Hansard Transcript 1987-Jun-01 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The Deputy Speaker: I would like to ask all members to join me in welcoming the second spring group of legislative pages to serve in the third session of the 33rd Parliament, 1987:

Jody Applebaum, Wilson Heights; Charmaine Appleton, Mississauga North; Shelley Ayres, Brantford; Olu Clarke, Yorkview; Lorna Coulter, Durham-York; Joanne Davison, Oshawa; Michael Drouillard, Windsor-Sandwich; Natasha Dubrovin, Lake Nipigon; Christopher Harte, Kitchener; Jennifer Hughes, Grey-Bruce; Christopher Johnston, Kenora; Evangelos Karagounis, Scarborough-Ellesmere; Tricia Knebel, Brock; Rebecca Melville, Port Arthur; Ahmad Muinuddin, York Mills; Vuthary Phy, Burlington South; Andrew Resmer, Hastings-Peterborough; Jennifer Roberts, Grey; Rebecca Schinkel, Wentworth North; Donald Shackell, Dufferin-Simcoe; Greg Smith, Middlesex; Bryan Timm, Renfrew South; Bryan Tokarsky, Wellington-Dufferin-Peel; and Jeffrey Wallace, Sudbury East.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

CANADIAN ENVIRONMENT WEEK

Mr. Gillies: I rise on the occasion of the beginning of Canadian Environment Week.

More than ever before, Canadians and Ontarians are aware of the dangers pollution brings to our air, our waters and our lands. A Gallup poll published just today showed that in two short years the number of Canadians considering the dangers of pollution as very serious has increased by 30 per cent. Fully two thirds of our country's population now feels pollution is a significant threat to the quality of our environment and virtually all Canadians, 96 per cent, have heard or read about the dangers of pollution.

Despite this increased awareness, we still have a lot to do by way of cleaning up and protecting the environment for the future. Here in Ontario, we know a safe environment is a high priority. Acid rain, toxic chemicals and leaking landfills have taken their toll.

This Canadian Environment Week gives us an opportunity to focus our attention on environmental issues and to heighten the awareness of the public and industry that a clean environment is also good economics.

This year, I hope the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) will take this week seriously enough to participate in some of the activities. Last year, the minister's excuse for nonparticipation was that he felt every week was Environment Week in Ontario. That is a lame excuse for not taking every opportunity possible to get the message out to keep Ontario clean.

INJURED WORKERS DAY

Mr. McClellan: Today, I am doing something a little different with members' statements. Today is June 1, which in Ontario is traditionally the day we set aside to remember workers who have been killed or injured on the job. I would like to ask my colleagues in the Legislature to join with me in a moment of silence in memory of those who were killed on the job in Ontario during the past 12 months.

The House observed one minute's silence.

CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL OF SOUTHWESTERN ONTARIO

Mr. Reycraft: I want to report to the assembly this afternoon on an enormously successful telethon conducted at the Children's Hospital of Southwestern Ontario last weekend.

This is the second year in which the London hospital has participated in this international telethon. Last year, a total of $391,488 was pledged in the telethon. When this year's telethon concluded at 6 p.m. yesterday afternoon, the tote board showed a grand total of $545,000. This money will all be used to fund additional research, equipment and special programs at the London children's hospital so that the hospital may expand the excellent health care services the staff there already provides.

I want to applaud the people of southwestern Ontario who responded so generously on Saturday and Sunday. I also want to congratulate the hospital's development officer, Dawn Snow, and the over 1,200 volunteers, some of whom worked through the full 24 hours of the telethon.

Together, they have made a very significant contribution to the quality of life in southwestern Ontario.

I want to draw particular attention to the efforts of television broadcasters Jim Swan of CFPL-TV in London and Brian Elmslie of CKNX-TV in Wingham. Not only did they donate their professional talents for the duration of the telethon, but as well they surrendered Brian's beard and Jim's moustache as part of a challenge that was met by their viewers.

CONVERSION OF RENTAL ACCOMMODATION

Mr. McFadden: I would like to raise a serious matter concerning the loss of a significant number of affordable rental apartment units in Metro Toronto as a result of the growing number of conversions to what appear to be apartment-hotel units.

Hundreds of rental units in Metro Toronto now are being taken off the rental housing market to be used for short-term residences for out-of-town visitors in apparent contravention of both provincial and municipal law. My office has received numerous complaints from tenants that this type of illegal apartment-hotel accommodation exists in at least three north Toronto apartment buildings.

It would appear that there is an orchestrated effort on the part of the building owner to obtain vacant possession of as many rental units as possible by refusing tenants the right to sublet their units. My office has spoken with officials of the Ministry of Housing concerning this problem and has provided them with specific information regarding the location of alleged illegal apartment-hotel units.

To the best of my knowledge, there is yet to be any action taken by the ministry with regard to these illegal apartment-hotel units. Given the serious nature of this problem, I call on the Ministry of Housing to get on with the job and investigate thoroughly these allegations of illegal apartment-hotel units in Metropolitan Toronto so that this problem can be dealt with and eradicated.

1340

RIDING OF LAKE NIPIGON

Mr. Pouliot: I would like to draw the attention of the House to where there is nothing short of a tragedy in the largest riding in our province, my own riding of Lake Nipigon. Statistics will attest -- and they were given to the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) -- that as we near the year 2000, not eight, not nine, but a full 11 per cent of the people in the riding of Lake Nipigon do not have washroom facilities.

The average family income in our riding is $27,000, compared to $48,000 for Markham, where 80 per cent of the people have more than one washroom. In Lake Nipigon, 11 per cent of the people do not have any. We are spending $30 million of taxpayers' money in this province to make sure the Gucci crowd, the more fortunate people, do not get rained on when they go to see the Blue Jays.

I am asking the House, where are the priorities as we near the year 2000 that the essential facilities for our first Canadians are omitted? Every time I have asked this House, through the Treasurer or the Premier (Mr. Peterson), we are told to go and see the feds. What needs to be done is for the government to put some money aside in terms of an essential service. After all, we have just looked at $30 billion in terms of overall expenditure.

INJURED WORKERS DAY

Mr. Gordon: Today we honour the injured workers of this province. We recognize their pain and suffering as human beings. We recognize their contribution and that of their families; and we also must reflect upon the fact that it is the families that often suffer along with the worker, because when the worker receives an injury that takes away his livelihood it also takes away much of the peace and quiet that we find in normal family life.

At the prevention end, the occupational health and safety laws have failed this worker. After the injury, the Workers' Compensation Board more often than not fails this worker. Rather than facilitate rehabilitation and compensation, the WCB often frustrates it.

The workers' compensation system in this province as it stands now does not serve the interests of the workers, rather it too often serves to demoralize the workers, to deprive the workers of what is fair. What symbolizes this more than any other aspect of that dehumanized sprawling bureaucracy is the meat chart. This chart coldly determines the compensation based on the part of the body which is injured. This chart arbitrarily sets the worth of the loss of a limb, faculty or ability without concern for how this loss affects present or future earning ability.

I call on this House to recognize the injured workers and to move expeditiously to try to do everything possible legislatively to help them.

MINING ACCIDENTS

Mr. Martel: We have just suffered two more fatalities in the mining industry, bringing the figure to 10 this year. There is something drastically wrong. We are ending unemployment in the north with people being killed. There is something drastically wrong. If this were policemen being killed, this province would be torn apart with unrest, but dumb miners seem to be the scapegoats. No one really gets uptight when they get killed and I, for one, am tired of counting the bodies.

In the minister's statement last week, he did not talk about scaling. He did not talk about a number of other types of fatalities which occurred. In drilling, there is no protection; lighting is inadequate; and we get this kind of weak, Caspar Milquetoast approach. The workers did not want that. That is all industry was prepared to give and that is all the minister was prepared to allow workers to have. When are we going to say to the industry, "You are going to clean up and we are going to put those provisions in place which make it safe." If it costs a few bucks, so what? This year, 10 miners. The price is too high for the present system.

I say to the Premier (Mr. Peterson), since his Minister of Labour (Mr. Wrye) will not do something, will he?

VISITOR

The Deputy Speaker: I would ask all members of the Legislative Assembly to join with me in recognizing and welcoming in the Speaker's gallery the Clerk of Parliament for Grenada, Curt Strachan.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

PROTECTION OF CAROLINIAN ZONE

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: My colleague the Minister of Citizenship and Culture (Ms. Munro) and I would like to inform the members of a memorandum of understanding that will be signed between our respective ministries today. It will deal with the protection of native plants, animals and natural habitats of an area in southern Ontario known as Carolinian Canada.

The memorandum commits a total of $1.8 million in government funding over three years to the protection of this valuable and distinctive natural heritage. This funding will match commitments made by the private sector. It will be administered by the Ontario Heritage Foundation, an agency of the Ministry of Citizenship and Culture, in a special Carolinian fund.

I want to commend the three nongovernment agencies that are contributing financially to this program. Those agencies are Wildlife Habitat Canada, the Nature Conservancy to Canada and the World Wildlife Fund, Canada. Key members from those three agencies will be witness to the signing of the memorandum of understanding, which will be undertaken today. In particular, the World Wildlife Fund is to be commended for its lead role in stimulating this very important co-operative initiative.

As members may know, the Carolinian zone in southern Ontario boasts vegetation and wildlife that is not found anywhere else in the province -- or in Canada, in some cases. This includes sassafras, tulip and red mulberry trees, opossum, blue racers and the Carolina wren, to mention just a very few.

In the case of Carolinian Canada, we have assisted in developing an overall conservation strategy for the region and are working to protect 36 critical natural areas. These areas include southern deciduous forests, wetlands, prairies and savannahs. Among them are 26 areas of natural and scientific interest designated by my ministry and eight of Ontario's most significant wetlands.

The land protection program set out in this memorandum of understanding involves both private stewardship and land acquisition.

Under the private stewardship component, we are encouraging land owners in Carolinian areas to leave undeveloped tracts to preserve Carolinian lifeforms. Co-operating land owners are eligible to receive recognition through the Ontario Heritage Foundation stewardship awards program. They can also get management advice and apply for stewardship assistance from member agencies of the Natural Heritage League.

Actual land acquisition from willing land owners is reserved only for the most significant properties when no other options for protection are available.

Under this program, the province is working with public interest groups and the private sector to ensure that the natural diversity offered to us in Carolinian Canada remains with us for generations to come.

My colleague the Minister of Citizenship and Culture and I believe this is a very significant and positive program and we are pleased to be participating in it.

CANADIAN ENVIRONMENT WEEK

Hon. Mr. Bradley: This is the beginning of Canadian Environment Week. It is an appropriate time to reiterate to this House and to the people of Ontario the Peterson government's commitment to our environment.

We on this side understand that we must protect our renewable resources, our drinking water supplies, indeed the entire fragile ecosystem which supports the web of life, if we are to endow our children with a full and prosperous future.

It is a huge job, following decades of abuse and neglect, to restore the wholesomeness of what nature gave us. In our two years as stewards of the environment, we have worked hard to turn the province from the careless course it was following. Within days of taking office, our government removed the spills bill from the legislative freezer and proclaimed it into law.

Mr. Gillies: The farmers love it.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies) was supposed to applaud there.

The result has been that potential spillers are taking greater care and prompt cleanup has become the rule.

We have instituted Countdown Acid Rain, the most progressive acid rain abatement program in North America or Europe. It requires the four big acid rain polluters to cut their emissions by two thirds by 1994. We have also aggressively pressed our American neighbours to take the kind of similar action that is needed to protect waterways, wildlife, forests, historical buildings and human health in Ontario and throughout eastern North America.

1350

The Peterson government's municipal-industrial strategy for abatement program is the most effective tool in Ontario history for cleaning up the province's waterways. The old system was full of holes. It was based on the foolish assumption that dilution was the solution to pollution and it was buttressed, if that is the word, by a lattice of unenforceable guidelines.

MISA will cap the chemical loadings of every major discharger into our waterways at levels that can be attained by the best available technology economically achievable. Furthermore, these levels will be periodically reviewed and where technological improvements permit they will be lowered. The ultimate goal of the MISA program is the virtual elimination of persistent toxic substances from discharges into our waterways.

On one of our most seriously polluted waterways, the Niagara River, our government held out for a meaningful cleanup agreement between the four governments involved. Due to our intransigent advocacy of the environment, a substantial first step in the cleanup of that long-abused river was agreed to. The plan now has a percentage pollution reduction, a timetable and a meaningful reference to excavation of the toxic chemical dumps that line the United States shore.

Our government is also dedicated to making recycling work. In the past, the commitment to recycling in Ontario was halfhearted and underfunded. Our government is determined to boost recycling from a novelty that pops up here and there for a few years to a permanent province-wide activity that touches the day-to-day lives of most of our citizens.

The Peterson government quintupled municipal curbside recycling grants last year. We will have even more money than that available this year for recycling.

The first step in making recycling an important environmental initiative was the pop can regulation we passed within three months of taking office. That action ended years of puerile dawdling. The regulation required the soft drink industry to take responsibility for the fate of its containers. After studying its obligations, the industry announced a $20-million program to aid municipalities with the capital costs of establishing multimaterial curbside recycling programs.

That sum from private industry is on top of our financial commitment. Right now, province-wide recycling programs divert about two per cent of municipal garbage destined for landfill sites. What a lost opportunity that statistic represents. My aim is to expand recycling so that at least 15 per cent of Ontario's household garbage is diverted from landfills.

To back our tough approach to environmental protection, we have increased fines for pollution 10-fold, added provision for jail sentences and made corporate executives and directors legally responsible by giving them a duty to take care.

Furthermore, we are enforcing our environmental laws with vigour. In the fiscal year ended March 31, prosecutions more than tripled from two years previous, while convictions doubled over the same period. Those who previously felt themselves immune from environmental legislation have found that they are not above the law.

All this is not to say we have solved all of the problems, far from it. We still have several important initiatives to introduce. Tough, efficient follow-through as well as continued vigilance is necessary.

Among our future initiatives will be an infrastructure renewal program, aid to municipalities for sewer and waterworks and a comprehensive waste management plan. In addition, we hope to introduce a much-improved air pollution abatement program. We are pressing for a national superfund to clean up old problem spots as they are discovered.

In conclusion, I would like to give our pledge that environmental restoration and protection will continue to be a top priority for the Peterson government in years to come.

MINING ACCIDENT

Hon. Mr. Scott: On April 14, four miners died at the Levack mine when several tons of ore fell down a shaft in which they were working. On May 6, the Sudbury Regional Police, in an information sworn before a justice of the peace, charged a fellow miner with four counts of criminal negligence causing death.

The leader of the third party, the member for York South (Mr. Rae), asked me if I would review this matter and consider exercising my power as Attorney General to stay the criminal proceedings so that an inquest could be held and all of the circumstances surrounding the deaths be made public. The member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren) asked me to consider withdrawing the criminal information.

My staff and I have conducted a full review of the circumstances of the case during the past two weeks, and so I am now in a position to respond.

Under the criminal justice system, the police are responsible for investigating events such as the deaths of these miners and for determining whether charges under the Criminal Code of Canada should be laid. That is the procedure that was followed in this case. The Sudbury Regional Police, following an investigation into the matter, concluded there were reasonable and probable grounds to believe that a criminal offence had been committed. They swore to that belief before a justice of the peace, who concluded that the test of reasonable and probable grounds had been met.

As Attorney General, my responsibility under the Criminal Code is to determine whether it is appropriate to continue criminal proceedings that have been commenced by this process. Normally, where charges have been properly laid, the matter should proceed and be determined by a judge sitting in court. The legal authorities emphasize that the Attorney General should exercise his discretion to stay or withdraw charges only when there is some clear and convincing legal reason or some compelling circumstances relating to the charges to support the decision to withdraw or stay. This is implicit in the very idea of the rule of law.

We will want to remember that criminal responsibility is a matter to be finally determined by the courts, not by the police or by the crown. A charge has been properly laid; the accused under our system is presumed innocent. Thus, both the accused and the public have an interest in seeing that the matter comes before a court of law, where the issue can be dealt with in a public judicial forum with finality and free of partisan or extraneous considerations.

After giving the most anxious and deliberate consideration to this matter, and keeping in mind the important interest in the administration of justice which I have outlined, I have concluded that I should not intervene to stay or withdraw these charges. These charges were laid in the sworn belief of a police officer, supported by the legal advice of the crown attorney of the district of Sudbury, that there were reasonable and probable grounds to believe that an offence had been committed. This sworn information was laid before a justice of the peace, who concluded that the legal test for issuing process had been met. After a careful review, I do not believe I can conclude that the legal test for the laying of an information was not met, nor are there any clear or compelling circumstances respecting the charges themselves which would support a decision to stay or withdraw them.

That would normally be the end of the matter, but a second question is raised. It is said that the laying of these criminal charges has the effect of delaying a coroner's inquest into the event or that the coroner's inquest should be allowed to proceed now, as the criminal charges proceed.

It has long been the practice in this province that where criminal charges have been laid in connection with a death, no inquest is held until those criminal charges have been disposed of.

As both the McRuer Royal Commission Inquiry into Civil Rights and the Ontario Law Reform Commission have observed, there are important reasons of principle supporting this practice. These reasons relate to the different purposes served by a criminal trial on the one hand and an inquest on the other. The proper forum for determining criminal responsibility is a court of law; there alone are found important safeguards for the accused, especially his right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

The purpose of an inquest is quite different. The focus of the inquest is to provide the public with information on how, when, where and by what means a deceased individual met his or her death. But the inquest is not designed to serve as a substitute for a criminal trial. Indeed, the Coroners Act specifically provides that an inquest jury shall not make any finding of legal responsibility with respect to a death. Such determinations are the sole responsibility of our criminal and civil courts of law.

If an inquest were allowed to proceed before criminal charges were disposed of, there would be a very real risk of prejudice to the accused. Although the inquest is not designed to determine criminal responsibility, it would inevitably produce considerable debate and speculation on precisely this issue. Given the public interest in the matter, it would be impossible to maintain the dividing line between matters appropriate to an inquest and those appropriate to a criminal trial.

1400

It is for this reason that the long-standing practice has been to dispose of any criminal charges prior to holding an inquest into a death in those rare cases where it is appropriate to invoke both procedures. This practice was confirmed recently in Ottawa, in the case of the death of a young woman who was working in a John Howard Society house when she was killed there by an inmate. The inmate was charged with first-degree murder in connection with the death. It was only after the conclusion of the criminal trial that an inquest was held into the young woman's death.

There is obviously an important public interest in obtaining a complete understanding of the tragic events which led to the deaths of these four miners, but in the circumstances this general public right must yield to the specific interest and right of the individual accused facing a criminal charge.

As well, to intervene in this case, when the police investigative process has taken place and judicial process has been issued by the justice of the peace, would undermine the public's interest in a fair and impartial system for the administration of justice. Citizens can have confidence in the justice system only when it is clear that the system is administered free of partisan or extraneous considerations, no matter how well motivated.

When criminal charges have been laid, it is fundamental that such allegations be determined as quickly as possible in a criminal trial where safeguards exist to protect the accused. I have instructed my officials to take every possible step to ensure that the criminal charges are dealt with expeditiously or as the accused may require.

Once the charges have been disposed of, there will be no impediment to an inquest being held. In due course, all the outstanding questions should and will be answered and we will not have interfered with -- indeed, I hope we will have protected and advanced -- the individual rights of the accused.

CROP INSURANCE

Hon. Mr. Riddell: The entrepreneurial spirit of the Ontario farmer is the foundation of this province's food production system.

In any sort of business venture there are risks, but as the honourable members are well aware, food production combines all the risks and uncertainties of any business with some that are unique to farming. The industry remains at the mercy of the weather, as we saw with the record-setting heavy rains of last fall.

As a way of minimizing these weather risks, Ontario helps make crop insurance available, in partnership with the federal government and the producers themselves.

Earlier this year, I established a committee to review the Canada-Ontario crop insurance program to determine whether changes or improvements were necessary or desirable to ensure maximum benefits to the largest number of farmers.

The committee examined federal and provincial legislation, looked at programs in other jurisdictions and held 15 public hearings across the province, receiving 275 submissions from farm groups and individuals.

I would like to express my ministry's gratitude to those commodity groups, farm organizations and individuals who put forward their views and recommendations in this review process.

I would also like to thank the chairman, Harry Pelissero, and the committee members for their hard work on behalf of Ontario's farm community.

The report of the Crop Insurance Review Committee made a number of recommendations. These included increasing overall coverage levels and the amount of financial support the province contributes, as well as adding new features such as spot loss coverage.

Today I am releasing copies of the report for public comment. These will also be sent to farm organizations and those who made submissions to the committee. The deadline for public comment will be July 31, 1987.

In days to come, we will be discussing these comments, and the committee's recommendations, with the federal Department of Agriculture, the Ontario Crop Insurance Commission and specific farm commodity groups.

Some of the committee's recommendations must be considered in relation to federal legislation; others are within the mandate of the Ontario Crop Insurance Commission.

We want to ensure that any changes made in the Canada-Ontario crop insurance program are for the better and for the benefit of all the farmers in this province who depend on this valuable program; we want to have as many of these as possible in place for the 1988 planting season.

LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD OF ONTARIO

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I would like to invite the members of the Legislature to join me in celebrating the 60th anniversary of the Liquor Control Board of Ontario.

On June 1, 1927, 16 stores were opened by the newly created LCBO. The first bottle was purchased at the outlet at the corner of Church and Lombard here in Toronto. Today, the people of Ontario are served by 615 stores which offer more than 3,300 products and generate more than $1 billion worth of sales.

In another setting I would propose a toast, but here I will simply say, "Happy anniversary to the LCBO" and "Cheers."

RESPONSES

MINING ACCIDENT

Mr. Gordon: I would like to address my remarks to the Attorney General (Mr. Scott).

For five hours, water from a crusher runs into a holding bin at Levack mine -- for five hours. The brattice is missing in the shaft. It has been reported in the past by skip tenders, people who take care of the skips in the mines. A relief valve is known to have been working improperly, and many other factors as well.

After the accident, the company goes in and finds 14 infractions of the law and fixes them before the Ministry of Labour inspectors go in. Then the Minister of Labour (Mr. Wrye) issues four orders of his own. Then we find, of course, that Joseph Kuhle has been charged with criminal negligence.

I would not for one minute suggest that our police department in Sudbury is not an excellent police department that does its job and holds up its end of what it must do. At the same time, we have to ask, where is the company in all this? Where are workers in Ontario going to be in the future when they go in and sign a form that says they have inspected a piece of machinery, and a couple of hours later or a day later there is a bad accident or someone is killed, due to no fault of that worker who checked that equipment? Where are workers in Ontario going to be in the future?

That is why so many workers in this province and in the Sudbury region are very upset and were ready to put down their tools the very day they heard Joseph Kuhle was charged with criminal negligence.

In the mining industry we have inquests. What do the widows do now? Where is their representation? They have to wait and not know how and why these things passed.

We in the Sudbury region believe there is more here than meets the eye, and we expected there would have been a different answer to the request that was made some weeks ago.

CANADIAN ENVIRONMENT WEEK

Mr. Gillies: As I said earlier during members' statements, we certainly want to join with the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) in recognizing Canadian Environment Week, but some of the rather self-congratulatory language of the minister's statement, I think, bears some consideration by the House.

The municipal-industrial strategy for abatement program brought in by this government regulates the chemical effluent of some 300 industries that discharge directly into our province's waters. What the minister has yet to come to grips with is the question of the 13,000-plus industries in our province that discharge into the municipal sewer system.

The minister will know that an initiative is being taken by Pollution Probe to extend the MISA program to the consideration of these industries, which we believe pose just as great a threat to the cleanliness of our water supply as do those industries which are already covered by MISA. I would urge the minister to take that into consideration. Indeed, I will be proposing a resolution to the House to consider this, and I know the minister will want to urge his colleagues to support such a resolution.

Other reference is made in the minister's statement to the progress being made in the fight against acid rain. Now that he has bowed to the pressure and has plugged the loophole in his Countdown Acid Rain program regarding Ontario Hydro's discharges, we ask the minister again to bring the details before this House as to what steps Hydro is going to take to reduce its emissions.

We want to know. When are we going to see this government meet its commitment on scrubbers for the coal-fired generating stations? When are we going to see the commitment on the increased use of low-sulphur coal? When are we going to see some of the practical measures that are needed in order to meet the acid rain target?

LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD OF ONTARIO

Mr. Gillies: I also have a few seconds to respond to the minister's statement regarding the anniversary of the Liquor Control Board of Ontario. I am sure all members of this House want to join with the minister in congratulating the LCBO on its very fine work. The minister neglected to tell the House that it is not only the 60th anniversary of the LCBO; give or take a day, it is also the first anniversary of the inaugural floating cocktail party thrown by the Liberal government in this province. We would want to mark that anniversary too. Cheers.

I might caution the minister that until we do something about the MISA program, if we are going to toast the LCBO today he might not want to do it in water.

1410

MINING ACCIDENT

Mr. Rae: I can only call this a very black day for justice in Ontario, as will be seen when all the facts are out and when the public is as aware as the people who have been involved are aware of the injustice of what has happened to Joe Kuhle; and if I may say so, the very disappointing decision of the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) in which I think he has avoided taking some decisions which admittedly would have taken a degree of forthrightness on his part. His refusal to do that and his decision instead to take what I regard as the much softer course of simply hiding behind the technicalities of the procedures -- and I use that phrase decidedly -- rather than looking at all the circumstances of this case is, frankly, a tragedy for justice in this province.

We now face a situation where the workers in this province are basically being told by the Liberal government of this province that they will simply have to refuse to do things they are being asked to do by their foremen or by their employers, not simply because they regard it as unsafe but for the simple reason that when push comes to shove the police are going to come in and the workers are going to be the ones who are going to be hung out to dry -- not the management, not those taking decisions and assigning workers where they are supposed to be, not those who have the responsibility for assigning work. The responsibility, according to the government today, is clearly that of the individual worker with respect to every single step that worker takes with respect to consequences, however unforeseen they may be, of circumstances beyond his or her control.

I can only say that this is not only a tragedy for Joe Kuhle and his family in terms of the extraordinary challenge he has to go through but also, I believe, an incredible injustice that is being inflicted on our entire industrial system. If I may say so, what l found particularly insulting, and what I think the workers in this province will find insulting, is that the example the Attorney General chose to give as to what the normal process would be with respect to a criminal trial and an inquest was the murder, by an inmate who was released on parole, of a worker who was working in those circumstances. To put an industrial accident on par with that simply shows how far out of touch this government has become with what goes on in the lives of working people, in the decisions they have to make and in their circumstances. To me, this is just nonsense.

I cannot understand how the Attorney General could arrive at this decision other than the fact that it was obviously the softer course. To have taken another decision would naturally have caused some concern because it would have been a decision taken at his discretion. It seems to me that the Attorney General has a responsibility to say not simply what the police believe to be the case in the circumstances -- because, as the Attorney General well knows, their own investigation was only partial -- but whether he believes in the circumstances there are reasonable and probable grounds. Not once in the statement did he say that the Attorney General of this province believes there are reasonable and probable grounds; and yet that is what is taking place, a trial is taking place, and when the Attorney General had an opportunity to review it, he chose not to do it. I think that is deplorable.

CANADIAN ENVIRONMENT WEEK

Mrs. Grier: I too am glad to join in celebrating Canadian Environment Week by looking at some of the achievements of this government and at some of its nonachievements. I would agree with the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) that he has done better than his predecessors: he could hardly have done worse.

Like the member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies), I point out that the spills bill he boasts about was in the accord; Countdown Acid Rain had a loophole which this House forced him to close; the municipal-industrial strategy for abatement program has 11,000 loopholes, the pop can regulation is not working; and the improved fines were amendments that I made.

Where is action to put the private sector under the Environmental Assessment Act? Where is a drinking water strategy? Where is a policy on intervener funding? Why is he talking about a national superfund? It is this province that has sites that need to be cleaned up. Why have we not seen from the government an environmental bill of rights, such as this House has supported on second reading, put into place and truly celebrate Environment Week for Ontario?

ORAL QUESTIONS

CONSTITUTIONAL DISCUSSIONS

Mr. Grossman: I have a question for the Premier. He has given us assurances on several occasions in this House that the Meech Lake accord does not in essence change immigration practices in this country. Could he give us a reassurance today that he will not sign the Meech Lake accord if it does indeed alter immigration practices in this country?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: To address that specific question, as I understand it, it allows agreements reached between the federal and provincial governments to be constitutionalized, as is the practice now under the Cullen-Couture agreement that has been working in Quebec. That option would be open to other provinces as well, should they come to an agreement, and it could be constitutionalized. As I understand it, it is a regularization of a procedure that is going on right now in Quebec, and there seems to be a reasonably high comfort level with that.

Mr. Grossman: Let me understand, because this is such an important point: the Premier's understanding and his assurance to us is that in essence the Meech Lake accord simply constitutionalizes the current status quo as outlined in Quebec in the Cullen-Couture agreement. Have I understood that correctly?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: It allows the constitutionalization of that agreement and/or other agreements that are worked out between the federal government and the provinces.

Mr. Grossman: The Premier is confirming today, as he outlined earlier in response to my questions, that his understanding is that immigration procedures with regard to Quebec have not changed; that he is only codifying the status quo.

I wish to tell the Premier today that in point of fact the Cullen-Couture agreement says nothing about the number of immigrants who will go to Quebec. The Cullen-Couture agreement says nothing about the selection of refugees abroad. In fact, the Cullen-Couture agreement deals for the first time with quotas, contrary to the information the Premier gave to this House, which I am sure he gave in good faith with regard to his understanding.

How can the Premier justify signing the accord tomorrow when the fact is that if the Meech Lake accord provisions with regard to immigration had been in place last year, the other provinces would have had 8,000 fewer immigrants and Quebec would have been obliged, under the Meech Lake agreement, to have living in Quebec today 8,000 immigrants who are now living in other parts of the country? How would he sign such an accord?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I say, with great respect, I do not think that logically follows from what has happened or what the intention is or what is envisaged in the entire situation. Let me say to my honourable friend, it does not in any way preclude the federal government from setting overall quotas. They set the numbers and gave the terms and conditions that would be arbitrated or worked out with the provinces.

Obviously, in this situation, the concern of Quebec specifically -- and I do not want to push this situation to its logical extreme -- is that it would not want to see Quebec overwhelmed with millions of English-speaking immigrants, it would change the complexion and nature of that province. As you know, there is a fear in Quebec at the present time that, with a declining birth rate and changing demography, that could diminish the role of the French language and the French culture in that province. That is why the Cullen-Couture agreement came about, which I gather Mr. Trudeau was a signatory to, as well as the federal government and Quebec.

I say to my honourable friend that I do not see it as revolutionary, as he may. It regularizes a practice that is in place now, but leaves the central authority with respect to numbers in the hands of the federal government.

May I say one other thing, because there is some concern about it? It in no way restricts mobility rights of immigrants inside this country; therefore, I think when my honourable friend understands the entire context, hopefully he will not have the same concerns.

1420

Mr. Grossman: My second question is to the Premier again.

I do have precisely that concern, because in point of fact, while of course the federal government determines the number of people coming into this country -- contrary to the advice the Premier gave this House -- the province of Quebec, under this accord, would have been entitled to ensure that the selection of immigrants abroad resulted in 8,000 immigrants going to Quebec instead of other parts of the country, and obviously that is partly as a result of the selection criteria which will be developed.

In view of that, does the Premier think Ontario's interests are well served when the Cullen-Couture agreement is not only enshrined, but expanded significantly to give Quebec the power to get 8,000 additional immigrants at the expense of the rest of the country?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The first thing the member intended, I guess, to imply in his question is that Quebec is going to get 8,000 immigrants at the expense of Ontario, and then he broadened that to 8,000 immigrants at the expense of the rest of the country. In a sense, the five per cent extra is a plus or minus figure. It is obviously one of these things that is not going to be worked out with absolute precision. If my honourable friend is concerned that Quebec is going to profit to the extent of 8,000 immigrants at the expense of the rest of the country, I really think he is getting concerned about a not very significant point.

Mr. Grossman: Let us be clear. On May 5 when I asked about this in the House, the Premier took the position that the constitutional accord did nothing but enshrine the Cullen-Couture agreement. Four days after he signed the Meech Lake accord, the Premier was still under the impression that what he himself signed did nothing but enshrine the status quo.

The day he signed it, he thought something different from what the fact is. Now, today, the Premier is admitting that a change has been made in the accord which would allow Quebec an extra five per cent of the immigration in Canada.

My question to the Premier is this. The premise upon which he tried to get out of answering this question a moment ago was that the 8,000 figure represented my calculation of five per cent. In point of fact, the 8,000 figure represents what Quebec would have needed without the five per cent to get the Meech Lake accord undertaking that it would get its proportion of the population.

Without the five per cent, a simple mathematical calculation should have told the Premier, before he signed the Meech Lake accord, he was agreeing that 8,000 immigrants minimum should be steered to Quebec at the expense -- yes, not only of Ontario but of the rest of the country. Was the Premier aware of that when he signed the initial agreement; and can he give the assurance to the House that if that is our understanding he will not sign the agreement until that is straightened out?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Let me just tell my honourable friend what is involved, lest he get too concerned about the situation. What it does is incorporate the principles of the Cullen-Couture agreement on the selection abroad and in Canada of independent immigrants, workers for medical treatment, students and temporary workers; and on the selection of refugees abroad and economic criteria for family reunification and assisted relatives.

I say to my honourable friend --

Mr. Grossman: Keep reading.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: It guarantees that Quebec will receive a number of immigrants, including refugees, within the annual total established by the federal government for all of Canada proportionate to its share of the population of Canada, with the right to exceed that figure by five per cent for demographic reasons. It is the right to exceed, not an automatic right to exceed and I am sure it will be worked out from time to time.

I think my honourable friend is suggesting that Quebec is going to profit somehow here at the expense of the rest of the country. I think his concerns are misplaced.

Mr. Grossman: The Premier has had several weeks to clarify what he believes he has signed. It took him until today to admit that it does more than the Cullen-Couture agreement. He has had several weeks to address the concerns I am raising, and he is just standing in the House again and shrugging his shoulders saying not to worry.

My final supplementary to the Premier is; would he not agree that, leaving aside the five per cent, had the Meech Lake accord been in effect last year, the guarantee of Quebec's proportion of the population out of our immigration flow would have meant that it would get 8,000 immigrants to Quebec at the expense of the rest of the country or instead of the rest of the country?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I tell my honourable friend that it is his friend who shrugs his shoulders, not me.

Let me address the specific question. The answer to the member's question is no in that regard. It is an upside figure. There is no automatic right to it and I think one has to look at it in that context. I think my honourable friend is exercised about nothing.

Mr. Rae: I also have some questions of the Premier. Since the Premier has not yet answered many of the questions I asked him in my speech on Tuesday, perhaps he can take this opportunity to tell me what the relationship is between the clauses that deal with Quebec's distinct society and the charter, in particular what the relationship is to questions of aboriginal rights and the future of aboriginal rights and how he sees these clauses relating to the question of multiculturalism which, as the Premier will know, is also guaranteed in the charter.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Let me answer in some detail with respect to the three questions asked by my honourable friend.

First, with respect to the charter, as the member knows, the clause with respect to the distinctiveness of Quebec will become section 2 in the British North America Act. It will apply to the interpretation of the entire Constitution; indeed, of the Charter of Rights as well.

Second, the member asked me a question with respect to native rights. In my opinion, these are not affected in any way. In other words, the old system applies. Section 42 does not apply to the question of native rights. I would say to my honourable friend and to others who have raised the same concern that this will actually assist the aboriginal peoples to move towards self-government.

As my honourable friend will know, we had a discussion about this issue not too many months ago. Unfortunately, we were not able to pull the matter together. What we were looking for were seven provinces out of nine, because Quebec was not part of it. If Quebec is part of the Constitution, we will have a much better chance, in my view, of moving towards aboriginal self-government or native people's self-government in this country. In other words, we are working with a bigger number of provinces. Quebec has demonstrated a sensitivity in this area that some of the other provinces have not. Also, let me say to my honourable friend that it does not need unanimity in order to bring aboriginal self-government.

Third, let me say that because we have entrenched a process for constitutional change and amendment over a period of time, I feel very confident that this issue will come back on to our agenda in the not-too-distant future. I cannot give my honourable friend a specific date, but I think it entrenches a desire to deal with the Constitution and this issue will come up again, as I said in the not-too-distant future, because I plan to raise it, I think it is important.

Unfortunately, two or three months ago we did not have the political will from the other provinces to solve that problem but I think that as things change, we can develop a consensus and deal with that issue. I regard it as most unfortunate we did not solve it last time.

Mr. Rae: From that question, the unfinished business from the last round of constitutional reform was the question of the relationship between, if I can call them this, the European cultures of Canada and its first citizens. That was the one process that was left in the Constitution. It was entrenched in 1981-82 and it was left in with some further rounds of discussions that just finished unsuccessfully in this past year.

Why has the Premier apparently acceded to dropping that failed challenge? It was failed by the Premiers themselves. They failed to meet the challenge. Why has he simply acceded to dropping that and to replacing it with Senate reform, which is on the top of the agenda of some other Premiers but not I would have thought of the Premier of Ontario? Is the Premier not admitting that by doing this he is in fact saying that the rights of our native people are less important than Senate reform?

1430

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I tell my honourable friend that he should hesitate to draw those kinds of conclusions. I think that is an unfair characterization of what transpired. Obviously, in a federal state such as we have there are lots of concerns, be they fish management, the entrenchment of property rights or Senate reform. As the member knows, there are a variety of items at the top of various people's agendas across this country.

I say to my honourable friend, I believe very strongly that we have not in any way impeded our ability to deal with the question of aboriginal self-government. Indeed, we are in a much better position to move on it in the next two or three years than we were in the past. I say at the same time, there is no sense calling the same conference tomorrow because the results would be the same on aboriginal self-government. It takes political will and it takes leadership. We know and he knows the realities. Five provinces were on side out of the nine. There were four that were offside, but things do change.

I can tell my honourable friend that I am one of those who is prepared, assuming I am in a position to do so, to bring that issue back on to the national agenda. Since we have constitutionalized further constitutional reform, I say it will be much easier. Without this amendment it would be much more difficult, because there would be no further agreement to have meetings with respect to the Constitution.

Mr. Rae: With great respect to the Premier, he is never going to have more leverage than he has tomorrow. He is never going to be in that good a position. In terms of saying to those who are around as we go into this renegotiation of the non-negotiated agreement, whose different wordings are still passing around, he is never going to be in a stronger position. I want him to know that as far as our party is concerned, he should be there pressing to see that the question of aboriginal native peoples' rights is at the top of the agenda for this country because it is unfinished business that we deserve to finish in this century and if we do not get it on the agenda now we are not going to finish it.

It is my understanding on the basis of a series of press reports that there are in fact different wordings for two sections, the section on spending power and the section on Quebec as a distinct society. I wonder if the Premier can tell us his understanding with respect to how many alternative wordings there are and which wording in particular he supports with respect to the spending power.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I appreciate the point my honourable friend is raising with respect to native self-government, but I reject his point of view that it has been dismissed. I am also not comfortable with his characterization of it being less important than something else in the country.

Mr. Rae: Well, it is.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I can tell him it is important to get Quebec into the Constitution as far as I am concerned. There are many things that are important and I do not know whether one is more important or less important than another one. I believe it is important, and I believe we will be in such a position in Ontario; and I can say my friend the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) has played a leadership role in this matter right across this country, to make progress on that issue in the not-too-distant future.

With respect to his second question -- or at least his question, not his preamble -- he asked me about the question of the spending power. I have been asked my interpretation of that question. Very clearly I have the view -- l have stated it in this House and I will state it again -- that any time there is an opting out under the spending power, any money that is transferred to a province has to go back into, as it says in the Meech Lake accord, similar objectives and similar programs. It is not as if one can take child care money and use it for wilderness parks or for roads. That understanding is very clear, at least in my mind and I suspect in the other people's minds as well.

There are a variety of ways that one could put that into words in any accord. We can discuss the alternatives. I have heard a number of them; Premier Pawley has some, others have had some; putting in "at the discretion of the federal government." Others say that gives the power and takes the power at the same time and it ends up not accomplishing anything. There are other ways of discussing it in terms of shared-cost program objectives. There are a lot of ways to do it, and we will be discussing it tomorrow.

Mr. Rae: All I can say is I hope that the Premier has lots of help tomorrow.

MINING ACCIDENT

Mr. Rae: I would like to ask a question of the Attorney General about the statement he made today. I wonder if the Attorney General can tell us precisely who the police interviewed or what other interviews took place after questions were raised in this House with respect to the laying of charges against Mr. Kuhle.

Hon. Mr. Scott: My understanding is that following the matter raised by the leader of the third party in the House, the police spoke to and interviewed representatives of the Ministry of Labour, who were in the course of conducting an investigation or who had knowledge of raining matters.

Mr. Rae: Is the Attorney General admitting that when they laid the charge and when they went before the justice of the peace saying they believed there were reasonable and probable grounds, they had not interviewed several relevant witnesses from the Ministry of Labour?

Hon. Mr. Scott: No, I am not saying that. My understanding is that prior to laying the charge, the police had interviewed a number of representatives of the Ministry of Labour, particularly representatives in the north. Following the honourable member's request for a review of the matter, interviews of others in Toronto were conducted.

Mr. Rae: This is really what the whole thing turns on, the question of the Attorney General's discretion in terms of his obligations within the system.

The Attorney General has said on a number of other occasions that if he does not think there are reasonable and probable grounds, he does not think a trial should proceed and in fact charges should be withdrawn. Can the Attorney General tell us, is that not his view? Is it not his view that he has to be satisfied? Does he think there are reasonable and probable grounds to convict Mr. Kuhle?

Hon. Mr. Scott: The various texts on parliamentary discussions of the role of the Attorney General make it perfectly clear that it is not his right to assess whether there are reasonable and probable grounds. That is a matter for the informant and the justice of the peace.

First, the Attorney General has the right to intervene to stay a prosecution under the Criminal Code if it can be illustrated that there is something in the nature of the charges that requires a postponement or, second, he can intervene to withdraw the charges if he is satisfied there is no credible evidence upon which the charges are based.

As I said in my statement, after the most anxious and deliberate consideration -- these matters are very difficult; I would have been happier to have come to another decision -- l concluded I could not draw that judgement.

FUND-RAISING

Mr. Gillies: I have a question of the Premier. He doubtless saw this column in this morning's Toronto Star entitled "Another Questionable Liberal Fund-Raiser." We would like to ask the Premier about some of the facts of this particular matter.

According to the article, the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston) is having a fund-raising reception at the University Women's Club on June 15. People are being invited to pay $200 for the privilege of sipping cocktails with the minister. The invitations went from the ministry office, the office of the parliamentary assistant, to people directly involved in the health care field and funded by the ministry -- doctors, hospital administrators, drug manufacturers, ambulance operators, officials of medical colleges and professional medical associations.

We want to know whether the Premier's understanding of the facts, as outlined in this column, accord with the facts in the column and whether he condones this very questionable type of fund-raising by one of his ministers.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I saw the article. The member can ask the honourable minister, when he comes, who was on his list. I have no idea. A wide number of invitations were sent out to a lot of people. The member is welcome to come as well, if he likes.

Mr. Gillies: I am sure the Premier would not want to associate himself, even inadvertently, with Liberal Party fund-raising going on out of a government office, and neither would I expect that the Premier would want to associate himself within invitations being sent to people contained on ministry lists.

We have already had the infamous Liberal Economic Advisory Forum invitation. We have had people in the advertising business being invited to spend $250 to have breakfast with the former Chairman of Management Board. We have had business people paying $200 to have cocktails with the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. O'Neil).

Has the Premier not had enough of this sort of thing? Is it appropriate that this borderline influence-peddling goes on within his government? As leader of the government, would he not want to cut this off immediately?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I say to my honourable friend that yes, there is fund-raising activity in the party -- actually, over a long period of time, as my honourable friend will be aware -- just as there is fund-raising activity in his party and in the New Democratic Party as well. But there is no one who can purchase influence in this party for any amount of money. That would not be tolerable. The ministers are not receptive to that. We are not running this party like the Conservatives run or ran their party. Everybody knows he is treated with an even hand by this party.

1440

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

Mr. McClellan: I have a question of the Minister of Labour about decision 72 of the Workers' Compensation Appeal Tribunal which, the minister will recall, broadened the definition of "personal injury by accident" to give a broader definition to the concept of "accident" than used to be given by the Workers' Compensation Board.

Given that this week the Workers' Compensation Board, after a six-month campaign to try to reverse, subvert, torpedo and delay the implementation of decision 72, is holding what can only be described as a kangaroo court to retry the case -- it has appointed our friend John Laskin as its counsel, it has appointed itself as a party to the dispute even though it is also the judge sitting in judgement on its own policy decisions --

The Deputy Speaker: Question.

Mr. McClellan: My question to the minister is simply this: is it the minister's understanding of section 86n of the act that the Workers' Compensation Board has the power to overturn the decision of the tribunal, or is the decision of the tribunal final and binding on the Workers' Compensation Board?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: That may end up being, as the honourable gentleman will know, the $64 question; that is clearly a question on which there is some divided opinion. I believe the reconsideration of decision 72 under section 86n is slated to begin on Thursday of this week and will continue on Friday. There will be a number of employer representatives and a number of worker representatives appearing before the board.

This follows, of course, a decision by the board to have a reconsideration of decision 72. I realize there must be some finality to it ultimately, but I think the honourable member perhaps would agree that it would be useful to allow this appeal under section 86n to go forward.

Mr. McClellan: It is simply unbelievable that the Minister of Labour has stood in his place and indicated it is even conceivably theoretically possible for the Workers' Compensation Board to overturn a decision of our independent appeal tribunal, which the previous parliament set up. If that happens, the integrity and the independence of the tribunal will be completely destroyed.

I want to ask the minister, as he is the only person I have heard outside of the Workers' Compensation Board take the ridiculous position that the board somehow has the power to sit in judgement and overturn decisions of the independent tribunal -- nobody outside of the Workers' Compensation Board has ever said that until the minister said it in here --

The Deputy Speaker: Question.

Mr. McClellan: Will the minister give us an assurance that he will support my amendment, set out in my private member's bill, or bring in his own legislation if that is necessary, in order to make it clear that the Workers' Compensation Board, by setting up these kangaroo courts, does not have the power to overturn independent decisions of the Workers' Compensation Appeal Tribunal?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: It is obvious the honourable gentleman wants to have it both ways. In one breath, in the first instance, he says it is obviously and abundantly clear what the Legislature did in 1984 in passing legislation with section 86n; then, in the next breath, he turns around and says, "Just in case it isn't clear, I've got an amendment to fix up any outstanding problems there may be."

Mr. McClellan: What are you going to do? Hide under your desk as usual? Is there any limit to your uselessness?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: We are reviewing a number of aspects of the act right now. I am aware, even if the honourable gentleman is not, that there is a divided body of opinion as to what is ultimately meant out of section 86n.

Mr. Rae: What do you mean? It's your law. What do you mean by it?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: There is divided legal opinion --

Mr. Rae: You're in charge. You're the government. You're supposed to be in charge. Tell us what it means.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: It is too bad the member for York South (Mr. Rae) and the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan), who are always the experts on 20-20 hindsight, did not offer these opinions when the debate went on in 1984.

This matter is under review by the board. The board will be meeting this Thursday and Friday, as it is properly allowed to do under section 86n of the act. We will monitor the deliberations of the board very carefully.

FUND-RAISING

Mr. Gillies: I want to ask the Premier again -- because we are not at all satisfied with the nonanswer he has given to these very serious questions -- about allegations in the largest-circulation newspaper in this province that his Minister of Health (Mr. Elston) has used ministry lists and ministry resources to solicit funds for his fund-raising campaign.

Will the Premier not tell this House whether he has investigated these charges, whether he agrees they are very serious and inappropriate and what steps he will take to ensure that the Minister of Health and all his other ministers refrain from going after funding from the very people who depend on their ministries for support? Will the Premier not agree that this is totally inappropriate?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I respect the article from the newspaper with the largest circulation in the province. That does not mean I always agree with them, as I am sure my honourable friend will agree. As far as I know, there was wide distribution sent out. The so-called problems he talked about were dealt with, and I do not know of any suggestion of untoward influence.

Mr. Harris: Once again, we have seen the Premier's standards. I am astounded that he has not, by 2:45 p.m. today, investigated this matter, having been given the notice he was given.

We have seen the standards where it is okay for a minister's spouse to be arranging grants. It is okay for the member for Cochrane North (Mr. Fontaine) to be dealing with his own ministry as well as others. It is okay for Ivan Fleischmann to have $30,000 lunches with the Premier's people. I am astounded that he has not looked into this matter.

Will the Premier undertake to have a full report to this House tomorrow, in his absence, about what list was used, how that list was obtained, who obtained that list and whether it violated any laws or the Manual of Administration?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I will not be here tomorrow, I will be in Ottawa, but if the honourable member has any questions he can ask the minister.

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Scarborough Centre (Mr. Davis) will please withdraw that comment.

Mr. Davis: I will find another word.

The Deputy Speaker: Fine; thank you.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

M. Pouliot: J'avais une question pour le Ministre du Travail.

Last August, six workers who were employed by the Ministry of Transportation and Communications were doing some sandblasting around Bala. While they were doing their work, they complained that the air they were breathing through the compressor was making them sick. That was in August 1986. While tests were being conducted on the compressor, they were allowed to use the same machine until October 2, 1986, which is in contravention of many standards: section 14, subsection 14(2) and section 16.

Bob DeMatteo asked for an investigation on October 29 and the correspondence between the union -- it was represented there with six workers -- and this ministry went on for about six months, seven months, eight months. Can the minister tell me why Mr. DeMatteo has not received any answers regarding the investigation, now that we are about 10 months into this atrocity, this kind of exercise?

1450

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I am only vaguely aware of the specifics. I do remember the incident and the allegations of an untoward delay. I do not remember the exact specifics of the Bala incident, but I have asked the director of the construction health and safety branch, Mr. Melinyshyn, for a report. I expect to get that report -- I am leaving shortly -- on my return to Toronto tomorrow morning.

Mr. Pouliot: The point is well taken. However, the ministry was made aware of this situation some 10 months ago and failed to respond, and the minister has had ample time. What is aggravating is that, with respect, we feel there is a coverup between this ministry and the Ministry of Transportation and Communications. The workers were threatened that if they did not play ball with the employer, with MTC, their work was to be given to private contractors.

Will the minister endeavour to conduct an investigation to make sure that indeed there is no coverup and that the effectiveness of his inspector is in keeping with the standards?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I believe it was last week I was reading Mr. DeMatteo's letter and I must say the allegations he makes are very serious and they aroused very real concern. I made a note immediately to ask my staff for a full briefing on it.

As I said to the honourable gentleman, my staff were not in a position to do the briefing this morning; and I am not sure exactly why, I am not sure whether Mr. Melinyshyn was not present. I have been assured that I will have answers tomorrow. If there is anything further, perhaps I can get back to the honourable gentleman through a statement, letter or answer to a question previously asked.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Ashe: My question is to the omnipotent Attorney General. Can the Attorney General tell this House why he and his sidekick over there, the Solicitor General (Mr. Keyes), have flouted the will of the Premier (Mr. Peterson), the cabinet, the government House leader and, in fact, generally the people of Ontario and blocked third reading of Bill 188, which would permit legitimate -- and I repeat, legitimate -- bookstores to remain open on Sunday without the fear of police harassment?

Hon. Mr. Scott: As the honourable member knows, the bill is within the responsibility of the Solicitor General; it is not mine.

Mr. Ashe: Is that to suggest that any supplementary would be to the Solicitor General?

The Deputy Speaker: No, that was an answer. Your supplementary would be to the Attorney General.

Mr. Ashe: That is a question in itself, not an answer. We know who is in charge over there. I notice the Premier blushing with that fact. We know the Attorney General is the one who is blocking third reading of that bill. Why he would slough it off to the Solicitor General I do not know.

By way of supplementary, perhaps the Attorney General can explain how he allows the perverted community to shop at sleazy bookstores in many situations on Yonge Street and will not allow the average citizen to shop for a good book in a legitimate bookstore, and how and why on May 21, the day after he succeeded in having Bill 188 pulled off Orders and Notices, Justice of the Peace Joan Clute processed seven summonses dating as far back as March 29, which were served that morning by a Metro police officer on Edwards Books and Art store on Queen Street in Toronto.

When is the Attorney General going to get down to business, let the legitimate bookstores operate and stop this police harassment?

Hon. Mr. Scott: My feelings are not hurt when the honourable member calls me omnipotent, but he is going to have some trouble persuading my colleagues that is the case. They do not take the same view at all.

The fact is that the question is, in my respectful view, misdirected. The House appointed the member for Oakville (Mr. O'Connor), who is a colleague of the honourable member who is asking the question and a very experienced, courageous and able figure, to chair a committee that was going to look into the entire question.

Of course he has brought forward a report just recently. The honourable member did not wait for his colleague's report to act, and I do not suggest he should necessarily have done so, but we now have the report. I think all members of the House would want to defer to the honourable member's report and to give it the kind of consideration that I am sure the member for Oakville expects. We certainly would.

[Later]

Mr. O'Connor: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: With respect to the remarks of the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) in answer to a question a few minutes ago, he made some reference to my position and my report on Sunday shopping being somehow a bar to passage at third reading of Bill 188. For the record, I fully support it.

The Deputy Speaker: How is that a point of privilege?

Mr. O'Connor: The report supports it. I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to ask him to withdraw those remarks, in that they were totally inaccurate.

The Deputy Speaker: That is not an appropriate point of privilege.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. A point of privilege is where the member's rights as a member are abridged.

WASTE MANAGEMENT

Mrs. Grier: I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. We heard today in his statement about the government commitment to recycling and waste management and all sorts of other good things, yet just last week the minister was visited by all 11 of Ontario's regional chairmen who complained that his lack of leadership combined with his complete lack of any policy for municipal waste management plans, to quote the chairman, "meant that vast amounts of money are being expended by regions, area municipalities and citizen groups on consultants and lawyers in an attempt to satisfy a process which does not clearly indicate who ought to do what and how."

Can the minister explain to the House why his ministry is unable to give the municipalities the advice they need and why he has failed to give municipalities a clear policy framework within which they can develop their municipal waste management plans?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I am actually surprised the member asked that particular question because, as I understand it, the member is a very strong advocate of the environmental assessment process. Certainly, she has indicated that in the House in times gone by.

Of course, the major complaint of the leaders of the municipalities who met with me is that they find the environmental assessment process too stringent, too lengthy and too costly. While we want to reform that, and I did give an undertaking that we would look at ways of making it more efficient but still effective, I think the member would probably agree with me that to capitulate to the demands of many municipalities in Ontario in this regard would really bring us some problems that we are trying to avoid with our new greenfield sites, whether they be sites that are associated with a landfill or another manner of dealing with these.

I think our ministry has given that leadership and has provided a lot of that information. I think what they are looking for is a streamlining of the process, and I would certainly want even the member's input on how that process can be streamlined and still be very stringent, to avoid many of the problems I am confronted with today.

Mrs. Grier: I think what the municipalities are looking for are some clear guidelines, some clear directions and some clear criteria within which they can develop their own plans. They are not suggesting there not be an environmental assessment process. They are saying that when they phone the Ministry of the Environment and ask, "What kind of a plan do you want us to submit?" they are finding it very difficult to get any answers.

They also want from this provincial government some assistance to enable them to reduce the amount of garbage they are generating. Just today, the minister said his aim is to expand recycling so that 15 per cent of our household garbage is diverted from landfills.

The Deputy Speaker: Question.

Mrs. Grier: It is a worthy aim, but Portland, Oregon, for example, is currently recycling 22 per cent and wants 52 per cent.

Why has the minister not proposed that every municipality have a recycling program? Why is the minister going to spend only $4 million this year, which would not begin to cover the cost if every municipality got into a recycling program? What is the minister going to do to make sure that every municipality begins to recycle and that his 15 per cent objective, modest though it is, at least begins to be realized?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The member will recall I said at least 15 per cent. I put that as the bottom possible, so she knows I am aiming much higher than that. The honourable member has to take into account that, as a result of the regulation which the government brought into effect regarding the pop containers in this province, Ontario Multi-Material Recycling Inc. in fact invested $20 million in recycling programs in Ontario, in addition to the very generous and much-increased amount the Ministry of the Environment has put forward.

Mr. Harris: Why did you cancel the program in East York?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I have indicated that if there are more applications forthcoming, as we did last year in-year we can indicate there will be even more money, so that even the member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris) will be happy at the end of it.

1500

I think what the member is saying is that she is really complimenting the Ministry of the Environment on the initiatives it has taken in this field. We will continue to please the member for Lakeshore (Mrs. Grier), the member for Nipissing and others in this House with the expanded programs we have in terms of the funds we are allocating to them and the technical assistance we are providing.

INFRASTRUCTURE RENEWAL

Mr. Ward: I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. As the minister is aware, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities has once again called upon the federal government to provide funding for infrastructure projects. It is well known that the federal minister does not share the same concern and commitment as this minister, but could he indicate to us what steps he is taking to encourage the federal government to participate in major capital projects in large cities throughout this country and this province?

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I will try to respond to this question. The Federation of Canadian Municipalities, which represents most of the municipalities in Ontario, is meeting in Ottawa at the present time. It once again has called upon the federal government to join with municipal and provincial governments across the country in dealing with the problem of infrastructure renewal, not only in the field of water and sewers but also in other areas.

I indicated at the last meeting of the Canadian Council of Resource and Environment Ministers in Alberta that, in fact, I am very supportive of this. l have asked the federal government to become involved in it and I have received the support of other provincial environment ministers across the country.

It is my view that this is a team approach. If we had, as we had in years gone by, the three levels of government involved in this project, we could do two things. First, we could handle it in a more extensive fashion; and second, we could accelerate the pace at which we would be able to renew, those pipes primarily, and other equipment. As the Federation of Canadian Municipalities points out, by investing in it today, in rehabilitation rather than replacement, we can save a considerable amount of money and at the same time create a lot of jobs in this province and across the country.

Mr. Ward: Could the minister outline what new steps he will be undertaking to assist municipalities in improving the infrastructure?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: In both the speech from the throne and the budget there was mention made of infrastructure renewal, and I have given a commitment to our participation in that on a number of occasions.

One of the first things that always has to be done is the specific identification of the particular problems that are encountered by municipalities. In this regard, we have provided a 50 per cent grant to any and all municipalities which have asked for that grant in order that they can undertake detailed assessments of their problems. Then, of course, we have given a commitment that we will provide considerable funds, in fact a new program which will provide additional funding.

For instance, when people say increased water charges are one option, I guess that can be seen as one option. What that does not take into account is the fact that municipalities in Ontario spend a lot of money raised from the property tax base for putting in infrastructure as it relates to the provision of water and sewage services, so it is inaccurate to say we have the lowest cost of those services. In terms of actual water charges, that may be the case --

Mr. Harris: Explain why Bernie went to Ottawa.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: As the member for Nipissing would understand -- and he is agreeing with me; no doubt he will be speaking to Moe Mantha about this -- we will say, of course, that we are prepared to participate, but we do not think water charges are the solution at this time; they may be a component in the future.

REHABILITATION CENTRE

Mr. Gordon: My question is to the Premier, in view of the fact that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Wrye) has departed; and this is a question, of course, that the Minister of Northern Development and Mines would be able to answer.

As the Premier is probably well aware, we have the highest number of injured workers in Ontario coming from northeastern Ontario. Every year, 1,200 go to Downsview, 400 from the Sudbury region alone. Can the Premier tell us when a workers' compensation rehabilitation centre will be established in the Sudbury region?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: In response to the member, the answer is no, I cannot, but I am very mindful of the needs and the numbers. The member is also very mindful of the fact that we have undertaken a massive decentralization thrust from this government. We have moved a number of Workers' Compensation Board offices to various parts of the province.

As the member knows, we have done a number of things in Sudbury that were not there under the previous administration with respect to education and health care. It is certainly our intention, to the extent that we can and as quickly as we can, to bring the services of this province as close to the people as we possibly can.

Mr. Gordon: I was very pleased to hear the Premier is planning to bring the services of this province to Sudbury as quickly as possible. I might remind him that the 1,200 workers who are going to Downsview each year are suffering the kinds of injuries that injured workers do have. It is not a very happy circumstance for their families. It is a financial drain, as well, and an emotional drain to have to spend time in Toronto.

At the present time, the regional officials have been working along with the Ministry of Labour and no doubt the Premier's ministry too, the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines. I guess what we want to know is this: is the Premier prepared to have the kind of input into a workers' compensation rehab centre in the Sudbury region that would give it a unique aspect? In other words, one that would really fit the injuries that miners have and that forestry workers have, rather than just having a Downsview model, which most people are very dissatisfied with.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: We try to deal with each situation creatively, responding to real needs, not just to perceived or bureaucratic needs, and that has been the thrust of this government. The member will be aware of the economic activity we have moved into northern Ontario; Sudbury is one area in particular. The member will be aware of our very firm commitment to try to equalize opportunity, both economic and social, as well as in terms of social services.

I appreciate the honourable member's suggestion. There are many others we are looking at, at the present time. I can tell the member the philosophy of this government is to continue that. I think the members will see in the years to come considerably more strides than have been made in the past. I think that, by anyone's standards, more strides have been made in that direction in the last two years than in any other 40-year period in history.

SPECIAL EDUCATION

Mr. Allen: I have a question of the Minister of Education. His ministry has been forcing parents of certain hard-to-serve children to play dead-end parts in his legislative branch's fiction that there are indeed no hard-to-serve students in Ontario. I want to ask him about the case of Robbie Thompson, a boy who is 15 years of age and has the unusual combination of being very gifted on the one hand, but suffering very severe and multiple learning disabilities on the other.

After years of going through the hoops at the East York Board of Education, that board finally decided recently that indeed Robbie was hard-to-serve and found a placement for him. But the member's ministry, in a highly technical reading of a portion of the act, decided it would overturn that decision which was really properly, according to the act, a matter for the board itself.

Will he not, as minister, get out from behind those technicalities and tell us today that he affirms the right of the board to make that decision and let children like Robbie get on with an appropriate education, such as is their just due?

Hon. Mr. Conway: I can tell the member I have the Thompson case before me; I am reviewing it in its entirety. I am sorry I cannot give him a definite answer today. Since the matter was brought to my attention officially by the East York Board of Education, I want him to know that when I reach a decision I will be communicating with the board in question. After that, obviously I will be happy to share the information with my colleagues in the House.

1510

Mr. Allen: I certainly appreciate that a decision may be forthcoming and I hope it will be a positive one. It is difficult to understand the hesitation of the ministry and the minister on this matter. It cannot be the cost of placement because certain of the options the ministry itself has recommended in cases such as this are often more expensive in Ontario than they are out of it, even when they are inappropriate.

Can I draw the minister's attention to the fact that the surrounding clauses around the specific hard-to-serve section speak repeatedly of "the board shall consider the recommendation and determine" and "where the board determines." Again it says "where the board determines"; it repeats that language. It is clearly the intent that the board shall be the determining agent. Will the minister encourage the ministry to bring him a decision that is favourable in this case; and if it will not, will he use his own discretion and read the act to see what its overall intent is and bring forward a decision in the near future that will get these parents and children off this legalistic treadmill?

Hon. Mr. Conway: The short answer is yes, the honourable member can bring these matters to my attention as he has just very effectively done. I can tell the honourable member that this case is before me. I hope to have a decision very shortly. I also remind the honourable member that it is a case that has been reviewed by, among others, the external review committee under the chairmanship of Dr. Madeline Hardy, who some time ago reviewed the case and made recommendations to me that were then subsequently passed along to the family in question.

FOOD CONTAINERS

Mr. McGuigan: I have a free trade question for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. Is the minister aware that the federal government has a program that has been in place for many years governing the importation of fruits and vegetables in nonstandard containers, in other words bringing them in in bulk boxes for repacking on this side? The practice has been that they give permits to bring in these nonstandard containers only when the product is not available in Canada. As a sop to the Americans, the federal government now has withdrawn this program so that our fruit and vegetable trade is subject to all the bulk containers the Americans want to ship to us.

At the same time, in western Canada, the Canadian wheat growers have a grade of wheat that they could send to the United States to advantage. As another sop to the Americans, the government has prevented the Canadian Wheat Board from allowing them permits. We have the picture of them encouraging imports and discouraging exports. I wonder whether the minister can tell us of discussions he has had with the federal people on any of these matters?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: As a matter of fact, this point was raised when we had a meeting with all the marketing boards here just a week ago. One of their concerns was the container standards that had been set in the past. They are certainly putting a lot of pressure on the federal government to make sure these standards are either retained or reinstated. The horticultural groups are very concerned about any change in container sizes. They are more concerned about bulk containers than about small container sizes in baskets or whatever in which the product is shipped to this country. They have certainly let their views be known to our federal counterparts in Ottawa.

Mr. Latimer has been in contact with Mr. Reisman about the concerns of the horticultural industry. I have reinforced that by sending many letters to Mr. Wise, the federal minister. I have sent copies of letters that Mr. Latimer has sent to Mr. Reisman to my counterpart in Ottawa to make sure he is well aware of the concerns we in this province have regarding any free trade agreement that may jeopardize certain sectors of our agricultural industry.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr. Sterling: I have a question of the Minister of Education. On April 29, the minister recognized Durham, York, Carleton and Dufferin-Peel as the fastest growing areas in Ontario as far as students go. The next day he gave out capital funding for 1988-89. In Dufferin-Peel, he gave the Roman Catholic board 48 per cent of what it requested and the public board 65 per cent of what it requested. In Durham, he gave the public board 65 per cent of what it requested and the Catholic board 98 per cent of what it requested. In York, he gave the Catholic board 77 per cent of what it requested. In Carleton, he gave the public board 13 per cent of what it requested and he gave the separate board 14 per cent of what it requested. What is the matter with eastern Ontario? Does he not represent that area?

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Will you please permit the minister to answer the final question.

Hon. Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for trying to restore some order to this otherwise civilized place. I want to say to the member for Carleton-Grenville (Mr. Sterling) that this government has done rather well in terms of the capital spending it has provided, the capital moneys it has provided to the school community. I recognize that we have not solved all the problems; that is certainly the case. I can assure my friend from Manotick that I have not yet had to engage in the kind of, shall I call them Barrhaven callisthenics that I remember the member for Carlton-Grenville having to perform three years ago to extract what was a very-late-in-the-day commitment to one of the Carleton school boards.

We have tripled the capital allocation to the school community this year over two and a half years ago, and we will continue to meet the needs of all communities in Ontario.

TABLING OF INFORMATION

Mr Warner: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The point of order relates to section 29(a) of the standing orders. I wonder whether you would consider it an abuse of the rules when a minister chooses to respond by saying, "I take the question as notice and will reply later," and then fails to do so; that in fact he is hiding behind the rules and is not using the rules for the purpose for which they are stated?

Very specifically, I raised a question with the Minister of Colleges and Universities (Mr. Sorbara) more than two weeks ago. He said he would take it as notice and reply later and he has failed to do so. I suggest it is an abuse of the rules and I ask that you consider that, Mr. Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker: I have to ask, were there any time limits to the answer given?

Mr. Warner: The minister said he would take it as notice and respond in a few days. If he fails to respond in a few days, then surely he is abusing the rules.

The Deputy Speaker: Since the minister is in the chamber, although perhaps not paying total attention, and since it is within a matter of a few days, perhaps he will reply to that question within a very few more days.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: In responding to the point of order raised by my friend the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere (Mr. Warner), perhaps I might just note that I take his point of order as notice and will respond not only to it but to the question he raises within the week. I will be that specific, Mr. Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you.

PETITION

THERAPEUTIC ABORTIONS

Mr. Partington: I enter a petition on behalf of 7,000 residents of Niagara region.

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

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

"Whereas over 30,000 unborn babies were aborted in Ontario last year, the government of Ontario should reverse its announced intention to implement recommendations of the Powell report that would make access to abortion in Ontario even easier than at present."

1520

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

MENTAL HEALTH AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Sweeney moved, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Elston, first reading of Bill 78, amend the Mental Health Act.

Motion agreed to.

HAMILTON JEWISH COMMUNAL PROJECTS ACT

Mr. Ward moved first reading of Bill Pr9, An Act respecting Hamilton Jewish Communal Projects.

Motion agreed to.

DRIVING SCHOOL ASSOCIATION OF ONTARIO ACT

Mr. Ferraro moved first reading of Bill Pr7, An Act respecting the Driving School Association of Ontario.

Motion agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

MEMBERS' CONFLICT OF INTEREST ACT / LOI DE 1987 SUR LES CONFLITS D'INTÉRÊTS DES MEMBRES DE L'ASSEMBLÉE (CONTINUED / CONTINUÉE)

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 23, An Act to provide for greater Certainty in the Reconciliation of the Personal Interests of Members of the Assembly and the Executive Council with their Duties of Office.

Suite du débat ajourné sur la motion de deuxième lecture du projet de loi 23, Loi assurant une plus grande certitude quant au rapprochement des intérêts personnels des membres de l'Assemblée et du Conseil des ministres avec les devoirs de leurs fonctions.

The Deputy Speaker: I believe that when the debate was adjourned the member for St. George (Ms. Fish) had the floor. Because she is not here, the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere has the floor.

Mr. Warner: I appreciate the opportunity to participate in the debate on this bill. When my good friend and colleague the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) spoke last week on this bill, I think he covered all the major points. I am certainly not going to take the time of the House to go back over that ground. There are two major areas that I would like to dwell on for a few minutes.

One is more of a personal reaction to last summer's events. I had the dubious distinction of serving on the committee that was commonly known as the Fontaine inquiry. It was undoubtedly a very unpleasant experience as far as I was concerned. I do not think most members -- at least I certainly hope they do not -- relish the prospect of sitting in judgement on their peers. This for me was decidedly an unhappy event. Unfortunately, to date, it is really the only effective way we have as an assembly of dealing with problems that our colleagues find themselves with from time to time.

The outcome of the Fontaine inquiry was, let us say, not unanimous. There were some very legitimate concerns raised about the process. It certainly would appear that the member for Cochrane North (Mr. Fontaine) very unwittingly found himself in the middle of a mess. The mess probably could have been avoided if he had had some good advice and if he had had someone following up. If there had been someone whose job it was to make sure that everything was in place and who followed through, that would have been of great assistance to the member. There is no question that he did not set out to do something he was not supposed to do. However, it had been clearly identified what he was supposed to do, and unfortunately, he chose not to follow the instructions, but neither was there anyone in place to assist.

I think we have to compare this situation with the situation in Quebec where there is a person whose job it is to make sure everyone has filed all the necessary documents and who outlines carefully to people where they are in conflict or where they could be perceived to be in a conflict of interest and to follow it through. For the individual member, regardless of whether he is an ordinary member or a member of cabinet, if questions are raised in the assembly about propriety he can simply respond, if he has already done so, by saying that the person in charge has filed a report. It seems to me this is a very sensible way to do things. Apparently, the experience in Quebec has been an extremely positive one.

I am troubled to learn, and I could be absolutely wrong about this but members know how rumours fly around this building -- they are kind of a daily, no, kind of an hourly existence around this place. Rumours are always rampant. The latest little batch of rumours is that the Conservatives wish to find some way to scuttle this legislation, and if unsuccessful at this, to filibuster on it or delay it unnecessarily. Apparently, their motivation for this type of obstruction is that they do not wish to have the rules of the game apply to them.

I really find it passing strange for them to suggest that the rules that help to monitor the conduct of members of the assembly should apply only to the cabinet and should not apply to anybody else. I suppose it is quite all right then, by the Conservative way of thinking, that members of the opposition should have the opportunity to find themselves in a conflict-of-interest situation and hope they never get caught, but the rules should not apply to them. l am totally dumfounded how any reasonable person could accept that.

I think one would have to be pretty naïve or insensitive not to realize that the esteem in which politicians are held by the general public today is at a fairly low ebb. That is our fault. If the public feels it does not have a great deal of faith in its elected people, it is because the elected people have let them down. It is so easy to point a finger and say that someone is wrong. I guess all of us think of the shenanigans that have been going on in Ottawa ever since the Mulroney crew took over. There is no question that their antics up there are very embarrassing. But the embarrassment spreads beyond the Conservative Party. It spreads to politicians of all levels and right across the country.

1530

When the public loses faith because of the activities or antics of particular members, soon that becomes generalized and soon they are upset with everyone: "You politicians are all the same. You're all a bunch of crooks. You're in it for yourselves." I do not think they meant the Minister of Education (Mr. Conway) personally. But the public generalizes that the politicians are greedy, self-serving, in it as opportunists, and it seems to me that what we need to do is put our own house in order.

One way to do that is to establish a set of rules with respect to conflict of interest. I do not understand why members would be nervous about this. If one has nothing to hide, then what is the problem in indicating what one's assets are and what business interests one has? That, of course, as we understand through the Quebec model, can be done in confidence.

Only where there is a conflict or the perception of a conflict, is it brought to the member's attention that he or she may wish to divest or he or she must divest, depending on the situation, or that a blind trust is established: some form of saying to the public that the politicians are going to be above suspicion and that they are being forthright and that they can be trusted.

I want to go back, just for a few minutes, to the Fontaine matter, because it is so handy and because of our experience. Members will recall that part of the problem were the shares that Mr. Fontaine held in a mining company while he was Minister of Northern Development and Mines. We know it did not result in a conflict of interest, but there certainly was the appearance, just on the surface. I am sure that any ordinary citizen would take a look and say, "Why should the minister of mines have old mining stock? That doesn't look right."

We have an obligation, then, to make sure those appearances do not occur. We have to make sure that all of us are not engaged in anything which could be construed to be a conflict of interest. It seems to me that, at the same time, there are certain tradeoffs. I think there are two major sections which we have to take a look at in the legislation.

One -- and it may be tough for some members to grapple with this -- is that this is no longer some kind of part-time avocation. The days are gone when the members would assemble for a few weeks and then disappear for the rest of the year. In fact, in terms of the activities of this assembly, except for Christmas and March break, either the House is sitting or the committees are sitting. If I am not mistaken, in the last break when the House was not sitting, there was a total of 12 committees sitting during that break. Members are expected to attend to not only their legislative duties here and in committee but also to their ridings, obviously, and I would hope, to their critic portfolios or to their ministerial jobs.

So there is a variety of responsibilities. For the life of me, I do not know -- I will qualify this by saying that my experience, of course, is from an urban area, a riding of approximately 75,000 people, which is about the average in Ontario, but it is an urban area. My experience has been that, on average, I am spending close to 70 hours a week at my job. Other members, I am sure, spend more time, some maybe spend less. Cabinet ministers spend more time than that; I know that. For the life of me, I cannot understand how someone else would hold down a second job. Someone is missing out. Somebody is losing.

I guess the normal example used is the lawyers. They are able to trip off to court. I do not know how a member can run a law practice and put in 70 hours here. If he cannot do that and is not putting in 70 hours, then he is shortchanging his constituents or he is not holding up his caucus responsibility or he is not fulfilling his critic's role. Something is suffering.

We have gone through an evolution in terms of this assembly. If we go back to the turn of century and look carefully at how this place has evolved from then until now, we will certainly discover that the role of the member has changed dramatically. This is not a part-time job. The demands that are placed on the job are certainly appropriate. I think the demands placed by the public necessitate that the politician be accessible and be able to respond. I would be really embarrassed if a constituent called my office to talk to me and someone said, "I am sorry; he is in court -- not for something he did," which they might automatically assume --

Mr. Ashe: I am sure you have been there regularly.

Mr. Warner: Every week. Only when they catch me.

Mr. Philip: That does not mean he is out dining with the Queen.

Mr. Warner: No. "He is in court defending a client." I would take that as a very embarrassing thing to have to say to someone. The option, of course, is to lie to the constituent and say, "He is not available." This notion of being a part-time member has to go. For some members of the assembly it is going to be a tough thing to bite the bullet and say: "It is a full-time job. The demands are such that in order to serve 75,000 people," or in the case of the member for Scarborough North (Mr. Curling) more than twice that number, 150,000 or 160,000 people, "I have to work 60, 65 or 70 hours a week. I have to be available by telephone so that when constituents have problems or questions, they can reach me."

If we are going to do that, then at the same time there has to be, and there should be expected to be, a reasonable level of financial compensation. But we should not be setting our own salaries. I do not think that is appropriate and I do not think the public appreciates it. It needs to be done by an independent source, by people who are not beholden to this Legislature and who can be independent.

We have the Commission on Election Finances, which I think all members would agree has operated in a very trustworthy and forthright manner. Perhaps it is folks such as them who should be trusted with the job of determining our wages, so that we are not setting our own salaries and so that the level of compensation is commensurate with the responsibilities and the time spent here. It is a tradeoff. A tradeoff means members have one job and one job only. If they do not like that, I suppose they do not have to run for public office, do they?

It is not an easy one, but the other side of it is that the penalties are quite severe if we do not take this next step forward in the evolution of our parliamentary system and our legislative role in the province. I suggest the downside is that unless members are willing to accept the philosophy that conflict-of-interest guidelines should apply to all members, and that members are going to be full-time and are going to be paid appropriately but are not going to have outside employment, unless they are prepared to accept those kinds of terms, I think ultimately we will see a further deterioration in the public's attitude towards politicians, that the public will become -- cynical is not the right word -- discouraged by what it sees.

1540

As the member for Oshawa pointed out, there are quite a few flaws and some really bad flaws in the legislation, and they need to be addressed. That can be done in committee. I think, collectively among the three parties, we can come up with the kind of legislation that will do us all proud, and it should be a three-party contribution, because ultimately this legislation is for the assembly and so it should be developed with as much consensus as possible.

I do not agree with at least the first draft I saw, which says I should be listing my furniture and all my household effects. I think it is a touch on the silly side, but the public should know -- if I have investments, then there has to be a mechanism so that if those investments do in fact bring me into conflict or a perception of a conflict, that is drawn to my attention and something is done about it.

Obviously, as we know from the Quebec model, that can be done in confidence. It is not a matter of having to publish all my holdings lengthily, as the member for Quinte (Mr. O'Neil) knows, in The Toronto Star. That is not what we are talking about. We are talking about an officer of the House who receives all the information and gives us advice on what should or needs to be done.

As I said, I am very disappointed if the rumours are correct, and I suspect they are, that the Conservatives are not in favour of this legislation and do not wish to have it applied to them and are prepared to obstruct the bill. Maybe they will have some sober second thoughts as to how we can collectively end up with the best possible legislation.

In closing, I think it is absolutely essential in terms of the public trust that we develop a set of guidelines which cover all of us here and whoever follows, so that we can try to rebuild the public trust in its elected people.

This is a form of government which we happen to think is the best form in the world. It is not without its flaws, but it is the best form -- at least I happen to think it is -- and if we want this form of government, a parliamentary form, to survive and to even do better, then we have to build public trust. One way to do that is by ensuring, for the public's sake, that politicians will not have a conflict of interest and will not have the perception of a conflict of interest.

It is our job to do that, and I invite the Conservatives to join rather than to fight this process.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Morin): Questions and comments?

Interjection.

Mr. Warner: He wants me to repeat what I said.

The Acting Speaker: No, it is not necessary.

Mr. Ashe: I intend to speak relatively briefly on Bill 23, An Act to provide for greater Certainty in the Reconciliation of the Personal Interests of Members of the Assembly and the Executive Council with their Duties of Office. In actual fact, the title of Bill 23 should be "An Act for the Premier to cop out of Conflict-of-Interest Enforcement on Members of his Cabinet." Really, that is what Bill 23 is all about.

It is unfortunate that we end up with a piece of legislation that comes to us because of several negative happenings. I will not go into the details of all those. Of course, they were gone into in a very excellent manner and were once again put on the record last week by my colleague the member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope). I am sure that before the day is out we will have other opportunities to put some of the facts back on the record, but it really is too bad that when this government took office -- I will not say "won and came to office" but "took office" some two years ago; thanks, of course, to the support, and I think probably now with some regret, of the party on the left -- we found out that the Premier (Mr. Peterson) really was not too concerned about the issue of conflict of interest among his members of cabinet, his members of executive council.

What did he do? He took the previous guidelines that were established by the prior administration, looked at them and said: "Well, now, we have some guidelines here. Let us kind of cut them in half. We will water them down and they should be good enough because we are all a bunch of good guys and we would never do anything wrong in any event." It sounds like the Mr. Clean commercial except that we all know what Mr. Clean is for. It is to clean out some of the dirt.

We found, lo and behold, that it was not too long before some of the dirt started to come to the surface. In fact, after the dirt came to the surface on a couple of occasions, the Premier asked the former Lieutenant Governor, John Black Aird, to look into the matter, to consult with others and with members of his executive council and to make a report.

He found out that a significant percentage of the executive council was in some form of conflict, albeit it is -- and I acknowledge this and put it on the record -- the majority of those conflicts were not significant. There were a few, as we well know, that were significant. In fact, a couple of those members are no longer part of the executive council. I look at this act and that is exactly what this is all about. In that sense I find it very distasteful.

If the issue had come about because of a very positive reasoning -- to make sure people in government always kept on the straight and narrow -- that would have been fine, but I would suggest it is becoming more and more difficult in this day and age to attract and to make it attractive to competent people -- competent business people, competent professional people and, yes, even competent union leaders -- to think of a career serving their fellow man.

In fact, what we are doing in my view with what is included in Bill 23 -- that is to say, suggesting that all members be brought under the purview of this act -- is just making it that much less attractive to attract successful people from out there who want to get into this so-called rat race. I think, frankly, it is probably better named in that regard than it ever was before.

I think many people, whether they are successful in business, successful in the professions or successful in whatever endeavours they have undertaken, feel they can quite legitimately have a little bit of privacy in their personal and private lives and that their immediate families can have a little privacy in their immediate lives.

When you take on the onerous responsibility of a cabinet position -- and, frankly, to a great degree as we had it under the previous administration when the parliamentary assistant agrees to take on the extra responsibilities and duties thereto and is assisting a minister -- then you know what you are getting into. You know you are giving up some of those rights and some of that privacy and saying, "Okay, I am prepared to put it all out there."

Now it would appear that before, many of the members opposite did not do that. They really did not know what the rules were all about. The Premier thought it was just a kind of game anyway, so he did not bother to check to see who was actually complying with the guidelines as they then were, even though they were watered down. I do not think the same kind of onus should be on the private member.

Again, I feel very strongly that in anything -- anything at all -- we do to discourage people in whatever walk of life to run for public of rice, we are doing a disservice to the future administrations of this province of ours. It has been more and more difficult to get good candidates, and I would suggest that the passage of Bill 23 in its present form would make that more difficult again.

I have no problems at all in setting down in legislation what the guidelines and requirements are for a member of the executive council. I have no problem with that at all. Somebody could say before, "Well, they were only guidelines."

I can tell the members that under the former administration, yes, they were guidelines, but I can assure the members also they were strictly overseen and strictly enforced, something this Premier chose not to do. Of course, he will have to answer to that and in fact he has had the opportunity on a few occasions to not answer why he did not think of that being a more serious part of his responsibilities.

In this particular piece of legislation, the setting out of the requirements for members of cabinet, I really do think is appropriate and I have no difficulties with that at all. I have no great difficulty even with the general process that is suggested, albeit it looks like another political appointment in the offing for the office of a commissioner who is an officer of the assembly.

1550

I can see who appoints that, of course. "The commissioner shall be paid such remuneration and allowances as are fixed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council" and, of course, his cabinet. He is appointed by cabinet and removed by cabinet. So that is one more little bit of patronage that can go to the people sitting around the cabinet table.

It would be very interesting to note -- and I appreciate this bill, in any form, is not law as yet -- section 6 on page 4.

(1) "The executive council, a member of the executive council or an employee of a ministry (other than an employee of an agency, board or commission) shall not knowingly,...

"(b) award or approve a contract with, or grant a benefit to, a former member of the executive council who has, during the 12 months after the date when he or she ceased to hold office, made representations in respect of the contract or benefit."

I would suggest to the members that immediately they have a former member of the executive council -- an immediate past member, the member from Cochrane North -- who would already not be fulfilling not only the spirit, but also the word of that particular clause 6(1)(b), when in fact just recently a company that he undoubtedly -- and the record shows -- made representations on behalf of -- which are the exact words out of here -- got a lumber-cutting contract.

In fact, it was not that long after he left the round table -- I guess oblong, but I am not sure what shape it is now -- in the council chamber, that in fact he was awarded a substantial contract. That would be, in itself, in conflict with section 6 of this bill.

It would be interesting, if that section goes into effect, whether the spirit of that will be retroactive on that particular member. There may be others, but of course we are all aware of that particular situation.

I think I have made it clear that I think it will be very negative indeed to have practically the same responsibilities imposed upon general members of the Legislature as are imposed on members of the executive council. Again, I want to emphasize, that in my view it is not appropriate to have to put everything on the record to suggest one cannot do this and one cannot do that.

One thing I do agree with are the comments made previously by the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere (Mr. Warner) that there is no doubt at all that if any member is fulfilling all of the challenges of his duties -- whether it be as a private member, whether it be as a parliamentary assistant, whether it be a committee chairman, or whether it be as a member of the executive council -- this is more than a full-time job.

I can honestly suggest that when I was a member of the executive council a light week was 80 hours and the more common week was 90 hours to 100 hours. Although the situation today is not quite as onerous as that, I agree with the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere that 70-hour and 80-hour weeks on a regular basis are not uncommon, and those are spread over seven days a week.

Where most people think of the four-and-a-half-day week or five-day week we have to -- I think as a member in most cases, tying in our constituency obligations -- think of a six-and-a-half-day week and a seven-day week, hopefully taking time out to go to church in whatever faith one happens to belong.

If, lo and behold, this piece of legislation, in more or less its present form, becomes law -- and, frankly, I hope it will not -- again the spirit of it is fine and it should go forth in some manner, but I would suggest not this one -- I find one particular section to be like starting a game and three-quarters of the way through the game one says: "Halt, we are going to change the rules of the game. It does not matter that the participants knew what the rules were when they started the game, we are going to change them."

I would suggest to the members, as I interpret it on page 16, subsection 18(2) of the bill, "Members who are in office when this act comes into force shall file the disclosure statement required by section 11 within 30 days after this act comes into force." That is changing the rules in the middle of the ball game.

There are many members in here, from all three parties -- and I say this in a nonpartisan way -- who, when they ran for office just over two years ago, knew what the rules were then. This would change the rules. If this is going to be obligatory on all members of the Legislative Assembly, I would suggest that clause should be operative for the private members only upon the next election, so members running in the next election, whenever it may be -- and we all know it is not that far away -- would at least know what the rules are. In my respectful opinion, you do not change the rules part-way through the game.

I can tell members that I am not speaking personally. It will not be any great, onerous task to make a disclosure of my interests and holdings, etc., but I still feel that it is an invasion of privacy on behalf of many members, and their immediate families, when they ran for this office without the knowledge that was going to be an obligation on them.

Again, if the government wants to make it for a future election, everybody will know it in advance. I am not suggesting it should not be so for members of the executive council if so deemed by the Premier. Frankly, if the government includes in that -- as it was under the previous administration -- parliamentary assistants, who assist members of the executive council, so be it. They are supposed to be covered under guidelines now, although as we have found out in many episodes, those guidelines were practically meaningless and were not enforced by the Premier's office, in any event.

I suggest that if there is any amendment to be made in this legislation in terms of who is and who is not going to be covered, it should be to that clause I referred to just a few moments ago. Former members of the executive council should be covered under that one-year rule. It will be interesting to see what happens with the current additional assets that will be listed under the heading of the member for Cochrane North from the recently completed contract that was just awarded to him.

I guess in all these matters it is a matter of who is being gored, but I would think and hope that all honourable members, regardless of where they stand personally in terms of any legislation of this nature, would think what it will do for the future of this chamber and for the future of the people who will run to become members of this chamber. Bill 23, as it is now written, will do nothing to improve the stature of the private member and will do nothing to make it more attractive for private citizens to want to become private members in this chamber.

Once again, I suggest that if this goes forward, we should be renaming this bill. In that case, it might be appropriate to deal with it in committee and rename it "An Act for the Premier to cop out of Conflict-of-lnterest Enforcement on Members of his Cabinet." That is really what Bill 23 is all about.

Mr. Ward: I have just one question. Would the member for Durham West not concede that, should the date of proclamation be set at such a time as to coincide with the end of this parliamentary session, then it would be setting the rules, not in the middle of the game or halfway through the game or three quarters of the way through the game, but for the new players in that game at a subsequent date? I really do not understand the member's concern in that regard. Whether the bill is introduced and brought into force of law at this time or early in a new session, the effect is the same. Frankly, I do not understand that concern.

Would the member not concede that certainly in terms of public confidence in the ability of members to carry out their duties in a way that does not benefit them directly -- with his experience, if he looked at municipal legislation, which clearly enunciates under what parameters a member has to declare a conflict of interest, can he not see situations where even a private member of this Legislature, even an opposition member, could have an indirect pecuniary interest in matters that are before this House?

1600

Mr. Ashe: There is no doubt that subsection 18(1) does suggest, as the member has pointed out, this act comes into force on a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor. If what the member alludes to is in fact the intention of the government, why did it not say this act will come into force on the date of the proclamation of the next election or whatever? It does not say what he says it might say.

I suggest that there are, again, different parts of this bill. As far as coverage of the executive council, it should already be in effect. It is the private member that I am talking about. In fact, I do not see any comparison at all between the potential conflicts that are there on a regular basis to a member of a municipal council -- and I have been there, both as mayor and as a deputy reeve of a former township -- where we are talking potential conflict, particularly in a developing municipality, on a regular basis. I suggest it is very difficult as a private member to virtually ever come into a situation of conflict when we are talking about province-wide matters and the dealing of anything ultimately by 125 or, in the next Legislature, 130 members. I suggest one member would have a great deal of difficulty having any particular personal interest accrue to him or her only, that would not be of a general nature and of benefit to the total province; which is not already excluded, as the member knows, within this legislation.

Mr. Philip: I would like to address myself to some general themes in the development of this legislation and of course participate in a clause-by-clause debate on specific items in the bill.

The argument that this bill somehow allows the Premier and cabinet to cop out of their responsibilities is one l find very hard to understand. Essentially, if one looks at the bill, one sees that what it sets in place is an independent arbitrator, an arbitrator who can come down with some very serious judgements that will affect the life of a government or the career of a member of the Legislature.

No one argues that somehow, as a result of the existence of the provincial auditor, the responsibility of the chairman of the Management Board to see that there is efficient running of government for the taxpayers is removed. No one suggests that somehow, as a result of the provincial auditor being in place, the internal audit program in a ministry is removed or, indeed, in the event that the provincial auditor in an independent way finds a ministry to be guilty of some mismanagement, that that is not a greater condemnation than what would be found under some kind of vague, general guidelines or ministerial responsibility where political games could be played and, in fact, where facts could be hidden.

As someone who participated in the rather long, rather warm and very tiresome exercise of the Wyda inquiry, it is fairly evident to me that the whole process of conflict of interest has to be taken out of the political realm and given to an independent adjudicator. That is what this bill does. It allows any member or any group of people through a member, under section 14, to have an independent adjudication if that member feels there is another member who is in some kind of conflict:

"A member who has reasonable and probable grounds to believe that another member is in contravention of this act may, by application in writing setting out the grounds for the belief and the nature of the contravention alleged, request that the commissioner give an opinion respecting the compliance of the other member with the provisions of this act."

It clearly provides for someone, most likely a member of the opposition but under this bill it need not be, to request an independent adjudication, in the same way that one could request the Provincial Auditor to look into an abuse in terms of other aspects of government management, and get that kind of independent adjudication.

It also gives some safeguards to the member, for there is an independent person who will, on the application of the member, give a written opinion as to whether or not there is the potential for conflict. So it serves both the public and, I suggest to the members, it serves the purpose of the member who may have some doubt.

What was fairly clear in the Wyda inquiry was that there were various opinions as to where the particular cabinet minister or her spouse obtained information, what information was in fact provided and whether there was a conflict in the opinions that were being given by the office of the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) and by other offices. There was that area of grey where one could argue an opinion was obtained but it was not really obtained, where there was a conflict between information and opinions coming out of the office of the Premier and those of the Attorney General's office.

What this does is to remove that area of doubt. Any member in this House will have an opportunity to go and say, "I want an opinion on my situation," and obtain that opinion. In a sense, that provides some safeguard to the member as well as to the public.

I suggest that just because the government has the legislation in place does not in any way remove the onus on the government not only to be clean but also to appear to be clean. I think it is analogous to the kinds of statements which have been made over the years in the House of Commons by various Prime Ministers, who in dealing with conflicts of interest have always said it is not good enough just to meet the letter of the law or the letter of the regulations but in fact there is an extra onus on government, and indeed on the Prime Minister, to make sure this is happening.

In November 1964, Prime Minister Pearson, in a public warning to his ministers and their staff about the need for high standards of conduct, observed:

"It is by no means sufficient for a person in the office of a minister, or in any other positron of responsibility in the public service, to act within the law. That goes without saying. Much more is required. There is an obligation not simply to observe the law but to act in a manner so scrupulous that it will bear the closest public scrutiny. The conduct of public business must be beyond the questions in terms of moral standards, objectivity and equality of treatment."

More recently, the current federal code states:

"Public office holders have an obligation to act in a manner that will bear the closest public scrutiny, an obligation that is not fully discharged by simply acting within the law."

By the mere enactment of this legislation, I suggest that we do not remove the obligation of the Premier or the cabinet to deal with the very onerous responsibility of ensuring that cabinet ministers and parliamentary assistants are not in conflict, but indeed that there is a greater onus on them as a result of the act, and over and above the act, there is the general principle which I think is accepted in Canadian parliaments that the members themselves, and indeed the Prime Minister, or in the case of the provincial governments, the Premier, have to go beyond that. Something must not only be clean but also at all times appear to be clean; to go beyond the letter of the law.

I find it interesting that, while in 1972 we passed conflict-of-interest legislation for municipalities, when it came time for dealing with ourselves, we in fact did not see fit to deal with it. Indeed, the present Treasurer (Mr. Nixon), on second reading debate of Bill 214, which was the 1972 conflict-of-interest bill, said, "We are not here discussing the conflict-of-interest regulations and guidelines as they may or not affect this Legislature. On other occasions, surely, we can direct criticism at the Premier for not having dealt with this more fully and, in my view, by legislation." The legislation has been very long in coming. We seem to have seen fit to pass conflict-of-interest legislation in 1972 for municipalities but have not dealt with it for ourselves.

1610

If we look at the history of other provinces, we see an interesting pattern. The Alberta act was passed in 1983; the British Columbia act in 1979; the Manitoba act, which certainly has the stiffest penalties, in 1983 and later proclaimed in 1985; New Brunswick in 1978; Newfoundland in 1982; Nova Scotia in 1974; Quebec in 1982 and Saskatchewan in 1979.

Essentially, eight Canadian provinces saw fit to pass legislation respecting conflict of interest by provincial legislators, including cabinet ministers. Ontario and Prince Edward Island were the only holdouts or jurisdictions that had no law governing conflict of interest.

Generally, if you look at the legislation, you find principles that are not dissimilar from what is found in this bill. You find that the legislation across the provinces generally prohibits conflict of interest, either directly or indirectly. You find that they define a member's conflict to encompass spouses, minor children and business associates. You find that they require periodic disclosure of various types of holdings, such as land holdings and financial holdings, and filing with some independent body, such as the Clerk of the Legislature, or the publication of those holdings. You find that the legislation provides for ministers to place their financial holdings in blind trusts. This is an area I would like to deal with a little later in my talk to the House.

You find that the legislation in various provinces requires members to declare their interests and prohibits them from participating in a debate or voting on matters touching their interests, not dissimilar from what we saw fit to pass on municipal legislators in 1972.

Similarly, the legislation prevents members and their families and associates from doing business with the province in question. The legislation also prohibits ministers from benefiting indirectly or directly from the use of government insider information. The legislation also declares it illegal to solicit or accept any fee, reward or compensation for influencing any legislative or government proceedings. Our bill, of course, does that in the way of prohibiting any MPP from accepting gifts in his role as a member. It provides for both judicial advice respecting conflict of interest and judicial determination of alleged violations of the law. The legislation also disqualifies members found in violation of the law from sitting in the Legislature, at least in certain provinces, and levies other fines and penalties and disbars members found to be absolutely guilty, from running again.

What we see then throughout the various other provinces is some legislation which I think we can see reflected in this bill.

The argument has been made that somehow MPPs should not be covered. I suggest to members that what we are seeing is a society that is becoming more and more complex. I think the result of that is that even though we are keeping the form and the processes of a parliamentary form of government, more and more it is true that we are taking on some of the aspects of a republican style of government in the need to use the committee system as a way of dealing with very complex issues.

The member for Scarborough-Ellesmere pointed out that there were no less than 12 committees sitting during the last recess. While some members of the public think that during a recess all of us are somehow off on holidays, I think I had two weeks off during the last so-called recess and that was spent in my riding.

The rest of the time I was on three different committees. It is fair to say that, in the case of those committees, recommendations were made that the government felt obliged to say it was at least carefully considering and, in the case of one of the committees, that it would be implementing.

So the average MPP, under the process that is evolving, both here and in the House of Commons, has more responsibility and probably more influence than has happened historically or, when we meet some of our colleagues in some of the smaller provinces, than happens in those societies, where they tend to be dealing with issues that at least involve considerably less money, where most people know one another and where certainly the cabinet makes all major decisions.

As we start getting into a complex society like Ontario -- and I made this point in addressing the public accounts convention two years ago -- it becomes more and more necessary to devise mechanisms and processes whereby MPPs can have an influence on government. I think that this is happening, both in the House of Commons and in our Legislature.

Thus we are faced with two conclusions. One is that being an MPP in this province -- unlike, perhaps, Prince Edward Island or one or two of the other smaller provinces -- has to be a full-time job. There is no way in which one can deal with the complexities of our system, there is no way in which one can deal with the very large numbers of constituents -- in many cases, some 80,000 people -- without being a full time MPP.

Second, it is fairly clear that the average MPP, be he a government back-bencher or an opposition member, does have direct influence, if he wishes to use it and is acting responsibly, on policy. Perhaps we see this more under a minority government, where MPPs will move amendments that can be carried more easily than under a majority government. None the less, the MPP is, more and more under our committee system, in a position of real influence.

I do not think we can talk about conflict-of-interest legislation that will apply only to cabinet or only to the government because that is to simply ignore the realities of the evolution happening in this society, in this parliament, with the complexities of our society.

I would like to deal at some length with the Wyda report and some of the recommendations, but we can deal with those in committee of the whole House. I would like, however, to address myself to a couple of matters. One is that the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly made it fairly clear, under item 3, that civil servants should be covered by the legislation. This bill fails to deal with this in a direct manner.

It concluded -- and those of us who have spent long times on the public accounts committee have dealt with this problem -- that the top civil servants, public servants, have to be covered under any conflict-of-interest legislation and, indeed, that they also have to be open to the penalties involved. What is fairly clear to me, as a member of the public accounts committee over the years, is that one can have certain key public servants commit some of the most atrocious errors in judgement and still have them continue on. As the former member for Rainy River, Patrick Reid, used to say, "Heads seem to roll upwards in this place," so that a public servant, if he happened to be high enough in the echelon and committed the worst sins, would simply get a different kind of appointment and sometimes, in many cases, a promotion rather than a demotion. I think the government and indeed the Legislature may want to look at recommendation 3 in the report of the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly in this regard.

1620

Another item I think has to be looked at is that there may be those rare occasions, and I suspect they would be very rare, when it will be necessary for the commissioner to simply say to a member or to a cabinet minister, and it is more likely in this case to be a cabinet minister, "Notwithstanding whatever else happens, I feel that divestment is needed."

We had this in the case of Wyda, where from all the evidence we seemed to have, there were fairly clear instructions for divestment of a position or interest in a company and that had not been fulfilled. It seems to me this independent adjudicator must have that power, the power to say to a cabinet minister: `You must divest. There is no other way of handling this."

You then have the government in a position of possibly saying the only course is that the cabinet minister divests or steps down, or in certain instances the option might be that the Premier would say, "In this instance, I am going to move your portfolio in order to avoid this particular conflict in lieu of your divesting in this circumstance." But I think that has to be open and I think we have to deal with that when we come to it.

I think this bill really is the culmination of a very long series of events. It was fairly clear when we looked at the divestment issue in the Wyda inquiry that what the Premier had done was to weaken the guidelines while proclaiming that he was sweeping with a new broom and that, while doing a public relations job on the public, in fact he had weakened the guidelines and therefore the government got into trouble on this.

What we need and what we in fact have with the enactment of this legislation are some fairly clear and precise ways of dealing with that problem that evolved as a result of leaving it in the political realm, in the realm of the cabinet. Therefore, one has to welcome the legislation that is now before us.

There are absences in this legislation; there are vacancies in this legislation. I think what was fairly clear from inquiries the public accounts committee has done over the years is that there is clearly a need for some legislation dealing with lobbyists. Those of us who went through the Wyda case and heard some of the horror stories about Mr. Fleischmann and other people simply have to say that there is a need for the legislation to bring in recommendation 10 of the Legislative Assembly committee, dealing with lobbyists. We are dealing with far too much money to allow those kind of grey individuals who float in and float out of governments without the public's right to know exactly who they are and what they are doing.

While I support the principle of the bill, I am looking forward to clause-by-clause debate and, I hope, some amendments. I think the bill generally goes in the right direction, but there are some weaknesses in it we will want to look at. I guess we are beginning to see the beginning of the end of a very long struggle for which we in the New Democratic Party have fought and that we therefore welcome at this point in time.

Mr. Gillies: I am very pleased to join this debate this afternoon on a subject that has taken up a lot of time and attention of members of the Legislature in the last year. As several of the preceding speakers have reviewed some of the history and some of the events that brought us to this point today, I think it might be worth while to focus on a couple of those points.

I would think, and I share the concern of many members of the assembly, that what we do in here with regard to conflict of interest actually has a great bearing on the way we are perceived by the public and by the electors we serve, at a time when, I fear, the practice of politics and those of us who are in the profession of politics are not held in particularly high regard.

I can say, and I am sure I speak for other members who were involved in the two committees last year, that the question of conflict and the raising of conflicts on the part of any member of this assembly is a serious one. It is not a matter relished by any of us. Indeed, I think we all recognize that a conflict or a perceived misdeed by any one member of the assembly in fact leads many in the public to call into question the conduct of all members of the assembly. In other words, those transgressions, those problems that members or ministers fall into have an effect on all of us whether we like it or not. So I think there was a recognition that something had to be put into place that would more clearly direct us as members and particularly members of the cabinet as to what one can and cannot do and why.

I think we all know why we have come to this point and why this legislation was brought forward. I think the chain of events leading to this legislation started on June 10, 1986, when I raised the first questions about the problems regarding the member for Oriole (Ms. Caplan); again, I would say, not a task that any of us would relish, but I believe a very serious conflict that had to be dealt with. That was quickly followed by the problems of the member for Cochrane North and, before we knew it, there we all were, many of us in this assembly, tied up all summer long in two different committees looking at the conduct of these two individuals.

I can say -- and I think my friend the member for Etobicoke (Mr. Philip) alluded to this in his remarks -- by the end of the summer those who were involved in that process knew one thing.

Mr. Philip: We were tired.

Mr. Gillies: "We were tired," my friend interjects. Also, I think we knew that the forum under which we were investigating these alleged transgressions was simply not the proper way to go about it, in the long run, I guess. I do not think we want to see ourselves, as members of the assembly, back in that position again.

Committees of the Legislature are not courts of law. they are not structured in terms of the presentation of evidence, the receipt of evidence; there are many members of the assembly who are not trained in the letter of the law -- I say thank goodness there are many members of the assembly who are not lawyers. I think the public is better served by having an assembly made up of people with a broad range of experiences from any number of professions and any number of businesses.

So there we sat, trying to get to the very bottom of a maker such as the Wyda affair or the Fontaine affair. I think the process under which we tried to do that was cumbersome and flawed in a number of respects; for example, the differences of approach. The members on the standing committee on public accounts, undertaking the investigation of the problems of the member for Oriole, retained counsel. We had a very experienced and very capable member of a prominent law firm in this city who assembled the evidence, interviewed witnesses before they appeared before the committee and generally tried to make sure that the standards he would associate with a court of law were in fact maintained in that committee.

1630

The other committee, the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly, reviewing the conduct of the member for Cochrane North, chose to go another route. I am not saying they were necessarily wrong. I am not saying the member's problems were not dealt with properly by the Legislative Assembly committee. All I am pointing out is that in two conflict-of-interest situations in very close proximity to each other timewise, we had two committees of the House adopt completely different approaches in terms of dealing with them. Some structure and some uniformity had to be put in place.

I would suggest that we, first, took the investigation of these matters away in large part from a member's peers within the assembly and put them before an independent arbitrator and, second, by way of legislation -- I think it was decided that was the best way to do it -- struck a somewhat formalized and codified direction as to how these things should be done.

Now, through the legislation, the Attorney General has opted for the creation of an office of commissioner, and it is laid out in this legislation as to exactly what steps the commissioner takes when a problem of conflict arises. In fact, it is laid out in the legislation as to what we, as members, are to do if we feel we are in conflict ourselves, and it lays out in some very specific direction what steps we should take if we feel that another colleague in this House is in conflict.

For that reason, I support the institution of the office of commissioner, and I do believe it can help put some direction into and can help depoliticize the process we go through in terms of maintaining compliance with the conflict law on all our parts.

I do have a concern, though, and I am going to put it on the record, although I have done so on past occasions when we have debated this matter. I would hope it would not be the interpretation of any member of the assembly that the creation of the office of commissioner in any way takes away the principle of ministerial responsibility.

As we all know, our system of government is very different from the congressional system practised by our neighbours to the south. Their system relies on a checks-and-balances type of government where various branches of the government have various powers which tend to counterbalance one another. They have a very strong committee system which reviews appointments by the executive branch of government. I believe it is in many ways a very fine system of government but one that varies quite considerably from our own.

The principle of ministerial responsibility is absolutely central to our system of government, because the members opposite, a number of whom are present at this moment, who sit as members of the cabinet sit as advisers to Her Majesty the Queen in terms of the administration of government. Under our system, they hold office only so long as they have the confidence of the Legislature. They have the principle of ministerial responsibility as such only in that they have to justify their actions on an ongoing basis to the legislative branch of government.

That is very different from the American system. There is not a mechanism within Congress under which the executive branch of government under the President, on a regular and, in our case, almost daily basis, has to justify, explain and account for the conduct of government to the legislative branch. You do not see President Reagan walking down the hall a couple of times a week to explain to the House of Representatives or the Senate what he is doing or answering questions. That is our system.

My concern with regard to this legislation is simply this: I would hope it would not be the interpretation of any of us that the commissioner takes full responsibility for members of cabinet and the House with regard to conflict of interest and that this in fact then removes the ministerial responsibility of the chief minister, the Premier, for the conduct of his ministers.

I guess we could read this bill a couple of different ways. I do not interpret this bill as doing that. Once the commissioner's work is done, and indeed while the commissioner's work is being done, I do not believe there is anything in here that denigrates that responsibility of the Premier for his ministers. That is absolutely central to our system of government.

I have raised this caution because I do not look forward to the day when a Premier of Ontario, whoever it is -- the present Premier or any of us -- stands in his or her place because a question of conflict is raised and says to the assembly: "That is not my problem. Do not bother me about it. Talk to the commissioner." I do not think that is the intent of the Attorney General's bill, and I do not think any of us would want to interfere in this very important principle of ministerial responsibility.

I give just one example of this concern and it is very current, from today's question period. When I or any other member raises a question of the conduct of a minister -- I raised one today with regard to political fundraising -- my interpretation of the rules of parliament, and I believe there are citations to this effect in both Beauchesne and Erskine May, is that I should not direct, or none of us in the opposition or the House should direct, such a question to the minister involved. The parliamentary convention is that we question ministers about their ministerial administrative responsibilities, and that is a clearly established principle. I see you are nodding, Mr. Speaker; I know this is also open to interpretation, but I hope and believe that you share mine.

When the question of the conduct of a minister does come up, I believe such a question is not properly directed to the minister. It is properly directed to the chief minister, who in fact has the responsibility for the conduct of ministers. I just throw that in as another piece of evidence, if you will, of what I consider to be the very, very important principle of ministerial responsibility.

Some of the specifics of Bill 23: The bill of course is sweeping inasmuch as it includes all of us in the assembly and not just the members of cabinet, who are currently covered by the guidelines. I do not share too much anguish with some of my colleagues about that feature of the bill because the sanctions under which private members have to operate are somewhat lesser than the sanctions that quite properly apply to members of cabinet.

There are those who will argue that "good people," capable business people, high-income professional people with perhaps a number of business dealings under way, people who may be characterized by many as quality people who should be in government, may be in some way dissuaded from running for this Legislature if we impose too strict a set of sanctions against them in terms of conflict of interest.

I do not think that need be. I am not particularly worried about that because I think we have to look at past experience. As has already been said by a few members in this debate, there have been guidelines in place on conflict of interest in the province since Premier Davis introduced them in 1972 -- I have drawn this to the Premier's attention, as have other members of the House, in the last year -- and those guidelines were substantially weakened and watered down by the current administration.

I am ready for a barrage of denials from my friends here, but I believe some very capable and probably very wealthy people served in governments before in this province under stricter guidelines than those as amended by the Premier.

Mr. Breaugh: Do not leave us with that kind of innuendo. Name names.

1640

Mr. Gillies: The member for Oshawa says to name one. I am having some difficulty, but there have been very capable people of some means who have served in government and were able to do so under stricter guidelines than those currently in effect.

The history of the guidelines has been the subject of some debate in the last year, but the key point I want to remind the assembly of is that the guidelines put in by Premier Davis in 1972 were amended by the inclusion of the so-called blind trust provision that the current Premier decided he wanted to introduce in the formation of his government.

I do not want to get into a partisan wrangle this afternoon, but there were instances under which ministers in the current administration held and indeed dabbled in matters that would not have been allowed under the older Davis guidelines. So when we see a somewhat stricter law coming into effect with the passage of this bill, I do not have any particular concern that any one of us could bring ourself into compliance and serve in the public interest.

The legislation before us does allow a member of the assembly to carry on, not with business dealings per se, but, with the ownership of those things that have been allowed in the past under the guidelines. In other words, we are certainly not interested, and I do not believe the commissioner will be interested, in the nature or type of a member's home or indeed of a vacation property.

Other things are enumerated in the legislation: savings bonds and other holdings which are personal and private and quite properly held at the discretion of the individual member. There is quite a list here under section 12: "Assets, liabilities and financial interests having a value of less than $1,000" quite properly. I will come back to that when I speak in a few minutes about the Blake, Cassels report that was commissioned.

Sources of income paying less than $1,000 in a 12-month period. I have no quarrel with that.

Income of the member's spouse or minor children or of a private company controlled by spouse or minor child where that income is derived from other than a governmental source. Again, I do not think we would want to quarrel with that.

"Personal property used for transportation or for household, educational, recreational, social or aesthetic purposes." That one boggles the mind. I assume that is talking about art and things of that sort. I know a cultural highbrow like my friend the parliamentary assistant would want to make sure there was such a provision. Those of us from perhaps less patrician groundings are not quite as concerned about it. I do not think the Legislature wants to come along and seize all my $30 prints, but you never know.

"The amount of cash on hand or on deposit with a chartered bank, trust company or other financial institution in Ontario that is lawfully entitled to accept deposits." Of course, we do not want to look at that.

Savings bonds, retirement plans, open-ended mutual funds. Again, there might be some concern that a mutual fund still be held in a blind trust. I think we might want to look at that one again, and similar things, the value of pension rights, of course. I do not think the bill is putting an absolute stranglehold on people who want to serve in this assembly. There is still room to carry on the normal kind of businesses that we assume go with having a family, a spouse and so on, and I do not see any particular concern there.

On the question of conflict of interest itself, I am very pleased to see codified for the first time some very basic principles that should apply to all of us in the assembly, not just to members of the cabinet: "A member shall not use information that is gained in the execution of his or her office and is not available to the general public to further or seek to further the member's private interest" and "A member shall not use his or her office to seek to influence a decision made by another person to further the member's private interest."

This has simply got to be there, and I think this goes to the very core of this legislation. All of us in this assembly have had people come into our offices, whether here at Queen's Park or back in our constituencies. Members who have served here any amount of time at all have had people who come in and say, "I want you to do this to help me, my business, my interest, my club" -- whatever it might be -- "and there" -- wink, wink -- "might just be a little something in it for you too." It is one of the occupational hazards.

Any of us who have been around here a while have seen what can happen when a member crosses that line and know the response. The response, at least from this member, and I would hope and think from all of us, is: "I am here to help you and I will be pleased to do so if it is a matter of legitimate concern to a constituent. But please do not try to help me; I am not interested. Do not send a cheque. Do not try to influence the decision-making process that way, because it is simply improper."

We have all assumed and conducted ourselves that way, I know, but it is now codified in this act and well it should be.

The question of disclosure of gifts is again, I think, a legitimate concern. Most of us at one time or another go out to various speaking engagements and so on, and sometimes the people before whom we are speaking are kind enough to offer some small indication of their thanks or whatever, and so we all walk away with books and pens and various other little things. I got a book certificate for $20 recently. My colleague from York Centre will be interested to know I was delighted. It was actually one of the best things I ever got from a speaking engagement. We all get these things, and there is no way on earth that any of us is going to have our judgement clouded or indeed influenced by the presentation of yet another Papermate pen or a $20 book certificate.

I do believe there is a very good provision in here under section 5 that as long as we are going around the province addressing these various groups and having little expressions of thanks, no problem. But if a member is receiving repeated little thank-you presents from one source then there is a problem because those little things can add up, and what a person or organization might expect one of us to do in return for the book certificates can become a problem. So, quite properly, this bill says we should disclose any gifts in excess of $200 that originate from one source, and I think that is a very good thing.

I recall from my stint as a member of the executive council that those little thank-you gifts tend to get a little more extravagant for a minister than those for a private member. People are pleased all to the devil when my friend the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio) comes in and does something wonderful for an organization. People want to thank him, and they probably want to give the minister a somewhat more appropriate gift than they do to one of us lowly private members, toiling along the highways in our private automobiles. They cannot give a gift like that to the Minister of Natural Resources. He rolls up in his limousine. They are all impressed all to hell that he is there, as any of us would be, and they want to give him an appropriate gift. But it becomes a problem. It does become a problem for a minister of the crown when some of those gifts get a little too extravagant. I know the minister would share my concern, and this is a very simple way around it.

If they give you something you think may be a little on the heavy side -- and the legislation says $200 -- you disclose it. As long as we all know about it, the commissioner knows about it and the information is available to the assembly, I do not think there is any problem. If a minister of the crown is presented with a piece of Ontario or Canadian art -- a very popular gift for visiting ministers, depending on where they are in the province, is a piece of Eskimo art, and they can be quite valuable pieces -- we would not want to deny the exchange of such very worthy cultural tokens within our society, but I think the disclosure provision is a good one.

A very important provision is that applying to former ministers in terms of their activities for a 12-month period. I think people of Ontario would want a provision like this. Those of us who serve in the cabinet are privy to information that is still valuable after we leave. I know things from two years ago, because I sat at that cabinet table, that are still important today, simply because I had the privilege of being privy to those discussions. Any of us who leave the cabinet table either by choice or, in my case, because we got the boot --

1650

Mr. Cousens: Now they will want you back.

Mr. Gillies: They will want us back one of these days, that is right. We cannot assume your mind is wiped clean overnight of everything you have learned as a result of your cabinet office. It is not. It is very proper indeed that we would want to restrict the way information is used by former ministers of the crown as well as current ministers of the crown.

The stipulation that is being recommended is that a member who has served as a member of the executive council will not receive a contract or a benefit for a period of 12 months after he leaves cabinet. Neither will any member of the executive council nor an employee of any ministry, agency, board or commission give an award, approve a contract or give a benefit to a former member of the executive council for a period of 12 months "after the date when he or she ceased to hold office, made representations in respect of the contract or benefit."

Let us put that very simply. In other words, after he leaves cabinet, a person -- whether or not he is still a member of the assembly, as I read it -- cannot lobby government agencies, try to receive a benefit from government agencies or influence or attempt to influence the course of government action for a period of one year.

I think this is good. I think it is needed. Those of us who served in the last administration formed by this party are not covered by this provision. Even if this provision were in place right now, it has been two years since we served in the executive council. But, if and when the day comes, I hope soon, that this cabinet is relieved of its responsibilities, it will not be able to undertake these activities for a period of one year.

I think we would all agree this is good, simply because we do not leave that cabinet table suddenly with a completely blank slate. We know what was going on. We often know of government initiatives that were pending or are anticipated to be coming on stream in the next number of months, and it is just not fair that we go outside government and try to use that information or try to influence the course of government activity with regard to that information. I wholeheartedly support that particular provision.

I might add that it is not at all unusual for former ministers, either at the federal level or at the provincial level, after they leave this place, to go into what might gently be called government or public relations but what others may call lobbying. There are a number of former ministers of past Liberal administrations in Ottawa who do that kind of work and there are a number of our former colleagues, no longer in this Legislature, who do that kind of work.

As long as the rules are understood, I think that is quite proper. Any time we spend here is a learning experience. It is a part of our professional development as individuals. Certainly, any of us who leave this assembly may want to consider that line of work as one of our options. I think that all this legislation is saying is, "That is fine, but if you are a former minister you cannot do it for one year." I think that is proper and I do not think it is too onerous at all.

Under section 7 of the legislation we still see, as it is referred to in the bill, management trusts, or another version of the blind trust provision that was in the guidelines. I have to say to the parliamentary assistant that I support this and I guess it has to be in there. I am not speaking for anyone except myself, but I personally really question the efficacy of blind trust provisions. We have just seen too much in the last year, both in Ottawa and here, that leaves me wondering whether they can work.

I will tell the members my concern. We have had ministers, both federally and provincially, who did indeed remove themselves from the front-line activity of an operating corporation of which they were a part. We saw that in the Stevens affair, we saw that in the Caplan affair and we saw that in the Fontaine affair, to varying degrees. I do not think we want to get into that right now.

Mr. Cousens: The next one will be the Kerrio affair.

Mr. Gillies: Oh, I do not look forward to a Kerrio affair at all.

Interjection.

Mr. Cousens: I do not want that either.

Mr. Gillies: "I am not a crook," says the Minister of Natural Resources.

Anyway, the problem is that I really wonder how blind a blind trust can be. I really wonder. We have a situation in the case of the former Chairman of Management Board where she did take the steps indicated. She may not have done them strictly on time -- that came out in the evidence -- but the member for Oriole did eventually have herself removed as an officer of her husband's consulting firm. In the strictest sense, in that narrow area of concern, there was compliance, but whether it is that or whether it is the Stevens affair in Ottawa or whatever, I just have to ask, how blind can a trust be when one's spouse or an immediate member of the family is still dealing with the company on an operating basis?

I do not think that problem will be solved by the minister's bill. I do not think it can be solved by any piece of legislation. I just do not know how you would do that, but is it reasonable for us to expect that a husband in politics or a wife in politics does not from time to time discuss the dealings of the family business? In a perfect world and under a perfect law or a perfect set of guidelines, it would not happen. But come on, we are all human beings. We know it happens, and we know it is inevitable. So I say to the parliamentary assistant, how useful can a blind trust provision be in that respect?

It does say in the legislation that a member of the executive council complies with the legislation "by entrusting his or her business or the management of his or her personal financial interests to one or more trustees," and then there are certain conditions.

First, it says, "The trustees shall be persons who are at arm's length with the member and approved by the commissioner." I therefore assume, and perhaps the parliamentary assistant could clarify for me, that a spouse or another immediate family member does not qualify under that clause, that in fact an immediate family member cannot be considered to be at arm's length from the minister in terms of compliance.

Second, it says, "The trustees shall not consult with the member with respect to managing the trust property," and third, "The trustees shall disclose to the member and the commissioner material changes in assets, liabilities and financial interests contained in the trust forthwith after the changes have occurred."

I guess this will all be subject to interpretation, but I do not even really see that one of our personal solicitors could really fit within that definition. We all have lawyers who undertake a variety of tasks for us, as most people in society do, whether it is acting for us in the purchase or sale of a home or whether it is the drafting of a will. Very often, especially maybe for those of us from smaller communities, our lawyer is also a friend. In all likelihood, for members in this assembly, it would be most usual that one's personal solicitor would also be a political supporter. I am not saying it always applies, but I think in the normal course of events, our personal lawyers tend to be fellow Tories and the government's personal lawyers probably tend to be fellow Liberals. Why would one have it any other way? I am not saying that always applies, but it probably generally does, so you have to wonder again --

Mr. Sterling: If they want a good lawyer, they would hire a Tory.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I only go to a Tory when I do not want to pay my accountant.

Mr. Gillies: I think I heard my friend the Minister of Natural Resources say his lawyer is a Tory because he wanted a good one, but I may not have heard that quite right.

I think this becomes a problem then, and I think the commissioner would really have to look very carefully at whether one's personal solicitor or even the company's solicitor for the subject company could properly be the trustee. If the trustee is really going to be at arm's length, I think we have to be very strict about that.

1700

There is a description in the bill of the procedures that will be followed, and then there is a description of the responsibilities of the commissioner. I will certainly not repeat my concern about the role of the commissioner vis-à-vis ministerial responsibility, but it is a very serious concern I hope will be dealt with.

The question of disclosure is very problematic; the question of disclosure is a big problem indeed. This is dealt with in section 11 of the bill. I guess the concern simply is that the ministers of the present administration had a great deal of difficulty in bringing themselves into compliance with the guidelines which were in place up to the present time and had a great problem, it seems, in fully disclosing their various assets and dealings.

There was a report undertaken for the Premier of Ontario -- again, arising out of the scandal problems that erupted last June -- and he finally asked the law firm of Blake, Cassels and Graydon to undertake a full review of the holdings of ministers and their disclosures of those holdings and to report back. This Blake, Cassels report was eventually made available to members of the assembly and I have a copy right here.

The problem was that, when the law firm looked at the current cabinet, at their disclosure of their assets and their coming into compliance with the guidelines, they found that, in the strictest sense of the word and the strictest sense of interpretation, only six of the 20 ministers of this government brought themselves into compliance; 14 of these ministers did not.

One has to look, then, more fully at the Blake, Cassels report. Anyone who reads it the least bit objectively would certainly not draw the conclusion that 14 of the 20 current ministers are crooks or anything of this sort, but there was just a general sloppiness and a general neglect in terms of their coming into compliance. A lot of the things drawn out in the Blake, Cassels report are fairly minor. I will go through them quickly.

It says here that the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) was in complete compliance with the guidelines.

The Minister of Education owned -- and I assume just forgot to declare that he owned -- four shares worth a total of $100 in 1982 in a Timbertown co-operative, which was something to do with re-creating the old lumbering days on the Ottawa River. I am not going to pillory the Minister of Education because he forgot he owned 100 bucks worth of the Timbertown co-operative, but it gives one an idea that, if one is going to take a very strict interpretation of compliance, the minister did not comply. He did not disclose it.

The Minister of Housing (Mr. Curling) owned a one-fifth interest in a private business which owned approximately 100 acres of recreational land near Bracebridge and a few other things -- a condominium unit which was the residence of some relatives and so on. Again, I do not expect for a minute that the Minister of Housing believed it was a particularly serious matter and probably did not feel he had to disclose it. His interpretation may have been, because under the guidelines one did not have to declare a principal residence or a recreational property, that his one-fifth interest in the land up north was his recreational property. Blake, Cassels took another interpretation and they say the minister should have complied. I would agree with that.

As we go through, with a couple of very serious exceptions, most of the ministers had forgotten to disclose fairly minor things. But I believe this betrayed a fairly lax attitude on the part of this administration towards conflict questions. I am not saying anything the Premier himself has not said.

I remember very clearly, when the Premier came before the standing committee on public accounts on the Caplan affair, that he said under questioning that he wished, on assuming office, that he had devoted more time and attention to the question of conflict of interest.

Those are the Premier's words I am paraphrasing. He said he wished these things had been dealt with more seriously and that the problems with the member for Oriole and the member for Cochrane North had not come up. I am sure the Premier did believe that at the time because those were rather serious problems for him. None the less, they betrayed a somewhat lax attitude that we hope is arrested and reversed by the passage of this legislation.

I will just recap very briefly. The thrust of this legislation is a good one. The legislation came about as a result of this government getting into some trouble in the last year on questions of conflict of interest. I believe and hope that the government is now going to take a much more serious and sober approach to these problems than it has in its term of office thus far.

While I support the institution of an office of commissioner, in my interpretation, that in no way abrogates the supreme responsibility of the Premier for his ministers' conduct, and that very central question of ministerial responsibility has to be maintained. I believe that the sanctions, the fines and so on that the minister has included in the bill are probably appropriate. I note the minister had to remove the one provision he intended to include that would bar a former member from seeking reselection for a period of some years because of some transgression.

I understand the Attorney General's argument that, in the case of Billy Joe MacLean in Nova Scotia, there was some very serious question raised as to whether such a provision was constitutional, as to whether any official of the government of Ontario can tell any free citizen in this province that he cannot seek office for a period of time. I think it is very likely that, in fact, that provision would have been found to be unconstitutional and would have had to be done away with.

But a fine of $5,000, a member's compensation being withheld, a member's seat being declared vacant and a member being, in effect, fired, are all very serious sanctions indeed. They apply to all of us. We will all have to be more diligent about these matters in the future, and I believe the province of Ontario and the people we serve are going to be better served under this legislation than they have been by the approach to conflict of interest taken by the Peterson administration thus far Let us hope that it is so and let us hope that we do not see repetitions of the problems that the government encountered in the last year.

The Acting Speaker: Questions and comments? Are there any other members who wish to participate in this debate? The member for Carleton-Grenville.

[Applause]

Mr. Sterling: That is the first time I have heard applause from the government side since I have been sitting on this side. I thank the minister very much.

Today we are considering the act which basically controls the conflicts that members and members of cabinet may be involved in when they enter this Legislative Assembly in relation to their private life outside the Legislature.

First of all, I think we should consider what motivated the necessity to have this bill before us. I believe it is as a result of the utter failure of the Premier of this province to pay adequate attention to his own conflict-of-interest guidelines and of his cabinet ministers in trying to meet those conflict-of-interest guidelines in the past.

1710

At the present time, we have two documents which control what a member may do or may not do while he is a member of this Legislature. First, we have the Legislative Assembly Act, which is an old act, but it does have provisions relating to this very topic. Under that act, a member is disqualified from entering into a contract with the government while he is a member of the Legislature. However, there are several exclusions to that provision of the act. One of those exclusions relates to a member's ability to be one of the shareholders or a member of a corporation that does business with the government of Ontario.

I think it is also noteworthy to put forward the fact that under this present legislation, if a member of the Legislature feels he is coming into conflict with the legislation, he can put forward a resolution to allow him to carry on that contractual activity with the government of Ontario and not be expelled from this Legislative Assembly. In some ways, our present act has some accountability for members, seems to have worked for a large number of years and therefore in some way puts into question the need for Bill 23, the present bill before the Legislature.

In addition to the Legislative Assembly Act, we have heard over the past year or year and a half much news about the conflict-of-interest guidelines that cabinet ministers are supposed to follow. These guidelines were first initiated by Premier Davis in 1972. Somehow these guidelines worked for some 14 or 15 years without attracting a great deal of interest or attention. Then when the Peterson government came in on June 26, 1985, we learned through various committees of this Legislature that after consultation with various ministers of the government the Premier all of a sudden decided to change the 1972 guidelines that former Premier Davis had put forward and that his cabinet ministers had held to.

It is also interesting to note that over that period of time there were two cabinet ministers who resigned on a matter of principle. One was Darcy McKeough in the early 1970s when his name was stamped to a subdivision agreement in which his family had a partial interest. In about 1978 or 1979, then Solicitor General George Kerr resigned, not really over a conflict with the guidelines but on a matter of principle. Otherwise, the number of cabinet ministers, probably in the neighbourhood of 70 or 80 over that period of time, managed to live within the 1972 guidelines of Premier Davis.

As I mentioned before, these guidelines were not good enough for this government. Under the former guidelines, there was a straight rule that if you had a private company -- that means a company that does not offer shares to the public -- in which you held a share, it could not enter into a contract with the government of Ontario. This was changed around by the Premier in September 1985. He no longer said that if you had a share in a private company you could not enter into a contract with the government of Ontario. He jiggered the rules around so that you could enter into a contract with the government of Ontario and still be a shareholder in a private company, but you had to place the shares in a blind trust.

As we have reamed, there has been a great deal of difficulty with that instrument. The speaker who made the presentation just prior to mine, the member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies), pointed out his concern over the use of a blind trust instrument. When we were looking into the matters concerning conflict of interest under the guidelines by the former Minister of Northern Affairs and Mines, we found out that neither the minister nor one of the agents of the trust company really understood what a blind trust was all about, what their duties under the blind trust were or whether they could interfere with that trust or whatever.

We further found out subsequent to the Fontaine hearings and in the Aird report that another minister of this government, the Minister of Colleges and Universities (Mr. Sorbara), set up a blind trust and had joint trustees, one trustee being a financial institution but the other trustee being his brother. I hardly think that is what was meant by the conflict-of-interest guidelines when they said one could set up a blind trust. The idea of setting up a blind trust is to put the shares of one's company into a blind trust and then have nothing to do with those shares.

The understanding of this cabinet as to what was involved in the watered-down conflict-of-interest guidelines set forward by the Premier was very poor indeed. It makes me somewhat suspect whether the Attorney General and this government, in putting forward this bill, are really serious about this whole matter of conflict of interest.

We found out through the hearings when we were dealing with the member for Cochrane North that no one seemed to care whether the guidelines were complied with, whether they were not complied with or whatever. As the members know, the committee found that the member was in breach of those conflict-of-interest guidelines, and the member for Oriole also has been found in conflict with those guidelines. It took considerable work and effort on the part of a number of the members of this Legislature to bring those members before a committee and force the issue, before this government or the Premier would act.

One of the previous speakers on this issue, the member for Durham West (Mr. Ashe), said that this act is a cop-out. It is a bit of a cop-out for us as politicians in general because it says to us and to the public of Ontario that we cannot keep our own House clean, that we do not have the integrity, that we cannot come out and be forthright in terms of what we are doing, that we will not resign when we are in conflict with our duties and have done something in our private world, that we need legislation and that we need an overseer to look over our shoulders and apply a rule and throw us out of here if we do not act properly. That is a sorry day.

This act is an admission that we cannot be accountable for our own actions. In that way, I feel very reluctant to offer support. However, in view of the record of this government and in view of the record of this Premier in particular - you must remember, Mr. Speaker, he was responsible for the enforcement of his own guidelines and did a very poor job of doing that, so much so that, as has been pointed out before, only six of his 20-odd ministers were in compliance with those guidelines.

I will grant that some of them were in what I would call a very minor violation of those guidelines, but there were several cabinet ministers who obviously paid no attention to these guidelines and must have just filed the document in their drawers and not really done anything about it to try to meet them.

1720

As one goes through the Aird report, Mr. Aird looks at the various members, and in fact not only was the Premier guilty of not enforcing the guidelines for his other ministers, but he was also guilty of not enforcing the guidelines for himself. He himself was found in conflict with his own guidelines.

I would particularly like to draw attention to this because I think one minister has got off far too lightly in this whole matter. Perhaps it should have been brought to the fore. I think he should have resigned, quite frankly, if he had been doing the honourable thing. That was the Minister of Colleges and Universities, who failed to disclose interest in some 18 companies and who also had his brother as a trustee to act as his straw man, or who appeared to act as his straw man. I should not say he acted as his straw man because there is no way I can tell whether he was acting as his straw man, but he appeared to be acting as his straw man in terms of running these various businesses.

The Minister of Colleges and Universities was obviously involved in a lot of different development companies. I understand a lot of them involved real estate. For him not to be forthright in terms of his declaration in front of this Legislature --

The Acting Speaker: I have to advise the member that he is skating on very thin ice. As long as he does not make any allegations vis-à-vis a member who is not here -- the member should just be careful.

Mr. Sterling: I am of course referring to the Aird report, which I understand is factual.

The Acting Speaker: The member was referring to the Minister of Colleges and Universities.

Mr. Sterling: Yes, and he is referred to in the Aird report. All I am doing is reciting the facts involved in that report. I know they are distasteful, and I find them distasteful as well, but the fact of the matter is that there were a number of interests, as found by Mr. Aird, whom we all respect, that were not disclosed at that time.

The Minister of Colleges and Universities was also the trustee for the family trust in which his children were the beneficiaries. He controlled a number of assets which, if they were traded properly or dealt with properly, would gain benefit for his children somewhere down the road. He did not declare that action or that position of being the trustee of his family trust. Therefore, I feel he was in a serious conflict with the guidelines. He should at least have offered his resignation in terms of being a member of cabinet.

Now, there was never any proof that he exercised that discretion in terms of any contracts that any of those companies might or might not have had with any government agencies. However, one wonders why he did not declare these interests. I think the Aird report is very damning of him.

I mentioned before whether this government is really very serious about conflict of interest or whether it is throwing up Bill 23 to cover the embarrassment it has suffered over the past year and a half with regard to the member for Cochrane North, the member for Oriole, the Minister of Colleges and Universities and a number of other cabinet ministers who were not in compliance with the Premier's conflict-of-interest guidelines.

I guess the most disturbing part of this piece of legislation -- this legislation was brought in some time ago and has been reintroduced as Bill 23, but I believe was previously introduced as Bill 160 some time ago -- is with regard to the provisions for entering into a contract by a former member of the executive council.

The member for Cochrane North resigned his cabinet post in June 1986, I believe, and then there was a summer by-election. In October 1986, that government entered into a contract that will give control of some $40 million over the next 20 years to a company and the member owns one sixth of that organization. I find the whole question of the integrity of this piece of legislation, the integrity of this government in terms of dealing with conflict of interest, is called into question because of that act.

Six months after the member for Cochrane North was a cabinet minister, they give him a contract by which he is in partial control, along with his sister, of $40 million of the taxpayers' money. That money is going to be used and probably to very good use, but it gives control of that kind of money to the forest management company. Those were the figures of the Ministry of Natural Resources employees.

Clause 6(1)(b) of that act says that the executive council or a member of the executive council shall not knowingly "award or approve a contract with, or grant a benefit to, a former member of the executive council who has, during the 12 months after the date when he or she ceased to hold office, made representations in respect of that contract or benefit.''

We know from the hearings in the matter of the member for Cochrane North that he met four times with Ministry of Natural Resources people to make representations with regard to the forest management agreement. Are they really serious about this legislation? Why do they have 12 months in here when they have already broken the rule? They have already broken the legislation.

It is not only with this piece of legislation that I look to the integrity of this government. I also look to the integrity of this government with regard to the freedom-of-information act, which we will be discussing again in the next week or so. Under that act, we are supposed to get all kinds of documents. We have asked for many documents on this side and are continually refused those documents by the government side. They say, "You can have them when the freedom-of-information act is passed." Do they really believe in what they are doing or are they just talking?

This government's record with regard to conflict of interest is not very good. It is abysmal and the public knows it. This act would not have been necessary had this government not got itself into such problems.

I would like to refer briefly some comments another member of this Legislature made with regard to outside employment activities by members of the Legislature.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Outside activities by members of the Legislature?

Mr. Barlow: No, employment activities.

Mr. Sterling: To the Minister of Natural Resources, I am referring to employment activities. I do not know what else he would be --

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Where is Alan today?

Mr. Sterling: Coming from the Ottawa area, the Speaker will be very familiar with outside employment activities. We could talk about the former member for Ottawa East. I am of course talking about Albert Roy who I understand now is running for the nomination in Ottawa South. I want to ask the Minister of Natural Resources or the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. O'Neil), have they told Mr. Roy that he has to be down here more than two days a week? Does he know that?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: No, we are going to let Alan Pope tell him.

Mr. Sterling: If we want to talk about somebody who has held a full-time job outside the Legislature, I do not think the members of the Liberal Party have anything to talk to.

Mr. Speaker, as you know I practised law before I arrived at the Legislature and I have found it impossible to practise law and carry on my duties as an MPP at the same time.

Mr. Breaugh: Or walk and chew gum, or skip and hum; there are a lot of things you cannot do at the same time.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

1730

Mr. Sterling: I appreciate the intelligent remarks made by the member for Oshawa.

I found that the duties of being the member for Carleton-Grenville were very onerous, that the hours I had to put in were long and that it was impossible for me to be fair to my legal clients and to my constituents and my family. Therefore, I decided to cease practising law shortly after I was elected.

However, to have a rule in a conflict-of-interest act might perhaps be in error, because I think the members of the Legislature should come from all walks of life. To compare the situation with regard to mine, where I found it impossible to do both tasks and be fair to both of the constituencies that I would try to represent, may not be the case for everyone here. I am thinking, particularly, of a number of our members who are farmers. It is difficult for them to sell their particular operation or to hand that operation over to somebody else while they may be elected here for either a long period of time or a very short period of time. I am also aware that many other members of the Legislature would not have the same kind of protection I might have, in terms of being within the legal profession and being able to go back to that particular profession at some time in the future.

I do not know how many people realize that the greatest number of members in one particular profession in this Legislature now belongs to the teaching profession. I suspect that is a result of the fact that they can get leave from their particular boards of education and return to their jobs after they leave politics; and that they can, as well, continue to pay into their pension plans while they are still members here. Therefore, we have had a great number of teachers who have been able to give part of their life to become members of this Legislature.

That is not the way it is with a lot of other people who work for themselves or work in other occupations. In some cases, it is necessary for a member to continue some kind of association with his former employer in order to be able to go back into that job at some time in the future.

We all like to think we are going to get elected time and time again, but that is not necessarily the case and that will not happen, as we know. We are not guaranteed in any way, shape or form that we will be back here again.

I would only say in conclusion that it is too bad we have to lift this accountability, with regard to the controlling of our integrity, from the shoulders of us as individual members and thrust it on somebody outside this particular Legislative Assembly. However, I guess we have proceeded to that particular case not only because of the activities of cabinet ministers in here, but other political happenings within this country.

I am always concerned when we take a little more of the responsibility we have as legislators and foist it upon some outside commissioner, some outside tribunal, or when we make a law which controls our activities, as we have done in the Charter of Rights.

However, we will attempt, in a very constructive manner, to look at this act in committee. We will seek to revise it where it is necessary in order to make it a strong and meaningful act. We will very much look forward to working with the Attorney General in making certain that, finally this cabinet will be called into line and will follow some guidelines because it will no longer have a choice and can no longer slough off that responsibility to some committee of the Legislature, as the Premier has done in the past.

Mr. Cousens: I would like to compliment the other honourable members who have been speaking to this important bill. I believe it is a very important bill, wrongly named. It is named Bill 23, An Act to provide for greater Certainty in the Reconciliation of the Personal Interests of Members of the Assembly and the Executive Council with their Duties of Office. I believe the member for Durham West had a better name when he suggested it should be called "An act for the Premier to cop out of conflict-of-interest enforcement on members of his cabinet."

I know there are some honourable members who have been very forthright and open in declaring their assets and what they are all about. We know who they are and we know what they are, and I believe there are many who are very dedicated to their jobs.

But this bill does go to the very root of our parliamentary system. It is seriously flawed the way it is now and will have to be amended to respond to some of the fundamental needs of what our society expects and wants in its politicians. This document that we call Bill 23, in the sense that it does go too far in asking for certain declarations to be made public, is in my opinion a very serious failure in this piece of legislation.

What it fails to do is understand some of the personal needs of those people who are offering themselves for public office. What it is going to require of them, under section 12, is a complete statement of all their financial assets and, under subsection 12(5), where those assets shall be made available for examination by the public. I realize this is just one of a number of problems, but I want to begin by highlighting that as a very serious flaw.

If the government is going to do that, why should it not have complete medical examinations of people who are going into public of rice? Why not have complete mental examinations? I am sure there are far more things to be learned if we put this cabinet through a mental examination, a psychiatric test. Let us really look inside their brains and see what is there, see what is motivating them, see how they are working, see what really makes them tick.

Mr. Ferraro: Are you kidding?

Mr. Cousens: I am not kidding because I think as you start looking at this bill, which is saying, "Let us open up all the financial assets of members of this assembly," if you want to go that far, let us look at some of the other things that these people are all about. Let us just look at what is their physical condition, what is their mental condition, because if this bill passes every person in this province will know what their financial conditions are all about. I think it is all tied together, if it is going to be that kind of government where everything is going to be open.

By the way, I tell members that I do not want to know how healthy or sick the Minister of the Natural Resources is, because to me he looks just fine. Maybe there is a mental problem that would come out in a mental examination, but I doubt that too.

Mr. Reycraft: Is that parliamentary?

Mr. Cousens: One never knows. I do not want to be personal about it either, because I happen to see him as a very close friend.

Notwithstanding that, this legislation is flawed, and I would like to discuss how and why it is flawed.

It is imperative for our democratic system to continue to thrive and survive into the future as many years as it already has. We want to attract people of ability. We want to attract people with experience from the business world, from the home, from many different parts of our society. We want people who have time and energy to contribute to the betterment of society. We want people who are interested in making this a better world.

1740

When you start looking at that, you see just what democratic government is all about. I go back to one of the old books of political science, Democratic Government and Politics by Corry and Hodgetts. The book has been around for a while. These men have always had a great concern for understanding political theory. For the kind of basic ingredients you want in government, they say, on page 11, in The Study of Government:

"To sum up this discussion, society is the total of social relationships within the given area of the earth's surface on which attention is focused. The state is one particular constellation of social relationships, men associating together to provide the indispensable conditions of public order. The state is therefore less than society, an instrument of society for its purposes. The government is the concrete embodiment of the state, consisting of the organs and persons who carry out the purposes of the state."

What we want to have in government is that cross-representation of what society is all about. We want to make sure that we continue to attract the diverse people, the diverse opinions, the range of men and women, young people and people of all ages, who care enough about their country and their province that they want to dedicate themselves, at least some of their time or a good portion of their time, to make it a better place to live.

I believe that is a fundamental tenet of what society is all about. I believe this bill we are debating today touches the very core of what we really want in society. It touches upon who will be the representatives of the people. If by its nature this bill is going to limit those who will be able to represent them -- limit them because they will say, "I do not want to expose myself and my family to such a public inspection of my assets and my background and I am therefore not willing to present myself" -- I think we have to be careful. We must continue to try to attract as broad a range of people as possible and not be restrictive in the sense that they will themselves say, "I do not want to be exposed to that kind of interrogation, that kind of study, that kind of analysis."

We are dealing with the fundamental principles of what our parliamentary system is all about. When Dean Corry talks about what representation is all about, he says, "The aim of most of these schemes" -- and previous to that he has been talking about different parts of the democratic government -- "is to make the Legislature reflect more accurately the diversity of opinions and interests in the electorate." The day we do not have that kind of honest representation in this House is the day we have failed to live up to the primary tenets of what democracy is all about. If this House wants to exclude people, it will pass this bill unamended. What we have to do is to realize there is that opportunity for people of different circumstances who will come forward and give of themselves to the public.

I think many of those who serve in this House today have come through the process of municipal government -- they have served on school boards, municipal councils or regional councils, they have served in county government, they have been leaders in the community in different ways -- and are people who have come to know their community and know there is something further they can do to participate in a more active way in government. They have allowed their names to stand and have gone through that democratic process of being duly and properly nominated by a party.

Through that process, the people within their community bought memberships to their party organization and came out and supported them for who they are and what they are and what they knew about them. That person who presented himself for public office said, "Support me because I am willing to do certain things to make this a better community." I do not think there is one of the 125 of us here who has not gone and done that. We are here because we want to be here and we want to serve our communities. That is the fundamental tenet of this parliamentary process. Through the persuasion of others and our desire and our intent to be a willing servant to the people of our communities, we gain that public will and the people see certain individuals as ones they are prepared to support in the nomination; so when you win the nomination, you at least have the support of your party. Start here

At that early stage, the party organization is in a position to have looked at you for what you are and who you are. They know you as a member of the community or as a family person or as a person who stood for certain things, and through that process you have been selected. Then the public at large has a chance to look at each candidate from the different parties and compare their talents and their backgrounds, and through that process select one to be its representative at Queen's Park -- a process that is time-honoured, because it has been going on for well over 100 years in this province alone, a process that has attracted great people from all parties, willing to give of themselves.

This bill before us now could well restrict that whole democratic process at the very first step, because someone who may be approached by any of our parties may say: "I do not want to have my entire circumstances made public. I am prepared to share them with a commissioner. I am prepared to delineate in detail what my financial situation is, and if my wife or spouse supports it, also hers and that of our children under 18."

A person might well be willing to do that, and to me that does not create a problem, because we do it with our own bankers and our accountants, and there are certain others within our affairs of life who know a lot of our private affairs. But there are people out there who would just love to know what all the assets are of all members in this House, not for the reason that it is going to affect anything we are doing or not doing but just because it would be fun to know; it would be interesting to know. To have that become public knowledge, which will be the case if this bill passes as it is, I see as a tremendous disincentive for people to want to run for public office.

Already people are reluctant to run for public office because of the demands. You have a camera --

Mr. Callahan: They are reluctant to run for your party, but that's not the reason.

Mr. Cousens: I am talking about all parties at this point, and I hope I am not being totally parochial. Certainly, we are all looking for quality candidates and we want people who are going to say, "I am willing to stand for office." But may I suggest to all honourable members, does every person in this House want to have all his assets made public, as they will be under section 12?

This section will call for all "assets, liabilities and financial interests having a value of less than $1,000" to be made public. "The source of income where the income paid from the source has a value of less than $1,000 in any 12-month period." That will be made public.

"The amount of income of the member's spouse or minor children or of a private company controlled by the spouse or a minor child where the income is paid from a source other than directly from a ministry or an agency, board or commission of the government." That will be made public.

It will also make public "the municipal address or legal description of real property that is primarily for the residential or recreational use of the member or the member's spouse or minor children."

There happen to be some members in the federal and provincial Houses who do not want people to know where they live because in fact they are being invaded by thieves and people who are taking advantage of their public life and going after them. I am saying that can be a problem. I know of other members, not in this House but in the federal House, who when the public found out where they lived, they have been robbed. This makes it public and says, "Hey, so-and-so lives at this address."

"Personal property used for transportation or for household, educational, recreational, social or aesthetic purposes" will be made public.

"The amount of cash on hand or on deposit with a chartered bank, trust company or other financial institution in Ontario that is lawfully entitled to accept deposits" will be made public.

"The amount of Canada savings bonds and other investments or securities of fixed value issued or guaranteed by any level of government in Canada or an agency of such government" shall be made public. So all our Canada savings bonds, if we have any, or all other investments or securities will be made public.

1750

"The value of registered retirement savings plans that are not self-administered" will be made public.

"The amount invested in open-ended mutual funds" will be made public.

"The value of guaranteed investment certificates or other similar financial instruments" will be made public.

"The value of annuities and life insurance policies" will be made public.

"The value of pension rights" will be made public.

There will not be any financial secret that any member of this House will have, because once we have filed with the commissioner, it says in subsection 12(5): "The commissioner shall, as soon as is practicable, file the public disclosure statement with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly who shall make it available for examination by the public."

That is an invitation for the Toronto papers and every local paper to start saying: "Here are the affairs of our MPP, and this is what he or she has or has not got. These are their debts. These are their assets." May I say, if we are going to make the financial things public because we are concerned about conflict of interest, let us just think about it: why do we not, as well, follow up on some other things? When I began this discussion I suggested, "What about medical information?"

Mr. Callahan: What about a Gary Hart clause?

Mr. Cousens: What about a Gary Hart clause? I am not trying to be frivolous about it, but the honourable member wants to get to that. I think it is reaching the point with what the press has done to Gary Hart and his own foolhardiness, it is little wonder the public wants to know.

But may I suggest as well that the public deserves the best? It deserves to have people who are willing to give of themselves, their time and their energies to the people and to this province. Are we going to attract anyone who is going to want, once he wins, to have every bit of that information about his private financial life made public? Are we going to attract some of the people who are leaders of industry, whose businesses have prospered, by saying: "Okay, now, everybody is going to know how much you have. Everybody is going to know what your assets are, what has gone into the blind trust. What your assets are, totally, will become not just your own knowledge; it will become everyone's information."

What a disincentive to get people to run for public office. The fact that those of us who are here in this House have come forward in response to a call either from within or from society and said, "We want to serve and we want to do something," is in itself a tribute to the democratic system, that people who are genuinely interested in their neighbours and the wellbeing of their society have said, "Yes, I am willing to give."

How much more does this bill require?

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: This is a very interesting speech, and the member just went through all the things he thinks would have to be disclosed. I would just like to point out to the member that those are the matters that would be exempted, so all the things he has just talked about for about the last 20 minutes are matters which would be protected, which would in fact be private and would not be part of the public disclosure document. Before he concludes his argument, I think we might want him to be aware of that.

The Deputy Speaker: I do not really think that is quite a point of order.

Mr. Cousens: I think it is a valid point of order, but it is wrong. It is wrong because the way I read this bill as it stands right now, it leaves it wide open for the public to become totally aware of all financial assets and all financial affairs of each member of this House. If the member is able to read it differently, I suggest to him that subsection 12(5) says:

"The commissioner shall, as soon as is practicable, file the public disclosure statement with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly who shall make it available for examination by the public."

May I suggest that in this whole section it starts opening up that every person who is serving here is going to be totally exposed as to what he owns and what he has? May I suggest further that if that is the case, if the honourable member is absolutely sure about that -- and I will check it; I will certainly have more time before the House comes back in again -- it leads to other aspects of my concern.

I am concerned very, very much with the need for each member of this House to be treated the same as cabinet ministers, because cabinet ministers have a special trust and a special responsibility in which they themselves have to exert special decision-making processes on what is going on, and they have to be clean. I think we all have to be clean, but they more than any have to make sure they are respecting the sacred trust they are given.

I am concerned that this bill does not include aides to ministers and senior civil servants. Can it not be argued that they too hold positions of influence and are vulnerable to conflict of interest? Why does this bill not cover them as well? Why is there not inclusion of others who could well use their public office, their public trust or the position they have for their own ends? Why are they not included in this bill?

I guess that is why the member for Durham West has suggested that this bill could aptly be named something quite different, something like "An act for the Premier to cop out of conflict-of-interest enforcement on members of his cabinet." I believe that it is a cop-out if it does not go to the extent of touching upon other people within this whole area of government who can exert influence in a wrong way.

May I go a step further? The legislation does not outline specifically what would happen to a member of the executive council in the event of a conflict-of-interest finding. What happens to a member of the executive council if there is a problem with a conflict of interest? The commissioner is not even given the power to recommend that a cabinet minister gives up his portfolio.

Fortunately, the media are a strong force within our society, sometimes too strong when you start thinking of the way they drive public opinion. But the media were very instrumental in forcing the Premier to consider and reconsider what he initially called "a technical violation" with regard to one of his members. When he talked about the problems of the former Chairman of Management Board being a technical violation, we now know that it was far more than a technical violation.

In the context of what we are really trying to do here as a Legislature, we want to make sure that all people who are going to be here are going to be properly reviewed and understood. I therefore say that the law, as it is being drafted now, will apply equally to all members of the House. Is it not true that the executive council or cabinet ministers have special responsibilities for which they should be monitored, and is it not true that others in other positions do not require the same kind of purview?

I see that as a very serious concern. You wonder how far it is going to go because, as it now goes in the United States one of the quality candidates for President, Mario Cuamo, has decided that he will not be submitting his name to run, at least at the present time, because of the kind of exposure that he will have to have in running for that office.

I think we want to continue to attract to this office people who can continue to serve the people in an honourable and honest way but also be able to have some sense of self-respect and some sense of security in the information around them. I have a sense that what we are going to do through this bill is that we are going to start tying people up. We are going to try to limit them. We are going to try to control them in a way that was never intended when people first ran for public of fire.

We are getting close to the clock and I would like to continue further on this. If possible, I will move adjournment of the debate and then continue at the next opportunity.

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

The House adjourned at 5:59 p.m.

June 1, 1987

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

CANADIAN ENVIRONMENT WEEK

INJURED WORKERS DAY

CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL OF SOUTHWESTERN ONTARIO

CONVERSION OF RENTAL ACCOMMODATION

RIDING OF LAKE NIPIGON

INJURED WORKERS DAY

MINING ACCIDENTS

VISITOR

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

PROTECTION OF CAROLINIAN ZONE

CANADIAN ENVIRONMENT WEEK

MINING ACCIDENT

CROP INSURANCE

LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD OF ONTARIO

RESPONSES

MINING ACCIDENT

CANADIAN ENVIRONMENT WEEK

LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD OF ONTARIO

MINING ACCIDENT

CANADIAN ENVIRONMENT WEEK

ORAL QUESTIONS

CONSTITUTIONAL DISCUSSIONS

MINING ACCIDENT

FUND-RAISING

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

FUND-RAISING

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

RETAIL STORE HOURS

WASTE MANAGEMENT

INFRASTRUCTURE RENEWAL

REHABILITATION CENTRE

SPECIAL EDUCATION

FOOD CONTAINERS

EDUCATION FUNDING

TABLING OF INFORMATION

PETITION

THERAPEUTIC ABORTIONS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

MENTAL HEALTH AMENDMENT ACT

HAMILTON JEWISH COMMUNAL PROJECTS ACT

DRIVING SCHOOL ASSOCIATION OF ONTARIO ACT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

MEMBERS' CONFLICT OF INTEREST ACT / LOI DE 1987 SUR LES CONFLITS D'INTÉRÊTS DES MEMBRES DE L'ASSEMBLÉE (CONTINUED / CONTINUÉE)