was as Chairman of Management Board of Cabinet and mine was as Treasurer, we were both located on the seventh floor of the Frost Building. We worked rather closely together. I was very pleased to be named a member of Management Board, and we used to argue about and discuss a variety of decisions that the members of the official opposition know about and that the members of the third party may know about if they get lucky.

The comments are based on the fact that we established a very strong personal friendship and, I hope, mutual trust. I have complete trust in her judgement and in her usefulness as a member of this government and as a person whose motives in public life are the strongest, purest and most effective. Perhaps that itself is a bit of a bias in discussing this report, but I want to be sure the members know my views on that important area.

Nothing could have been of more concern to me than allegations that the use of her position by others would lead to an allegation of conflict of interest. It resulted in her resignation from the cabinet. At the time, I thought it would be for a short period, but now six months later she is still out of the cabinet and we are debating in this House the report of the committee on the allegations.

I want to say something about the procedure itself. I think she did precisely the right thing in tendering her resignation from cabinet pending the solution of this matter. In my view, the matter is resolved as far as she is concerned. That is probably the basic tenet of my comments this afternoon. I have not talked to anyone in this House or anyone associated with the matter who feels the member for Oriole is culpable of anything other than being an innocent bystander in a situation that in many respects has been disastrous for her these past six months and could be, and I hope will be, remedied both by this House and by the leader of the government in the future.

I believed then and frankly I believe now that the reference to the committee was appropriate. I did not for a minute think it would be an easy reference, having been associated with politics here and, I should say as well, with opposition politics. I know how the place works, and I have no objection to that at all. That there were people who said the discussions had political overtones did not surprise me, and I do not find anything wrong with it. To tell the truth, I am not sure there were such overtones in reference to the member for Oriole herself.

The fact that some of the discussions would lead to an acrimonious exchange is nothing other than what happens here from time to time. If people do not like it as members of the Legislature, they should get out of the heat of this chamber. If observers do not like it, they have the right to express their objection. However, I believe tough exchange is here to stay, and I do not regret that. I do not think it was a bad procedure, although most of my colleagues are not of the same view when I discuss it with them. They feel that by our motion putting this matter to the committee, we abandoned our colleague and friend to an arena of wolves, lions, tigers and even a few jackals.

Mr. Breaugh: Name names.

Mr. Wildman: Lions and tigers is okay, but jackals?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I put that forward. They can identify themselves as they see fit.

I still think the decision was the correct one. We now have the report from that committee, long after we would have expected it. I do not believe I am naïve in these matters, but I might have had a certain degree of innocence when I thought a two- or three-week investigation would lead to a report that might not have been a total exoneration or anything like that, but I still feel the confidence of this House and of the individual members in the member for Oriole is complete. That is my view and my judgement.

15:30

The problem associated with the report itself is not a matter I want to dwell on. Since the report we are debating had some question about the judgement of the member for Oriole in this regard, I disagree with it. I was not a member of the committee, and I do not want to speak in agreement with that in any way.

I believe she was very much an innocent bystander in the matter, totally occupied with extremely heavy duties and responsibilities in the cabinet and the day-to-day administration of Management Board of Cabinet and the Ministry of Government Services, as well as being sought after on many occasions by her colleagues for advice and having many other personal responsibilities going forward.

I was very concerned about this, and I am glad we have come to this day, when I hope the consensus will be as I have stated. While we have no objection to the report's finding, although my colleagues and I cannot agree with it, still it does not find the member in conflict of interest.

I do not take as seriously as perhaps I should that the committee went forward and reconsidered that last bit in a further report, which is in Orders and Notices for discussion later. There was an exchange, political on both sides--and I am quite willing not only to admit that but also to assert it--and it led to a review of the final decisions, which I felt were almost irrelevant and in my view should be irrelevant in this debate.

However, I have another personal concern. Since this whole matter was based on decisions made by IDEA Corp., and the question period today largely related to reviewing those decisions and their ramifications, I am taken back to a line in the budget I had the honour to present to the House more than a year ago. I have the budget in my desk. Members interested in the matter will know I am referring to the statement that said IDEA Corp. would be wound down and replaced by a smaller organization within government itself that would have the responsibility of making grants under the direction of government policy for the venture requirements of new and burgeoning corporations in this province.

Mr. Wildman: They made their biggest investments after that decision was made.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: That is my second point. That is why I have this personal concern. While the direction of the policy of the government was clear, as the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman) has interjected, some of the biggest grants were made after that time. I often think about that. I wonder how that could have happened. I was under the misapprehension that the policy of the government would be followed where possible in these matters.

I point out for the interest of the members that the chairman of the corporation is the former Deputy Treasurer. He would be used to looking at budgets and responding to them. If the direction of the policy of the government had been followed, as we firmly expected it would be, I believe this would not have happened. That is quite a severe and serious thing for me to say, but I am the person to say it, because the matter was of personal concern.

IDEA Corp. was established by the previous government, with independence of government. Its funding does not return to the consolidated revenue fund at the end of the year, and while its board members are appointed by order in council, they are expected to have substantial independence and objectivity in these matters.

That concept originally was well founded, and we have no objection to the policies that established it in the first instance. It was our view, however, that IDEA had not proved itself. As a matter of fact, it had been proved quite clearly to be a facility this government did not wish to continue. We wanted to use some other facility to provide venture capital to the industries and the entrepreneurs of Ontario.

As Treasurer, I felt I would be less than frank if I did not put before the House that which is a matter of concern to all of us. The decisions were entered into legally and properly, although in hindsight the judgement upon which they were based appears to have been flawed in some degree.

My personal feelings in this are associated with the fact that the policy of the government in this connection was quite clearly stated. I have already indicated my personal belief in the vitality and independence of the former minister's judgement in politics and in government. Her record in municipal politics and in the community in general is exemplary. We were and are proud to be associated with her, not just as members of the Liberal Party but also as members on all sides in this Legislature.

I can report to you, Mr. Speaker, of her abilities in cabinet of an administrative nature and of a personal nature. She was able and continues to provide leadership in the motivation of politicians both in and out of the government, which is valuable and certainly something not to be lost.

My own view is that in many respects the report, which is somewhat critical of the judgement associated with this, is one of the best reports we could get out of the process at this time and in this way. I hope that the view expressed in this House will be supportive of the member for Oriole and that at the end of this report and the other reports on the order paper, we can move away from this matter on a personal basis.

We know the investigation into Wyda is ongoing. Whether it is going to satisfy the opposition is another issue entirely, and there is no doubt we will be hearing about that from time to time, perhaps as soon as tomorrow.

I feel better, having had a chance to rise in the House and express my personal conviction of the honourable member's independence of any of the concerns that have been expressed and my sincere hope that she will be supported by the members of this House. I also hope that her career in politics and in government will continue and that she will be able to have an additional opportunity to serve the House, the government and the community.

Mr. Pope: On behalf of all members of the committee, I believe, I want to say this report was not one of our happier duties over the nine and a half years I have been a member, and that feeling was expressed to members of the governing party on a number of occasions.

The Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) in his very brief statement talks about the issue of culpability and the issue of conflict of interest. The unanimous report of the committee dealt with the matter of culpability rather fairly. Actions taken by Mr. Caplan were found to have been in conflict of interest. The report outlined in some detail in its factual findings what those activities were. It was very specific in its recommendations and its findings of fact that the member for Oriole had not on her own pursued or actively engaged in conduct which of its own rendered her culpable, and therefore there was no finding of culpability from any actions arising from the activities of the member for Oriole.

15:40

I want to underline that from my point of view as an individual member of the standing committee on public accounts who sat in on the entire hearing and actively got involved in the hearing with questioning, that is different from the matter of conflict of interest. While the Treasurer and I may share some common ground with respect to culpability, we share absolutely no ground on the Treasurer's statement that there was no finding of conflict of interest.

Attached to this report, and therefore part of it, are the guidelines with respect to conflict of interest. Clearly, whether we like it or not, whether there is culpability or not, whether there is any action or not on the part of the minister, the facts of the matter are that in our system, in this Legislature under those guidelines, conflict-of interest responsibility resides in the minister, not only for herself or himself but also for spouses and minor children. That is clearly stated in the guidelines.

It was on that basis that the inevitable conclusion flowed that if we found the spouse of the minister concerned was involved in a matter that led to a finding of conflict of interest, therefore, under the terminology of the guidelines the minister was in conflict of interest, not necessarily because of anything she did and not necessarily because of any motivation on her part. Without any finding of culpability on the part of the minister involved, there is clearly conflict of interest under the guidelines.

We may in retrospect, as the Premier (Mr. Peterson) did when he appeared in front of us, say that gives us some problems. The fact of the matter is that the committee was asked to rule on the basis of the guidelines that were in place at the time these events occurred. Clearly, any reading of the guidelines yields the conclusion that there was a conflict of interest. Going back to the Treasurer's comments, that is completely not at variance with the issue of culpability as the Treasurer wanted to state it.

I have never talked to the member for Oriole. I heard her testimony in the committee. I am told by those who work with her that she is a good person to work with and that she has a lot of good qualities that people admire. I have no reason to disagree with that. But we were faced with a task in this committee of making a ruling with respect to conflict of interest by the member for Oriole; and referred to us, through evidence given to us, were matters related to the Wyda investment, the activities of the spouse of the minister and others who were involved in this decision by the government to invest in Wyda.

Notwithstanding the Treasurer's statements with respect to his intention in his budget statement of October 1985, the fact of the matter is that there was, independent of the Treasurer's budget, pursuit of investments by IDEA Corp. Mr. Kruger of the Premier's office met with the staff and with the board of IDEA Corp. after the Treasurer's budget and clearly laid down his own interpretation of the Treasurer's guidelines. That person was retained by the Premier and was part of the Premier's staff, we presume. He indicated he was speaking with the knowledge and consent of the Premier and was following the guidelines and directives of the government. He clearly indicated that he gave directions to the IDEA board of directors which allowed them to continue to make investment decisions in the period of wind-down. It was not the IDEA board of directors going off on their own in the absence of some more specific direction from officials of the government of the day.

I wish to address a couple of issues that I think have to be addressed based, quite frankly, on the reaction to the first report. First of all, there was a statement made in the media that this was a partisan exercise from the very beginning. I do not know what that means, but a lot of issues were raised and discussed in private by committee members that were not included in the report. Much of it is public evidence, so I can review a couple of circumstances.

For instance, in the public records of the companies branch of the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations, the member for Oriole was still listed as a director and officer of Damaza at the time it received at least two payments for services to IDEA Corp. That should have been handled sooner. To protect the member for Oriole, she should have been taken off the board of directors publicly at the companies branch, and as an officer, and the shares should have been transferred immediately she came into cabinet and not retroactively.

We did not think that was an important enough issue to be addressed in the report, and we allowed the matter to drop. We did not think it was sufficient information to do anything more than provide some embarrassment. We did not think that in itself, given the indoor management rule, constituted a conflict of interest on the part of the member for Oriole. Therefore, even though it was something active or inactive that should have been done and was not done, we opted not to make a finding on that matter and to let the whole thing drop.

There are a number of other instances in which issues were raised that we decided not to pursue, because we did not feel we should get into a partisan fishing trip on some of these issues, dragging it out and needlessly getting into nitpicking. Very important matters were not addressed. For instance, evidence was given by Mr. Dobzinski, and I remember it well; it was late one Wednesday evening. Mr. Dobzinski indicated there were two payments made to Mr. Caplan after April 19, one on the 19th and one after the 19th, in the amount of $8,000 each.

Mr. Dobzinski testified that night, in response to questions from myself, that Mr. Caplan was rarely at Wyda after the closing of the deal and did very little, but that was the arrangement they had with him. We did not feel that needed to be addressed in the report, because we wanted to make it a unanimous, non-partisan report in terms of finding of fact. We decided, therefore, to keep to issues we could all agree on unanimously as a committee.

What we have in this report is a unanimous finding of a whole set of factual circumstances after intensive questioning and investigation. It was unanimous; there was give and take on both sides of the issue. There were intense arguments in camera over some of the factual findings and over the recommendations in the recommendations section.

The report was drafted by members of all parties in a spirit of co-operation, because we knew we had an obligation to make this a credible report, one that dealt with an important issue and one the public would feel some confidence in because it had been engaged on a non-partisan basis by individual members of the assembly, thrown in a position of reviewing the conduct of one of its members, something we were not happy to do but we were assigned to do.

Because of the attempts of the members of the Liberal Party and the opposition parties, I think we succeeded in coming up with a report that was both comprehensive and fair.

I do not think this report vindicates anybody, as was claimed by the media after it was issued and as the Liberal members tried to claim at the press conference. It was a finding of fact. There was a finding that Mr. Caplan had been in breach of the conflict-of-interest guidelines. The guidelines were attached. The guidelines speak for themselves; they say a minister is responsible for his or her spouse. That was the finding of the committee.

I want to address one other reaction I heard in the media after the first report, that there was no finding of economic benefit. I say to those who feel that was the finding of the committee, the committee unanimously found otherwise. Even the government members unanimously found otherwise. We set out in the report in detail the payments made to whom, the representations by the recipients as to what work they performed for the money or benefits they received and some interpretation of the evidence of other people commenting on whether that work was worth the money paid to these individuals.

15:50

Specifically, there is a finding of a payment of $30,000 to Mr. Fleischmann out of the proceeds of the government investment. That money was paid on the closing day. There is information in this report in its unanimous findings of fact as to what work or activity Mr. Fleischmann carried out through his company, Canadian Intercorp, to merit that payment.

There was a unanimous decision of the committee to the effect that Mr. Fleischmann was paid for his introduction of this application to the officials of the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology. There is specific information about a luncheon with Mr. Barnes, and there is specific reference in the findings of fact as to other efforts Mr. Fleischmann indicated he made on behalf of Wyda and the principals of Wyda.

There was no comment vis-à-vis whether his efforts were worth the $30,000, although I think it was Mr. Logan who said Mr. Fleischmann was well paid for his efforts. There is no doubt that because we wanted a unanimous non-partisan report, the committee never addressed the issue of whether we thought Mr. Fleischmann did anything for his $30,000 other than have a lunch with Mr. Barnes. We stayed away from that because we were trying to get a unanimous consensus on fact.

Second, with respect to Wilf Caplan, we found as a fact that he was retained by Wyda and was paid by Wyda through Damaza and that he did work on behalf of Wyda. We made no comment on the value of that work, but we found payments were made. We also found that two $8,000 payments were made that I talked about earlier.

It is clear, and we found as a fact, that Mr. Caplan was the vice-president of administration and finance for Wyda at all material times. After some hesitation on his part, he became involved in the intense negotiations immediately prior to the investment decision and immediately before the closing of the investment deal with IDEA Corp.

We found as a fact that specifically on the morning of April 10 at the Inn on the Park, Mr. Caplan met with Avi Dobzinski and Mr. Logan, Mr. Logan being the representative and employee of IDEA Corp. At that breakfast, there was a discussion about the use of the government funds that were to be invested in Wyda. We found unanimously as a fact that while Mr. Logan may not have thought so, the essential nature or quality of the investment changed around that time.

As a result of that breakfast meeting, there was a list of payments to be made out of the proceeds of closing, the government money that was being invested. Those payments went to the individuals who are listed in the report. We found unanimously that those payments were made, including the unanimous finding of a payment of $30,000 to Intercorp, $462,525.98 to Mr. Dobzinski, $8,000 to Damaza and $584,670 to Budgrove.

It was a unanimous finding of fact by all members of all parties that these payments were made directly out of the proceeds of closing. We did not include in our report, but there was clear factual evidence, that as well as these payments made on closing and within 11 days of closing, the monthly budget of Wyda went to $454,000 and that money was taken and spent. Then in June 1986, the following month, it declined to $175,000.

In the budget document for May was included an item of $185,000 with respect to purchase of equipment. It is my understanding from the representatives of the Ontario Development Corp. who appeared before our committee this morning that the dollar item in the May 1986 budget of Wyda is what first alerted the ODC to the requirement for an examination of the fair market value of the assets. They expressed the opinion this morning that $185,000 did not represent the actual value of the equipment purchased, that the value was overstated. That led them to call for an examination and evaluation of all the other computer equipment, the hardware located in the Wyda premises or available to Wyda.

I refer the members of the Legislature and the public not only to the recommendation page, the two or three pages that indicate the summary of recommendations we have made, the 13 points in the first report, but also to the unanimous factual summary that all members of all parties adopted when they adopted the first report. There is no doubt that the facts found by the committee indicate there was a conflict of interest. We specify how that conflict of interest occurred, and whether we like it or not we reiterate spousal responsibility was in the existing guidelines that were in place at the time.

I want to address the whole issue of the co-operation of the government in this matter. I acknowledge that the member for Oriole appeared before our committee and was very forthcoming and answered all questions; many other witnesses did likewise.

However, I reiterate that this matter was referred--and I should also indicate, and I should have done this at the very beginning, the admiration I have for the member for Oriole and the manner in which she decided to resign from her position in cabinet as a result of her analysis of the events in the Legislature on the day on which she indicated her desire or her decision to resign. Excuse me, I do not think it was a desire, by any means. I reiterate our admiration for the way in which the member handled herself on that day and her sensitivity to the issue as it was developing in regard to the Wyda investment.

Both opposition parties indicated to the government House leader that they wanted an inquiry. We indicated our preference for the standing committee on public accounts, and the government acceded to the opposition request. But when the Premier and Mr. Carman appeared, they relied on executive privilege not to produce documents they had in their possession. As of today, we do not have those documents; they did not produce them.

I remind members, particularly the members who sat on the committee during the time the consideration of this matter was taking place, that on at least three occasions I indicated publicly in the committee my reservations about the way in which information was being given to us. Others were interpreting what was relevant and what was not. It was not being left to the committee members. The reason that becomes important is that interpretations were put on certain information and fact situations that, when it all came out in the wash, were not appropriate or relevant and were erroneous.

16:00

The other reservation I had, and I expressed it very early in the questioning of Mary Eberts, was that there appeared to be meetings going on with lawyers at which information was being discussed and documents were being reviewed prior to their being submitted to the committee. With respect, I do not think that was appropriate. I will not quote at length, but I want very briefly to refer members to the testimony of Mary Eberts on July 3, 1986.

I have to put it in some context. Mary Eberts was a member of the transition team of the Premier, assisting the government in its transition into power and specifically dealing with the matter of conflict of interest, offering her advice and guidance to members of the cabinet-to-be with respect to conflict of interest.

In response to questions on the morning of Thursday, July 3, 1986, Mary Eberts indicated that in fact there had been a meeting in this building, attended by a number of solicitors, including, by her own words, Stephen Goudge, of the law firm of Gowling and Henderson, representing the Liberal caucus, prior to Mary Eberts appearing before our committee, at which they reviewed documents.

I understood the point Mary Eberts was making was that she had to discuss the waiver of solicitor-client privilege. I am sure the members of the committee will remember my questioning of Mary Eberts. I asked whether she had been retained in writing by any of the individuals at whom we were having a look. I asked her specifically whether she was paid as a lawyer to reinforce the solicitor-client relationship. She indicated none of the above, but she interpreted in her own opinion that she had a solicitor-client relationship and therefore the matter of privilege had to be discussed. That is her opinion, and so be it.

The point I am trying to make is that in the course of those deliberations, there were meetings in this building at which documents were reviewed, information and evidence was reviewed and recollections were exchanged and at which a lawyer for the Liberal caucus was present. What a lawyer for the Liberal caucus had to do with solicitor-client privilege between Mary Eberts and the former cabinet minister and her husband is another matter. For a very brief time, the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) was present.

I reiterate, this is a matter that is now the subject of an Ontario Provincial Police investigation in part, we are told. The point I want to make is that the consequences of that are very serious. I want to drop that issue at this point, other than to say our committee unanimously found that Mary Eberts's post facto interpretation of the word "sever" was unique at best, if I can use the very words of the unanimous committee findings. I think that indicates some of the problems which arise when one starts this kind of review of information and evidence before it is made available to the committee.

The definition she gave to the words "sever the relationship," which was contained in her own letters, was not accepted by the committee. It was clear that advice was given to cut off the relationship. Mary Eberts came before our committee and indicated that her interpretation, when she appeared before the committee, was that "sever the relationship" meant to change the nature of the relationship.

By virtue of the unanimous factual findings of the committee members, we did not buy that for a minute. Because of the reinforcement of that interpretation by subsequent witnesses, it is my feeling that the interpretation of the words "sever the relationship" was part of the discussions that went on before information was presented to this committee. I think it was clearly an interpretation put on the words after the fact of the issuance of the letters. The words we found in the report were unique at best; they were carefully sculpted words.

On pages 42, 43, 44 and 45 of the report, there are a lot of findings of fact that deal with the complex relationship of Mr. Caplan with Wyda and with Mr. Dobzinski and the numerous discussions and negotiations that went on with respect to their retainer relationship. I think it is clear that at all material times after the election, Wyda was a client of Damaza and that Mr. Caplan was doing the work on behalf of Damaza, in part at least, to negotiate and obtain government investment in Wyda.

There was clear evidence, and we found as a fact, that he was held out to be and was carrying on duties as a vice-president of administration and finance. In fairness, to put the full range of services on the record, Mr. Caplan also indicated he was attempting to find what I think was called third-round financing or private sector financial alternatives for Wyda and made some efforts to contact potential investors to encourage them to make this investment during the fall of 1985.

I think it is also clear that when the initial offer was made by IDEA Corp. to invest in Wyda, Mr. Dobzinski found not only the number of dollars to be committed to this investment insufficient but also that there was too much delay in making the investment decision. Then there was a conscious decision, and Mr. Caplan said it was to protect the best interests of his client as a professional adviser and as an accountant, whereby he opted to become involved more actively in these matters.

There are findings of fact, which are unanimous, that meetings took place at the time the decision was made to increase the investment to $3 million. There was some discussion about splitting it, $1.5 million and $1.5 million, and having a two-tier investment. Then it was changed to $1.7 million and $1.3 million. It may have been the reverse actually, but there were two different investment decisions discussed, and ultimately the $3 million was advanced on April 19, 1986.

The findings of fact show clearly that there was some involvement and some economic benefit. The economic benefit came by way of monthly payments. On the closing, there was also a finding of fact that there were two $8,000 payments made to Damaza. I reiterate Mr. Dobzinski's comments, which are in Hansard as part of the transcript, that he rarely saw Mr. Caplan after the closing of the deal on April 19, that he was never around and that was his arrangement with Mr. Caplan. I say that because at the very same time Mr. Dobzinski was testifying about in his recollection of what was happening, $16,000 was being paid to Damaza.

On a very non-partisan basis, there was a strong finding of fact with respect to the activities of Mr. Caplan and with respect to the activities of Mr. Fleischmann. We did not want to be involved publicly at this time because of the commercial value of the company, because of its need to attract new investors and because of its need to carry on as a business in this province; so at an in camera meeting in late August or early September, we called for a forensic audit-unanimously,

I might add, including the Liberal members of the committee. We included not just Wyda but also Mr. Dobzinski personally; we also included Mr. Caplan and Damaza and Mr. Fleischmann and Canadian Intercorp. It was unanimously adopted by the members of the committee.

After some discussion with officials of the Ontario Development Corp., we were told they would perform an audit, thank you very much, and there was no need to have a forensic audit done. Some weeks later, we had an in camera meeting with representatives of all three parties--I think at least two members from each party were there--at which the results of this audit were privately shared with the members of the committee. It turned out not to be an audit at all but a financial review of information we already had, with a detailed list of expenditures according to what appeared on the books of the company.

16:10

At that time, I indicated my concern that an audit had not been done. It was simply a financial review and gave no additional information. I also indicated at that time my concern over the bona fides of the amounts and the debts that were paid out of the proceeds of the investment moneys. I specifically requested that we review the Budgrove debt to see whether it was for value. I specifically asked that customs documents that were then in the possession of Wyda be made available to the committee so it could determine the declared value of this equipment when it came across the border from the United States. To this day, we do not have the customs documents. To this day, we do not have a determination of the actual value of the Budgrove debt, whether it was inflated and whether it was owing to Budgrove at all.

This morning, the Ontario Development Corp. says it thinks an inflated value was put on the Budgrove debt. I remind everyone that four months ago we were raising these questions and asking for a forensic audit to solve that question in our minds.

We also asked for some clearer information on the so-called shareholder loan owing from Wyda to Mr. Dobzinski. We wanted to see the corporate documentation of the loan and the actual bank documents, and we wanted to track what happened to the $462,000 of taxpayers' money that was paid to Mr. Dobzinski personally on April 19.

Virtually $2 million of the $3-million public investment was out the door of this company by the end of May. In 11 days, $1.5 million was gone, and in the subsequent month of May, another $500,000 was gone in the monthly budget.

We asked for some of these explanations by way of forensic audit. We did not get it; we still do not have it. These matters should have been dealt with in August.

In any event, we expressed our disappointment with the financial review that was not an audit, in camera again, for all the reasons we indicated, not only to make sure Wyda continued as an operating company in the province but also because we did not want to make any unsubstantiated public suggestions of impropriety or wrongdoing without having a forensic audit privately done that would justify the suspicions of some of the members of the committee.

I want to talk about the in camera process. Not only did we engage in it to protect individuals and companies whose business affairs we were looking at, but we also engaged in it because we wanted to convince all members of the committee that we were trying to be non-partisan and to speak in accordance with facts proven to the satisfaction of all members of the committee.

The in camera session was held with the accountants for the Ontario Development Corp. We indicated we were not satisfied. We were then told by the officials of the Ontario Development Corp. in camera that they would not spend any more money on audit services and that we would have to go to the Board of Internal Economy to get funding approval.

Then we were caught in a trap we actually discussed in camera. If we went to the Board of Internal Economy, the matter would become public, there would be some innuendo drawn from the fact that we were doing a forensic audit of some of the individuals and companies, and it might be detrimental to those individuals and companies and to the Wyda business itself. On at least two occasions in camera we engaged in a discussion as to whether we should make any submission to the Board of Internal Economy. Ultimately, I think we did not.

Instead of going to the Board of Internal Economy, we reiterated at first in camera our unanimous call for a forensic audit. Then we unanimously passed a public motion calling for a forensic audit and named the same individuals in October that we had named in late August. At that time, there was still no agreement by the Ontario Development Corp. to do it.

The next we heard from the Ontario Development Corp. was when it came and asked our committee to approve an additional $500,000 to be invested in Wyda so it could continue to operate beyond December 1. At that time, we negotiated with the representatives of the Ontario Development Corp. the terms of a more intense audit function to be carried out as a condition of approving the further investment of $500,000 to keep Wyda operating. As a result of the request for more information, and specifically as a result of the unanimous request of the committee for more information on Mr. Dobzinski and the moneys he received, there was no co-operation at all. The Ontario Development Corp., by then realizing how serious the situation was becoming, moved to appoint a court receiver.

I reiterate what I said to the Ontario Development Corp. officials this morning. We in the committee are satisfied with their efforts over the past four weeks in pursuing this matter, in attempting to get the information, in attempting to protect the investment and in attempting to protect the intellectual property that is so important for Ontario, but we think it should have been started in August 1986, when we first raised some concerns.

At the in camera sessions in August, we were given information of a confidential commercial nature that affected our decision to call for a forensic audit. To the best of my knowledge, that information has never been made public by anyone. No member of the committee has ever leaked that information to any member of the media or to the public. We were given the information on that basis. I reiterate that, because it shows this was a nonpartisan effort to try to get at the facts behind this investment and what happened to the $3 million of the taxpayers' money.

To my knowledge, none of the information that was given to us in camera has ever been revealed to the media or to anyone else. We abided by our undertakings. I think we showed good faith in respecting the wishes of those who wanted to give us information, but we became caught because in our opinion the information given to us revealed the need for a forensic audit and yet we were frustrated at every turn when we tried to have a forensic audit.

It is important to know that this matter had to have been discussed by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. O'Neil), to whom the Ontario Development Corp. reports. A decision was made in his office by his ministry staff not to co-operate with our call for a forensic audit. That is precisely the reason we have raised this matter over the past four weeks with the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology.

We now have a situation where the Ontario Development Corp. appeared before our committee this morning and indicated that Peat Marwick, the court-appointed receiver, only for Wyda and not for any of the other individuals or companies, had found sufficient evidence to warrant the Ontario Development Corp. to contact the Ontario Provincial Police.

Specifically, the words used this morning by Mr. MacKinnon and the staff of the Ontario Development Corp. indicated that the work stations, all of them, did not approach the value Wyda indicated it had paid for them. There was evidence that the company or its management, and that includes vice-presidents, had breached representations and warranties to IDEA Corp. They indicated there were potential tax liabilities with respect to the scientific research tax credit provisions of the Income Tax Act, and they made the statement that this "could very well amount to nothing short of commercial fraud," to use their words. That was the information given to us.

16:20

I reiterate that Mr. Dobzinski has now left the country. We called four months ago for a forensic audit of all these matters in camera. We were prepared to allow the forensic audit to be carried out and to have the auditors who performed it report to a steering committee in camera. We were prepared to allow Mr. Bell, the committee counsel, to review the information privately before the steering committee ever saw it and to become a filter for personal, private, commercial information before it ever got to the committee. We negotiated those terms in good faith among all three parties and all members of that committee to facilitate a more intense investigation of what went on with the $3 million of taxpayers' money that was invested in Wyda.

The member for Waterloo North (Mr. Epp) throughout dealt with the members of the committee in good faith, on a completely upfront basis. We could rely upon him to communicate the messages and to tell us fairly and honestly the response from the government and from the governing party. It should be put on the record that we had complete confidence throughout in our working relationship with the member for Waterloo North and in the way he treated the members of the committee.

All that failed, however; all our attempts to have a forensic audit to get to the bottom of the information, to use whatever mechanisms we felt on a nonpartisan basis were necessary to get the information without jeopardizing any individual or any company, failed. All of that was done in an aura of good faith and mutuality, trying to get to the bottom of this without hurting people unnecessarily.

The need to get to the bottom of it without hurting people unnecessarily was expressed time and time again. It was expressed by the member for Waterloo North particularly, because he had the legitimate concerns that people should be protected and that we should be very careful about how we handled the demand for a forensic audit in the public forum. We respected and attempted to follow the advice of the member for Waterloo North.

We now have a situation where we presume the $462,000 that was paid to Mr. Dobzinski is no longer available. We are not told the Ontario Provincial Police are investigating Mr. Dobzinski personally; we are told they have been summoned to the Wyda offices to deal with the Wyda matter. We do not know what the scope of the OPP investigation is other than information we were given this morning by the officials of the ODC.

We do not know what happened to the Budgrove money that was paid. We have no explanation of the curious refinancing that took place before the closing of this transaction. Approximately $3.4 million was paid to Wyda and then from Wyda back to the person who paid it in the first place, and that was Mr. Dobzinski. We have no explanation of that transaction at all other than to say it was a requirement of IDEA Corp. that there be a refinancing of the debt structure of the company--the long-term debt as opposed to the short-term debt--and a payment was made in and made out the same day by cheques travelling between the same two entities, one individual and one company.

No one could explain it to us. We asked the solicitors who acted for IDEA Corp., and we asked the accountants, but no one could give us an explanation. The solicitors who acted for IDEA Corp. on the closing of this transaction admitted they never investigated the fair market value of the assets or the bona fides of the debts that were being paid off out of this financing or investment package. None of this information has yet been forthcoming. Setting aside the conflict-of-interest matter for a minute, even from a public accounts committee function, it is prudent and necessary for the committee to get the answers to some of these issues.

Some of the problems that led to the second report arose out of the interpretation given to the first report. If the members read the entire first report from cover to cover, it speaks for itself. It finds a conflict of interest, and it attempts on a fair-minded basis to address the issue of culpability. For instance, I should read this into the record with respect to the member for Oriole: "That there was nothing active done on her part that would lead her in breach of the conflict-of interest guidelines, that there was no intention on her part to breach the guidelines, that she did nothing active to be in breach of the guidelines."

We on all sides of the issue chose those words very carefully, and we did find that the spouse of the then minister did, by action, breach the conflict-of-interest guidelines. I reiterate that was unanimous.

I conclude by saying that the guidelines truly speak for themselves. Whether we like it or not, I was responsible for my wife's conduct when I was a cabinet minister; I was responsible for the conduct of my infant children. Those guidelines were still in effect. Ministers are responsible for their spouses. It is a fact of life in the Legislature. It is the guideline. It is the rule of conflict of interest. We are caught by it. It is there, and it binds more than the ministers of this current government. It has bound ministers over many years, since this issue was first addressed by then-Premier Davis many years ago.

If you examine the statements by the Premier (Mr. Peterson), they are unacceptable. He has been negligent in this issue in not helping his ministers, particularly the newly elected ones. He has cast them adrift by not getting personally involved in this matter. I find it astonishing that he would come before our committee and virtually say, as he did--and I stand by the words I put to the Premier the other day--that he really had no part in the administration or enforcement of these guidelines; that he left it to Blenus Wright, whom he had never met but who he was told looked like Mozart; and that he really had no interest in the matter and felt it should be given to someone else to take care of.

Damn it, it is the responsibility of the Premier and has been the responsibility of many Premiers for many years before him. It is the responsibility of the Premier to take care of this issue, not only to ensure his ministers are in conformity with the conflict-of-interest guidelines but also to enforce those guidelines when there has been a breach. The Premier cannot walk away from it; it is part of his obligation.

I find it astonishing that in a statement in July 1986 to this Legislature, the Premier would say it was time to review the original Davis guidelines, which had not been changed for many years, when in fact during the summer of 1985 his own transition team had engaged in a process that led to an amendment of those guidelines. In his statement to this Legislature, he never once referred to the new guidelines. He never once said in his statement that he had amended the Davis guidelines, that new guidelines were in place, that they were different from the old ones and that they now allowed for a blind trust.

He never once said that until it was put to him directly in the Legislature. His statement was that it was time to engage in a review of the Davis guidelines, which had not been changed for so many years, and that it was time to come out with new guidelines. He completely ignored, and I am trying to be parliamentary here, the reality of what had happened in 1985 leading up to the issuance to the members of cabinet of this government of new guidelines with respect to conflict of interest dated September 1985.

We deserve better from the Premier of Ontario. In that July statement, he should have been more forthcoming and should have indicated that he did change the Davis guidelines, that they were substantially different from the older ones and that in fact he had his transition team involved in this matter from the very beginning. It is a sorry commentary on the ability of the Premier to manage issues of this nature.

The member for Oriole is one of the people who did not benefit from the way this matter was handled. As I say, I do not know the member personally. I have heard good things about her. I wish her the best personally, but I think we had an obligation as members of this Legislature to make the findings we did, and I do not think there is any doubt about the findings.

16:30

Mr. Wildman: I rise to participate in this debate in a very serious way because like most if not all the members of the committee, I found this almost as unpleasant a task as the former minister found it an experience. I did not become a member or run for elected office to be able to look into the personal affairs of anyone, for that matter, and certainly not the personal affairs of members' families. I do not see that as my main role, and it is not why I sought elected office and why I have run four times to represent the people of Algoma.

I realize the member for Oriole has had to go through many months of hearings and discussions in the House and articles in the newspaper that have probably been very difficult, but it was a necessary process. It was the members of this party who initially requested that this matter be referred to the standing committee on public accounts, because we found it to be a serious one based on serious allegations. We felt the matter had to be aired, as I think the member for Oriole agreed.

I want to respond briefly to some of the comments made by the member's colleague the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) in his initial remarks. The Treasurer said he believed this was in a way a matter of bad luck for the member for Oriole. I suppose that is one way of interpreting it, but I have found in my political career at least, if not in all aspects of my life, that luck is often determined by what I do or do not do myself. This situation related to what the member failed to do, and the committee found that.

The Treasurer also indicated his warm feelings for the member for Oriole. As a member of this House who has not had the opportunity to get to know the member for Oriole the way the Treasurer has, I never had anything but warm feelings for her as another member of the House who seems to attempt to represent her constituents well and to carry out her duties as a member of the House and as a previous member of the executive council with expeditious effort and hard work.

However, when the Treasurer indicated he had complete trust in her judgement, while I do not question his judgement, I think we have to refer to the findings of the committee. The committee found unanimously, and it is clear in the report, that the member for Oriole did not exercise good judgement in this matter.

The Treasurer also went on to say he had complete confidence in the member's motives. In that regard, I agree with the Treasurer. I do not think the member for Oriole intended to put herself in conflict or to benefit in any way from a conflict that may have existed and that, frankly, the committee found to exist.

I agree that the member did not attempt to use her cabinet position or her membership in this assembly to bring about profit for herself or for her family. I am not confident, though, that others did not attempt to use her position.

I agree with the Treasurer's remark that the matter is resolved now as far as the member is concerned. I believed that when the committee came down with its first report.

I am going to be talking a bit about the process, but I must say I was very disappointed, as a member of that committee, with the remarks made by the Liberal members of the committee subsequent to the tabling of the report and with the remarks made by the member for Oriole.

The committee did not exonerate the member for Oriole. The committee unanimously found that a conflict existed; that, by virtue of his position with Damaza, his position as vice-president of Wyda and the remuneration that accrued from that, Mr. Caplan was in conflict.

I am disappointed to notice the member for Oriole shaking her head. It is in black and white right here. If she still does not accept that as a unanimous finding of the committee, then my view of the whole affair is quite different from what my initial remarks indicated.

All the members of the committee worked very diligently. My friend the member for Waterloo North will agree with that. Obviously, we are all partisan politicians. We all came to the investigation from different standpoints and with different initial points of view, but we all worked very hard to ensure we had a unanimous report. There are reasons for that; partly it was because it was the standing committee on public accounts, a committee that is supposed to be nonpartisan. While many people might be cynical about that, I take that very seriously as a member of that committee and as a member of some long standing.

To be honest, nonpartisanship on the part of the public accounts committee is much easier in a minority situation than it is when there is a majority government. I know the member for St. Catharines (Mr. Bradley), the Minister of the Environment, who was a long-time member of the public accounts committee, will agree with that assessment of working with the committee. It is much easier for it to operate as a nonpartisan body when we are in a minority situation.

We all worked very hard to ensure we got a unanimous report. That was difficult for all members of the House, but it was particularly difficult for those members of the House who were on the committee from the Liberal Party. I admit it was a difficult situation for them, not only because of what they personally took the findings of fact to show but also because they wanted to ensure that the wording of the report was such that it would protect those members of the House, and particularly the member for Oriole, where they should be protected, while at the same time adequately explaining the findings of the committee.

16:40

The members of the Conservative Party and of the New Democratic Party on that committee attempted to accommodate those members so we could have a unanimous report. I will say quite bluntly that if we had got to the point where there was a majority report and a minority report--and I am glad this did not happen--the majority report would have been far more difficult for the member for Oriole to accept than was the unanimous report.

The members of the Liberal Party who were members of the committee know that to be the case. As the member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope) indicated, at in camera meetings there were extensive discussions about the wording, not only the findings but also the wording, so all members could accept the report and affix their signatures to it.

I draw the attention of the members to pages 61 and 62 of the report. On page 62 it reads:

"Elinor Caplan exercised poor judgement. She intended to comply with the conflict-of-interest guidelines. She did not live up to her responsibilities as a cabinet minister to ensure that she was fully aware of her spouse's business activity and to ensure that her spouse was in compliance. In testimony before the committee she indicated had she known, `We wouldn't be here.' "

In other words, if the minister had exercised her responsibility to be aware of her spouse's business activities, she herself would have realized they posed a problem and would have advised her spouse to desist from those activities. I do not think I am reading too much into that. Therefore, there would not have been any need for an investigation by the committee and, "We wouldn't be here."

I emphasize the next part of the paragraph:

"There is no evidence of Elinor Caplan having exerted political influence to aid in the decision of the IDEA Corp. to invest in Wyda."

I believe that and I accept that, and that is why I signed the report; but I also believe the other parts of that paragraph.

The Treasurer indicated he was somewhat concerned about comments that this was a political exercise and a political exchange. He said he understood the political game. I do too. I think the workings of this committee were in the nature of politics in the best sense of the word. There was an attempt by all politicians on the committee to arrive at findings and wordings of those findings all of us could accept. There was give and take and exchange on all sides. Frankly, there was involvement and discussion with other members of our parties, all parties, who were not members of the committee in helping us to arrive at wording.

Politics in the bad sense of the word came into it after we tabled this report. The political response to the report that the Treasurer alluded to, in my view, was initiated by the Liberal members of the committee, and I sincerely regret that. The wording as it is in the paragraph I quoted was arrived at after serious discussion and give and take, and it was understood that it would be read in the context of a previous paragraph on that same page. That paragraph states:

"Wilf Caplan was in breach of the conflict-of interest guidelines. He had an interest in Wyda. He participated in the negotiations for the IDEA investment. He was held out as an officer of Wyda."

That is a finding, and that is wording that was arrived at and accepted unanimously. When we read the two paragraphs together, the conclusion does not mean exoneration for the member for Oriole. To have members of the Liberal Party and the member herself conclude in discussions with the press that it meant exoneration led to the political response; it politicized the operation of the committee in a way that it should not have been politicized.

It led the members of the committee to deal with the issue again and to issue a majority report. Frankly, it was a unanimous report because the Liberal members on the committee refused to vote. It was not only a majority vote but also a unanimous one.

The committee issued a finding that made it explicit. It said that if Wilf Caplan was in conflict and the former minister did not exercise her responsibility as a member of the executive council to be aware of her spouse's business activities, which she had admitted, then the member for Oriole was also in conflict.

The Treasurer described committee members as lions, tigers and jackals. I note he did not call us a bunch of wild men. We may be lions and tigers, but I honestly do not think there were any jackals.

I want to move on quickly to a couple of other matters. On the question of judgement, the committee found that the member for Oriole had exercised poor judgement. We found that her spouse was in conflict and, in our view, that meant she was also caught.

As the member for Cochrane South indicated, the testimony before the committee from Mary Eberts was that she had advised Mr. Caplan to sever his relationship with Wyda. We had documentation of this, and we then got into a long discussion of what "sever" means, with Mary Eberts and subsequently Mr. Caplan trying to argue that "sever" means change. Certainly, if you sever your arm, you have changed your physical makeup, but it is more than just a change; you are no longer attached to your arm. Mr. Caplan did not follow the advice to sever; he remained involved. Initially, he said he was going to be involved in a way that would not bring him into close or direct contact with IDEA Corp. officials in the negotiations. Then Mr. Caplan admitted, as did Mr. Dobzinski, that when it came to the crunch and the final discussions were taking place, he was in the negotiating room. Even if we take his own interpretation of what "sever" meant and what his obligations were, at that point Mr. Caplan was not living up to his own interpretation of his obligations to avoid conflict. He was directly involved.

16:50

As is the Treasurer, I am very concerned that after this government announced publicly in the budget that it intended to wind down IDEA Corp., IDEA became involved in major investments, particularly the one to Wyda. However, I find it passing strange that the Treasurer said that because IDEA was an independent corporation, somehow the government's intention about the future of IDEA was circumvented and that there was nothing the government could do. Evidence before the committee from Mr. Kruger and others indicated clearly that Mr. Kruger was quite aware of what was happening, that he was involved in meetings where this was discussed, that he was a little concerned when he found out about Mr. Caplan's involvement and that he investigated personally.

I understand Mr. Kruger was part of the team that got together in rather hurried fashion to write the response read by the Premier (Mr. Peterson) in the House. Mr. Kruger, who was responsible for the wind-down, was directly involved in this matter. If this government wished IDEA not to make this investment, surely it could have told Kruger, "When you go to that meeting with the directors of IDEA Corp., tell them to forget it." Instead, Mr. Kruger said, "If you are already involved in this, you can proceed."

Finally, I want to deal with my understanding of responsible government and the responsibility of the Premier in this matter. The testimony before the committee was that the guidelines were changed when there was a change of government. The report states on page 61 that the committee found that "the new guidelines were less harsh than those in force previously in that they now expand the blind trust provisions and in that they now allow a private company in which a minister or his or her spouse has an interest to do business with the government provided the company is placed in a blind trust."

In fact, the Premier weakened the guidelines that had previously been in effect under Mr. Davis. For that reason, we got into this mess. If the Premier and his transition team had not attempted to change the guidelines, but had continued with the old ones inadequate as the committee found them to be, we would not be in this mess, at least with the member for Oriole (Ms. Caplan). I am not so certain this would be true with regard to her colleague the member for Cochrane North (Mr. Fontaine), but at least with regard to the issue with which our committee was seized, if there had not been a weakening of the guidelines, we would not have got into this difficulty.

The Premier is quoted by the committee in this report. He said, "I don't want the system to be so restrictive that it drives people away from politics." The committee found, in looking at other jurisdictions and at the whole issue of blind trusts, that stiffer guidelines do not drive people away from politics. They did not drive most of the members of the executive council under Mr. Davis away from politics.

Interjection.

I see that my friend the member for Cochrane North is exercised by my remarks. I am quoting from a report that was signed unanimously and supported by his Liberal colleagues.

Mr. Ward: That was not a quote.

Mr. Wildman: It is a quote. I just read it. "I don't want the system to be so restrictive that it drives people away from politics."

I started by saying that I am participating in this debate in a serious manner because I consider it to be a serious matter. If the members of the Liberal caucus, who as I said earlier worked hard on our committee to come up with a unanimous report, do not find this to be a serious matter, they have learned nothing and the government party has learned nothing from this process.

Mr. Ward: I think we take it more seriously.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Wildman: I certainly take it seriously.

The Deputy Speaker: Matters have continued at a very nice pitch. Let us keep them that way, please.

Mr. Wildman: All members of the committee came in with a number of different wordings and we worked very hard. I am just dealing with the wording that was in the initial report.

The Premier is quoted extensively. I will not read all the quotes from pages 61 and 62. Basically, he says he did not take any time and he did not involve himself to ensure that the guidelines were being adhered to. I will read one quote. "...I guess in retrospect, if I had to do the whole thing again, I would have done a major review of the guidelines then a very tight cross-examination...I didn't."

I am happy the Attorney General, who now has joined us for the debate, has brought in legislation. I regret he did not wait until the committee that was given the responsibility for making recommendations on this matter had tabled its report before he brought in legislation. However, all through the committee discussions, I said we should have legislation rather than guidelines and I am happy about that. I also said that I believed the legislation should apply to all members of the House and I am glad that the Attorney General's bill takes that into account.

We in this House recognize that we have different levels of responsibility for the expenditure of public funds. It is obvious that the members of the executive council have far more influence on how public funds are expended and on what contracts are entered into by the government than do ordinary members of the House, whether they be government backbenchers or members of the opposition. I hope that when legislation is finally passed, it will recognize the greater responsibility of members of the cabinet. If it does not, we may end up in a situation where the legislation is less onerous and easier to comply with than the Premier's own weakened guidelines. That would be unfortunate.

I also am happy the legislation provides for an independent arbiter, who will assist members to comply and who will be responsible for ensuring that they do comply. I am a little worried that this in itself might produce a bit of a conflict, but that remains to be seen. We will deal with that when we deal with the legislation.

17:00

I will finish by saying that the fact we appoint an independent arbiter must not in any way diminish the responsibility of the Premier to ensure that his cabinet colleagues are in compliance, nor must it in any way diminish the responsibility of individual members of the cabinet to ensure that they, their spouses and their dependent children are in compliance. It is fundamental to our system of responsible government that the members of the cabinet exert that responsibility, that the Premier ensure that they do and that they be responsible to the Legislative Assembly to do that. An independent arbiter should in no way remove that responsibility.

I finish by saying, as I said at the outset, that I did not find this process pleasant. I did not find the process this afternoon pleasant. I do not like dealing in personalities. I have been a member of this House for going on 12 years and I do not think I have a reputation for attacking people on a personal level. Honestly, I enjoy attacking. I would like to be in the position of being attacked some day, and by that I mean I wish to be on that side of the House, not that I want somebody over there to attack me over here.

Interjection.

Mr. Wildman: In response to that interjection by the Attorney General, who is not in his seat, I will say that I am also the kind of person who will never betray his principles and cross the floor. I believe a member of this House is elected not only as an individual candidate but also as a member of a political party. He owes it to his constituents to live by what he stands for in an election campaign.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. This is off topic.

Mr. Wildman: It may be off topic, but it is apropos.

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, I was provoked. I do not enjoy this process. I know it has been difficult for the member for Oriole and her family and I regret that. I hope the member for Oriole will have a long and successful career, but not too successful. I hope she will be able to carry out whatever responsibilities come her way in future, perhaps in a more circumspect way with regard to the matter of conflict of interest. I wish her well.

Hon. Ms. Munro: I have followed with a great deal of interest the proceedings of the committees on allegations concerning my colleagues the member for Oriole (Ms. Caplan) and the member for Cochrane North (Mr. Fontaine), debate in this House and discussions following therefrom, and it has occurred to me and to others that one of the recurring issues has been that of process and procedure. Therefore, I would like to focus my comments on the bill, since it speaks to the issue.

It is a privilege to be able to comment on this bill for a number of reasons. The first is that I am proud to be associated with the proposed legislation because it is fair and equitable; the second is that for the first time women are treated as equal members of this House; the third is that for the first time in Ontario we will have legislation that is understandable and easy to uphold.

Let me speak to each of these points.

Mr. McClellan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Unless I misunderstand, the minister appears to be giving a second reading speech on the bill. Perhaps you can ask her to clarify.

The Deputy Speaker: I believe she is referring to the bill that is coming. Other people, such as the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman), have referred to the bill. The minister will carry on, please.

Hon. Ms. Munro: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We are always quick, particularly when we sit in the benches opposite, to point out that decisions are made by the entire House and not just by the governing party or the cabinet. I was deeply impressed that all previous guidelines called only for cabinet members to disclose their interests or to eliminate any interests. I can understand why this is necessary, but if it is necessary for members of the cabinet who vote on bills, is it not equally necessary for all members of the House who also vote on bills?

Mr. McClellan: The member is reading the wrong speech.

The Deputy Speaker: The point is well taken. Are you going to tie the reference to the conflict-of-interest bill to the report?

Hon. Ms. Munro: No, I am speaking to the bill itself.

Mr. Breaugh: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: It is becoming more and more evident that the minister is reading the wrong speech. Someone has written her what is probably a very fine speech on the conflict-of-interest legislation--

The Deputy Speaker: Do not editorialize.

Mr. Breaugh: --and we would like to hear it, but it would be nice if at some point she followed your direction and spoke to the matter that is currently before the House.

The Deputy Speaker: We are discussing the committee report. Carry on.

Hon. Ms. Munro: I can understand why this is necessary, but if it was necessary for members of the cabinet such as the member for Cochrane North and the member for Oriole who vote on bills, it is equally necessary for all members of the House who also vote on bills. This is particularly true in a House such as the one sitting now where bills have been altered by amendments from other parties. It is only logical and right that all members of this House work under the same rules.

This bill recognizes the importance and responsibilities of each member of the Legislature and recognizes the responsibilities that ministers hold as members of executive council by placing specific restrictions on the members of the cabinet. That too, in my opinion, is logical. I agree that the onus for disclosure rests with the individual member.

As did the preceding speaker, I see the proposal for a full-time commissioner to administer the requirements of the bill as a natural and required measure. For example, it seems the Election Finances Act has a similar mechanism, and I must applaud the Attorney General for including this arm's-length provision for a commissioner.

The bill allows members' spouses to continue in their usual business and professional--

Mr. McClellan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: It is quite obvious the member has been given the wrong speech, which she is reading. She is reading the speech for second reading of the conflict-of-interest bill. I invite the member to speak to the topic of the day, as I am sure you will want to as well, Mr. Speaker, as a matter of order.

The Deputy Speaker: She can refer to the bill as part of her speech in speaking to the report.

Mr. Breaugh: If she referred to the report in her speech on the bill, it might help.

Hon. Ms. Munro: In the context of the report, and as I stated earlier referencing my comments to focus on the bill, the bill allows spouses of members to continue in their usual business and professional practices and puts the members on notice of the involvement of their spouses with specific issues so that members can avoid any conflict.

Several years ago, this House instituted the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act. One of the major provisions of that legislation is that members of municipal councils must decide if they have an interest. To prevent a conflict, they must refrain from participating in debates or consideration and must not vote on the matter. These same provisions are in this bill. Recognizing that there are rumours that some municipal council members are using the terms of municipal legislation to get away from voting on tricky issues, I am sure no member of this House will do this.

17:10

In the past, cabinet members and their spouses and minor children had to divest themselves of their business interests and professional practices to ensure compliance with the guidelines. This is the essence of the reports tabled with respect to both members. The bill attempts to state that such divestment is not required but complete disclosure is. We are therefore changing from a subjective to an objective appraisal of where a member's interests, or those of her or his family, conflict with a public office.

This requirement of divestment must have been vexing for all members of all cabinets over the years but l, as a woman, can tell members it is doubly vexing to female ministers. We live in a society that continues to give prominence to the male, and the male in business. If this were not true, the Attorney General would not have had to bring in legislation to lead to equal pay for work of equal value, but we will not argue that case. Much has been done in the past month to alleviate that dichotomy; much needs to be done.

Let me simply point out that under an old value structure, the man brought home the bacon. Let us assume this bacon-bringer's wife gets herself elected and is considered for appointment to the cabinet. The Premier would have to ask that prospective cabinet member about her bacon-bringer's activities, and her elevation to the cabinet could depend as much on her husband's business activities as on her personal strengths and abilities. I recognize that the same would hold true for the male whose wife was in business, but I can tell members without hesitation that the incidence of unfairness would fall much more on the female than the male.

Under this bill, divestment is no longer required. That is good. It is my understanding that those are some of the facts raised by both committees hearing allegations. The female and the male, in my mind, will be on equal footing for the first time when this bill goes through.

In place of divestment, the bill calls for complete disclosure. I am sure many people will balk at complete disclosure, but I am certain a businessman would rather disclose than remove from his wife the opportunity of serving in a cabinet. What we are doing is changing from a subjective approach to one of objectivity.

No one needs to give up bacon-bringing activities. Now those activities will be a part of the record, and if there is any likelihood of those activities causing a conflict, the member needs only to refrain from involvement in what would be a conflict.

It seems that what we have all gone through in this House are examples of conflict guidelines not working and not being practical. The bill is practical. It is a workable compromise between an intrusion into the private lives of the members of this Legislature and the public's right to know that a public office is not being used for private profit. Indeed, it provides the public with more information than do the existing guidelines.

The bill recognizes the unity and the reality of the family unit, and it allows each individual member within that family unit to pursue his or her interests without sacrificing the interests of his or her spouse or children. Surely those issues are the ones raised, among others, in the conflict-of-interest allegations.

The bill enshrines equality between the sexes and gives effect to our social customs and daily lives. It does this because, in exchange for publicly revealing private interests, the spouse can, for example, pursue his or her occupation without jeopardizing the member's position. These new standards allow more women to enter political life themselves or to have their husbands so involved.

As a woman, I find these new standards encouraging, but I think we have to examine our social history and the previous conflict-of interest guidelines to see why the enactment of these new standards is so encouraging to women and why such guidelines would not have led to the kinds of discussions and innuendoes within committees.

Let me return for a moment to the matter of typical roles for males and females. I think we know, but do not necessarily accept, that customarily the woman's major role has been as the keeper of the home and a man's major role has been to have an occupation outside the home.

A woman was often defined by her husband's occupation and would assume his status or social position as hers. For example, we referred to a woman as the banker's wife, the carpenter's wife or the politician's wife. There was status in being the carpenter's wife, but the reverse was not true for a man. We had few examples of househusbands by choice, but in general, men were looked down on if they were financially dependent on their wives.

We also perceived the married couple as one entity in which the wife was subsumed to the husband. To a great extent, her outside involvement, her intrusion into the world outside the home, was controlled by him. This was entrenched not only in our social customs--for instance, the woman taking the man's surname--but also in our legal system. Traditionally, the husband was held accountable for his wife's behaviour, in a way in which women were not so held. A man who was seen to be controlled by his wife was an object of scorn.

It was presumed by the legal system that husbands and wives kept each other fully informed of all their activities, in recognition of the unity of the family. We prohibited one spouse from being compelled to testify against the other, except where the issue was of assault on the spouse or children. Given this pattern of marriage, it is no wonder that few women were able to engage in an active public political role.

The old conflict rules essentially required the minister's spouse, as well as the minister, to divest himself of his business and professional obligations if the minister was to avoid any perception of a conflict of interest. You can see and understand clearly how difficult it was and is for a married woman to become a minister and how many of the proceedings have been clouded because of such a basic misunderstanding.

The likelihood that a husband would be willing to give up his occupation so his wife could become a minister varies. Obviously, it is a difficult question to address. However, I suspect any willingness on the part of the male spouse was subject to socially mitigating judgement. It is not very likely that a man would be willing to give up an occupation when our society expected that man to be the sole, or should we say "significant," provider, the worker outside the home who should not be financially dependent on his wife, or so it seemed.

This is true today and has run like a thread throughout the debate. As a woman, I take exception to it. I also take exception to not being allowed to continue my speech because I tend to put a focus on one end of things while other members allow those other debates on the bill to be the tail-end of their speeches, and so you go. Therefore, it takes an extraordinary amount of courage for a man to decide to let his wife enter politics.

Mr. McClellan: It has nothing to do with it. You are completely off topic.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Hon. Ms. Munro: For a male spouse to encourage and live through a wife's designation as a member of an executive council is even more onerous and more courageous.

Mention has been made of previous guidelines and previous ministers, but I submit that, traditionally, for those male ministers it was often easier. Their wives were more than likely working in the domestic sphere. Even those women had to divest themselves of their businesses or jobs that might conflict with a minister's role.

Historically, these women had few such conflicting interests. Wives were socialized to defer to their husbands' wishes; so presumably they were more willing to make such sacrifices. After all, their status came from being the wives of ministers. On the other hand, men were not given social approval for being the husbands of ministers. Their status arose from their own work; so they would be less likely to abandon their occupation.

Now that double-career families are increasing within the Legislature, the traditional role of the male minister would still have a restricted impact on the wife of today. If we stayed with the old conflict-of-interest guidelines, we would be perpetuating a disincentive to women and certainly a continuing dialogue. It is very clear to me that disincentives are provided, not only within the report itself but also in the ongoing dialogue right here today.

Social customs may be changing, but there are still many more housewives than househusbands and men still receive status from their own occupations rather than from their wives'.

17:20

Are times changing in Ontario? One would not think so if one listened very carefully today. However, it is the case in many Ontario families that both husbands and wives have jobs outside the home, and I think these new standards will assist such families. We still presume, often without basis, that husbands and wives fully discuss their individual activities in detail and as a matter of course. There are increasing instances in which this is not only unlikely but also improbable, and therefore it is unrealistic to expect this assumption to be so.

This bill recognizes the reality of today and in my mind the perplexity and complexity of committees in coming to terms with the communications problems within the committees themselves. The bill, as we all know, requires full disclosure from both spouses without invading the family unit with distasteful cross-examination. It will be the responsibility of the member to ensure that he or she does not participate in any discussions concerning the spouse's interest.

This bill will assist women who themselves wish to be involved in political life. Their husbands will not have to jettison their businesses and careers if their wives are to be eligible for cabinet positions. It will allow dynamic and creative women who are married to similar men to pursue their own aspirations, but not at the expense of their husbands. It requires a public intrusion into the interests of the spouses, but the bill does not require these spouses to give up their interests.

The standards will preserve families by allowing both husbands and wives to make own occupational choices, obviously in harmony, but will no longer place women in the position of having to choose either a husband or a political life, as some of the conclusions of the committee indicate.

It can be seen from a glance around this House that in the majority of cases the bill will have a significant effect on women who are wives of members. These standards will allow such wives to pursue their own interests, as they will be able to continue with their normal occupations once they have made full public disclosure of such interests. It is intrusive in such a sense but certainly much less intrusive than the present conflict guidelines have been seen to be.

The bill avoids a situation where the wives' professional obligations run into conflict with husbands who have public obligations; for instance, if the wife is a lawyer representing a client in the normal course of business, no conflicts with a member's responsibilities were foreseen. What of the wife's position if matters change suddenly so that such a conflict looms? As a professional, she cannot arbitrarily withdraw from her client's case. Not only would this leave her open to liability actions, but it also would damage her professional reputation. As a wife, to continue to represent the client would be putting her own interests ahead of her husband's and indeed of his obligations to the public.

If this bill is adopted, the appropriate conduct will be for the member husband to withdraw from all discussions of matters involving his wife's client. Such conflicts are rare, but when they do arise the private and public dilemmas are difficult to resolve.

The beauty of these standards is that they give the public even more knowledge than is currently available. Public disclosure statements will be available at all times for regular public scrutiny. I suggest that if we do not adopt this bill, we are limiting the knowledge that is readily available to the public as well as reinforcing the subtle disincentive to women so they are forced to choose between a husband and a political life.

I know all members from all parties will vote to adopt this bill. I know all members from all parties have taken seriously their responsibilities in committees on allegations with respect to the member for Oriole and the member for Cochrane North. I know all of us want to support a bill that supports equality and fairness, because this House supposedly is about those two qualities.

I thank the House for allowing me to make the comments. I hope all members will understand, as I do, the relationship between such comments and the allegations of conflict about my friends and colleagues the member for Oriole and the member for Cochrane North.

Mr. Gillies: As always, I enjoyed the remarks by the Minister of Citizenship and Culture (Ms. Munro). I mean that sincerely; I always enjoy hearing her thoughtful contributions to debates.

There were a couple of points in the minister's speech that I would like to touch on. At the time of second reading of the bill, we will be able to join in a discussion of many of the other points the minister raised in terms of the relative merits and possible problems with the bill.

I wonder whether the speech that was just given was bang on the topic for debate this afternoon, but there were a couple of points that I thought were most germane, particularly the point made by the minister about the difficulties of serving in cabinet for those people who are married or are in a durable relationship of some sort, the difficulties presented for those individuals in maintaining their family and spousal obligations, their various financial obligations and at the same time living up to the yardsticks of propriety set out in the guidelines for members of cabinet.

While I agree with what the Minister of Citizenship and Culture has said about the difficulties and the need for us to structure law and regulation in this area to try to strengthen the families of politicians, I remind the minister that what we are talking about here is nothing new. There were some very excellent women in the cabinet of Premier Davis and in the cabinet of the cabinet of the member for Muskoka (Mr. F. S. Miller), in which I served. As far as we know, they were able to make the adjustments necessary to their lifestyle and activity so they could continue to serve without finding themselves in the kind of situation that led to the filing of this committee report.

It is well to remember as we look in depth at the various activities leading to this report and the regulations, guidelines and so on--I want to come back to this later--that there is definitely a feeling among many of us on the committee that what the Premier did was to weaken the guidelines. In other words, in the past such members as Margaret Birch, Margaret Scrivener, the member for St. George (Ms. Fish) and the member for York Mills (Miss Stephenson) somehow lived under guidelines that by my interpretation were stricter inasmuch as they did not include the blind trust provision. It is well for us to remember that, but the minister made some good points and I would like to come back to that aspect.

Speaking very directly to this report, I want to take us back to June 10, 1986, when I found myself faced with a very difficult situation indeed. Several weeks prior to June 10, I had raised a matter in this House regarding the Premier's granting of a $17.5-million grant to the Exploracom project, which at that time was being developed by Abe Schwartz. Mr. Schwartz was known to be a member of the transition team for the Peterson government and a confidant and friend of the Premier. Without wanting to rehash all the difficulties that surrounded that, it became an issue in this House, and through the media it became something of an issue to the public.

I was presented with some information by an individual who understandably wished to remain anonymous at the time. On the heels of that debate and on the heels of that issue, several other things were going on that caused this individual concern. One was the then recent decision of IDEA Corp. to grant a $5-million investment to Graham Software, with Mr. Graham, the owner of that company, being a past business associate of the selfsame Mr. Schwartz, whom we had so recently been debating in this House. It was also pointed out to me by this individual that the Wyda corporation of Scarborough was in the process of receiving a $3-million investment from IDEA Corp. and that Wyda was represented by its vice-president of finance and consultant, Wilfred Caplan, the spouse of the member for Oriole.

17:30

For several reasons, I found myself in a very difficult situation. Although some may have an impression to the contrary, prior to June 10, I had developed a very affable relationship with the member for Oriole. I enjoyed her. I found her a thoroughly engaging and witty person and, by all accounts, a very capable person. At the same time, I was very concerned about the way some public funds were being used surrounding this whole area of grants, investments and loans, particularly through the aegis of the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology.

I found myself on the horns of a dilemma. Does one put aside allegations and information of this sort, or does one bring it to the public's attention?

As I look around, I believe every member sitting in this House at present has sat in opposition, with the exception of the member for York East (Ms. Hart), who has arrived recently through a by-election. Everyone else in this chamber at present has sat on opposition benches and knows the kind of pressure and the kind of information that is brought to us on an ongoing basis. Like me, any one of the members would have had to make the decision about what to do with that information.

I felt it was important and subject to question. We were talking about investments of a multimillion-dollar nature and scope. Therefore, I saw my obligation to bring this information to the attention of my leader and my colleagues on the question period committee of our party, and we made the decision to ask the question.

In the days that followed--and I will enlarge on this--I found the conduct of the member for Oriole, the then minister, to be thoroughly honourable and completely appropriate. I believed then and believe now that she recognized, even as I was asking the question on June 10, 1986, the seriousness of the situation. As was borne out through the evidence to the committee in the summer sittings, I believe today that she did not knowingly participate in any exercise that was to see her benefit personally. I do not believe the member for Oriole intended to breach the conflict-of-interest guidelines, and in some respects she was a victim in this whole affair.

We are all politicians, and we have to bring our own biases and defences to this chamber. I do not believe the member for Oriole was a victim of an opposition member's questioning. I believe now, as I did then, that the questions I raised and the points I made that led to the committee inquiry were legitimate and serious and had to be dealt with. However, I believe the member was a victim of circumstances, a victim of not being informed of activities that were being undertaken. In fact, in some ways she was a victim of the guidelines, but no more or less so than any other member of cabinet who would be captured by those guidelines.

While I think the behaviour of the member for Oriole was honourable and appropriate, I do not now nor did I at the time believe the response of the Premier, the chief minister of the crown in Ontario, was in any way appropriate or honourable. I was shocked beyond belief today, however many months it is after the June 10 activities in this House, to hear the Premier again in response to one of my colleagues talking about unfounded allegations, retreating to the diatribe and innuendo that characterized the Premier's initial response to this matter in June.

If the rest of us in this House have learned a lot arising from June 10 and subsequent events, I very seriously doubt whether the Premier has learned anything. I have known four Premiers of Ontario, and I have had the honour of serving in this Legislature under three. I do not recall Mr. Robarts, Mr. Davis or the member for Muskoka resorting at any time to the mean-spirited backlash and tossing around of innuendo that has characterized the response of the Premier in this regard.

Mr. McClellan: You do not remember Bill Davis talking about innuendoes?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: You should read the Christmas message of Premier Davis back around 1977. We can give you copies.

Hon. Mr. Scott: Take the high road, Phil.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Gillies: I do not recall a Premier, when faced with serious allegations against one of his ministers, resorting to having his office staff--

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The entire afternoon has had a good tone. Let us not break it down.

Mr. Gillies: The Attorney General has some concern about this. He is a reasonable man, and maybe he will pass this along to his colleague, the first minister. My colleagues and I on the public accounts committee have been subjected to attacks and innuendo from the Office of the Premier, I believe as a result of this investigation, which I find completely unacceptable. If anybody stands to learn anything from the exercise to which we have been subjected, I hope that person is the first minister.

When I look at recent events, I see allegations being made against my colleagues the member for Cochrane South and the member for St. George. I see the complete fabrication of another matter regarding a supposed $1-million land deal in which I was reported to be involved in my constituency. It is common knowledge in the press gallery where this stuff is coming from. It is coming from the staff of the Premier.

A more appropriate response to legitimate questions being raised by members of the opposition in this chamber would have been to have made a determined effort to get to the bottom of the problem and to bring in mechanisms that would prevent or circumvent repetition of these problems. All of us would benefit from that. Because of the honourable conduct of the member for Oriole and others, I believe some good will come of this. However, I have to tell you, Mr. Speaker, I am disgusted; and if any good comes of this exercise at all, it certainly does not come as a result of the attitude or the activities of the Premier.

I want to remind the House of what I said on June 10, when I raised this matter in the House. Basically on the heels of the Exploracom grant, under the supposed high-technology fund, I raised the question of the $5-million investment in Graham Software and the $3-million investment in Wyda. I received the first of a number of barrages from the leader of the government, that those were unfounded allegations, gutter, sleazy, etc.--all the stuff he resorts to when he does not have a better answer.

It is well for us to note that since June 10, both of the companies in question have gone into receivership. Police investigations are under way into both these incidents. We have the disappearance of witnesses, one of whom has absented himself completely from the country. We have had questions as to where large amounts of this $8 million are now. All of this is now subject to review by the Ontario Provincial Police, the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology, the Ontario Development Corp. and other agencies.

17:40

This is most unfortunate. It is the position of our party and of the New Democratic Party, as expressed by a vote at the standing committee on public accounts this morning, that we believe this matter to be serious enough that it should be taken from within the government, where there are the players and people who participated in the decision to fund these projects. The investigation has to be taken outside and put to a qualified third party. We suggest a justice, perhaps a Supreme Court justice, who can get to the bottom of this whole matter impartially and clear it up from without. That remains our position. It is my hope that despite the attitude he has displayed thus far, the Premier will reverse his position on this matter and do as we suggest.

Comparisons can be drawn. I certainly believe several things to be the truth. The investments we are talking about through IDEA Corp. are larger and involve more dollars than the federal government investment that is being questioned in the case of the Honourable Sinclair Stevens. I believe the facts and circumstances surrounding both the Wyda and Graham Software investments to be equally convoluted and complicated and to involve as many parties, if not more, as the investigation under way regarding the federal minister.

For myself, I do not see why there should be a double standard. If a double standard prevails, it is for several reasons. The Exploracom, Wyda and Graham Software investments point to an attitude that was developing within the government. I hope that attitude has changed as a result of the various committee investigations and so on. I believe that may be the case.

The attitude I am talking about was setting in during the fall of 1985 and the spring of 1986: a feeling we were getting on this side of the House because of the government's standing in the polls, which was extremely favourable because of the honeymoon that can envelop a new government, an understandable feeling of goodwill on the part of the public, a feeling of fairness in wanting to give the new guys a chance, all of which is legitimate and with which I do not quarrel.

In that kind of atmosphere, I believe a feeling developed on the part of government ministers that they could get away with murder, that they could pull off some things, grant some investments and give $17 million to a buddy's computer museum and so on because they were generally enveloped in an atmosphere of goodwill and forgiveness. I believe that to have been the attitude this government was starting to develop latterly. I hope and believe the investigations into both the Caplan and Fontaine affairs have shelved that attitude. To be fair to members of the Treasury benches, I have not seen that attitude raising its ugly head quite as frequently as I did several months ago.

Subsequent to June 10, we were faced with a belated decision by the Premier to have the public accounts committee investigate this whole situation. As I noted, in the first instance on June 10 I did not suggest that the minister should resign. At the time, we were asking for information and wanting to get to the bottom of the thing.

June 10 led to subsequent questioning, but the rather startling fact that the retainer under which Mr. Caplan was operating had increased did not originate with me but in an article in the Toronto Sun. That, as much as anything, led to the minister's decision to offer her resignation on the subsequent Monday. I know what a difficult decision that was for the minister. While she may not believe that we in the opposition cared or were worried about what she was going through at the time, I want to tell her we did. It caused me a great deal of concern at the time, but I believed then and I believe now that she did the right and honourable thing and allowed the House to try to arrive at some determinations as to what happened.

Let us look back through the committee report at some of the events surrounding this, at what we have before us as to what we know and what we do not know.

The public accounts committee was charged with determining four things: What was the meaning and scope of the guidelines with respect to conflict of interest dated September 1985? Had there been an apparent breach or an actual breach, either deliberate or inadvertent, of the guidelines? What was the nature and extent of the investment by IDEA Corp. in Wyda? Did the existing guidelines impose adequate and/or clear obligations and restrictions on ministers of the crown?

We can go through the affair on that basis, and first, on the meaning and scope of the guidelines. This matter has caused some controversy and disagreement among members of the public accounts committee and in my opinion led to the issuance of the second report by the committee. The first report, which we are debating right now, laid out the guidelines as amended by the Premier, the original guidelines having been put in place by Premier Davis in 1972.

There was one substantive change in the more recent guidelines, and that was the change that saw the so-called blind trust provisions strengthened, becoming part of the process under which ministers operate. This is an area of partisan disagreement. I am not trying to speak ex cathedra, but this is the point that we in the opposition often refer to as the weakening of the guidelines, because we believe ministers were under a much greater obligation to divest, and in more circumstances, than are the ministers serving under the current administration.

Why is this important? It is important because we are talking about a blind trust in terms of the minister's interest in Damaza, her husband's consulting firm. Although we can argue as to when Mrs. Caplan divested herself of her interest in Damaza, the record should show that she did make an effort to do that and believed that by divesting herself of her share, she would be removing herself from a direct conflict vis-à-vis Mr. Caplan's consulting firm. I am not going to quibble about whether that should have been done a week earlier or a week later or whatever. Let the record show that the member recognized the need to divest and moved to do so.

Under the guidelines, as amended and indeed as previously, the wording shows very clearly that a minister and spouse are covered by the provisions of the guidelines. This is very important, because this is where we got into difficulties at the tail-end of the first report, the question being, was the member for Oriole in conflict of interest or not?

I can see how there can be disagreement over this. The Treasurer does not agree with a couple of the earlier speakers, my colleague the member for Cochrane South and others. I would have thought it was very clear. The guidelines stipulate that minister and spouse are to be brought under the conflict-of-interest guidelines and are to comply. My interpretation would therefore be that either partner breaching the conflict-of-interest guidelines constitutes a breach also for the minister. If the spouse breaches, the minister is captured by the guidelines. This has become one of the crucial areas of disagreement between the members of the governing party and the opposition parties on the committee.

17:50

The first report stated implicitly that the member for Oriole was in conflict of interest because the committee found that her husband was in conflict of interest. Whether by intent or not, whether knowingly or not, the then minister was also in conflict. Looking back, if we made a mistake with the first report, it was simply that this finding should have been stated explicitly rather than left implicit in the report. Being worded the way it was, the report left the Liberal members of the committee in the position of being able to say the member for Oriole was not in conflict of interest because nowhere in the report did it specifically state she was in conflict. What the report explicitly stated was that Mr. Caplan was in conflict and that the minister exercised poor judgement.

Our committee erred. In my opinion, the first report should have made explicit what was implicit. I point a finger at no member of the committee, because we worked long and hard all through the summer at this process. I can see how the disagreement arose, and I can readily understand the misunderstanding at the time the first report was tabled. I do not believe any one individual on the committee was culpable for deliberately trying to mislead the public. It was a legitimate disagreement. However, I stand very firmly on the side that says that for those ministers who are married, if their spouses breach, they are in breach. It is as simple as that.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: That is a good reason not to get married.

Mr. Gillies: My friend the Treasurer says it is a good reason not to get married. That has never crossed my mind. I suppose it is. This is something we have to wrap our heads around as we come to the examination of the legislation alluded to earlier by the Minister of Citizenship and Culture. Somehow, we have to structure this so we do not drive people away from politics because their spouses are successful in business.

Ms. E. J. Smith: Please do that.

Mr. Gillies: I hear my friend the member for London South saying, "Please do that," and I understand. At the same time, we have to make sure we do not weaken the guidelines to the extent that members of the executive council or their spouses feel they can get into a lot of business dealings with the government. No matter how the guidelines are structured, we all know we are not supposed to do that. That has never been the way it has been done. If you ever got caught, you were in a heck of a lot of trouble.

We are not here to benefit as members. We are not intended to benefit as members from decisions of the government that involve, in this case, millions of dollars of public funds. It is not supposed to happen that way. We cannot allow it to happen that way. We have to balance those two priorities somehow and, with the collective wisdom of this House, come to some sort of decision on that.

The specifics of the case as brought before the committee through the summer are voluminous, but I would like to take some time to review some of the pertinent facts surrounding this matter.

At approximately the time the 1985 election was being held, the accord was being signed, the new government was taking over and so on, some changes were going on in the Caplan household. This came forward to the committee. Mr. Caplan had finished with a previous business commitment and had reactivated his then-dormant consulting firm, a family concern, Damaza Consultants, and was of course out looking for clients. This was happening at the same time that the new government was being formed and the member for Oriole was being admitted to the executive council.

All this was put before the committee, and while I do not want to get into too much detail, at the selfsame time two things were happening that one can see might lead to problems. At the same time the minister was taking over her new responsibilities for a very complicated portfolio, and at the same time she was trying to bring herself into conformity with conflict-of-interest guidelines and any number of requirements that fall to any of us who have ever served in cabinet, her husband was setting up a new business and looking for clients. Some of those clients, as it turned out, were going to be dealing with the government of Ontario.

In the committee, we conceded that it must have been a very busy and even confused time for the minister in terms of what was going on. However, once Mr. Caplan had made the decision to take on the Wyda company as a client, there were discussions subsequent to that decision with the people who were advising this government on matters of conflict of interest.

Mary Eberts, a well-known Toronto lawyer, was acting as an adviser to the government during the transition, specifically on conflict-of-interest matters. The official of the Ministry of the Attorney General, the assistant deputy minister responsible for conflict of interest, Blenus Wright, was also contacted about Mr. Caplan's proposed client and what would be happening there.

Correspondence was exchanged, and efforts were made by the minister's staff at the time to ensure that papers were filed and that compliance was reached during that period, but this process was not without problems.

At one time, Mary Eberts wrote a letter to the member for Oriole in which she indicated concern about the nature of the relationship between Mr. Caplan and Wyda. This much-discussed letter from this period was one of the prime pieces of evidence which the committee had to come to some conclusions about. It was the piece of evidence in which Ms. Eberts advised Damaza Consultants to sever its relationship with Wyda because of the impending search by Wyda for provincial funding for the development of the company and its product.

One thing that became a perennial problem during the sittings of the committee was whether the word "sever" was advice to do just that--bang, sever; cut off the relationship--or whether "sever" could be taken to mean to alter or change the nature of the relationship and the retainer between Wyda and Damaza. This was a matter of some controversy, but the committee decided to take the literal interpretation, that "sever" meant just that: to cut off and finish the relationship because it could lead to problems of a conflict nature.

Mr. Speaker, I see it is almost six o'clock. As I know other members of the committee wish to speak on this matter, I wonder whether it would be appropriate for me to move the adjournment of the debate.

On motion by Mr. Gillies, the debate was adjourned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I would like to indicate the business of the House for the coming week. Monday, December 15: third reading of Bill 14, oleomargarine; Bill 26, retail sales tax; Bill 131, assessment; Bill 7, charter provisions; second and third readings of Bills 168 and 169; followed by estimates of the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs.

Tuesday, December 16: Bill 167, assessment freeze, plus legislation from the following list: Bill 112, pollution penalties; Bill 90, police complaints; Bill 161, courts of justice; Bill 139, model law; Bill 127, surveyors.

Wednesday, December 17: interim supply motion; Legislative Assembly committee report on standing orders extension; Bill 158, insurance exchange; Bill 108, insurance; followed by legislation not completed on Tuesday.

Thursday, December 18: in the morning, private members' business standing in the names of the member for Oakwood (Mr. Grande) and the member for Downsview (Mr. Cordiano); in the afternoon, any legislation not completed on Wednesday and third readings as necessary, followed by adjournment.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.

December 11, 1986

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

PROMOTION OF CANADIAN FOOD PRODUCTS

SATELLITE DIALYSIS UNIT

PROMOTION OF CANADIAN PRODUCTS

SATELLITE DIALYSIS UNIT

AFTERNOON SITTING

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

INTERNATIONAL PLOWING MATCH

SUNDAY RACING

SANTA LUCIA DAY

PROPERTY RIGHTS

SCHOOL BOARD TRUSTEES

APPLE PRODUCTION

PAY EQUITY LEGISLATION

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

SPECIAL MUNICIPAL GRANT

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE

ANNUAL REPORT, OFFICE OF THE PROVINCIAL AUDITOR

DOWNSVIEW REHABILITATION CENTRE

SECURITIES INDUSTRY

USE OF TIME IN QUESTION PERIOD

ORAL QUESTIONS

IDEA CORP.

TRITIUM REMOVAL

IDEA CORP.

PREMIER'S REMARK

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

PROPERTY RIGHTS

IDEA CORP.

PROTECTION FOR HOME BUYERS

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

YOUTH UNEMPLOYMENT

COURTHOUSE

PETITIONS

SUNDAY TRADING

SUNDAY RACING

SUNDAY TRADING

REPORTS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

MOTION

COMMITTEE BUSINESS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

THEATRES AMENDMENT ACT

PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE CROWN AMENDMENT ACT

GREENWOOD RACEWAY ACT

CITY OF TORONTO ACT

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS IN ORDERS AND NOTICES AND RESPONSE TO PETITION

PUBLIC OPINION POLLS

ORDERS OF THE DAY

REPORT, STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS (CONTINUED)

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE