Hansard Transcript 1988-Feb-09 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Mr. Morin-Strom: Mr. Speaker, when the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan) states categorically that no one is more than an hour and a half away from quality health care here in Ontario, she does not know what she is talking about. She is certainly not talking about northern Ontario. When it comes to neonatal intensive care, the situation is now critical.

Doctors caring for Chantal Gagné in Timmins tried to find a place in hospitals across Ontario and just could not do it. Finally, Chantal was flown to Sault Ste. Marie and admitted to Sault Ste. Marie General Hospital an hour before her premature baby was born. Our most advanced hospitals simply were not available, and even in the Sault, doctors had to bend the rules in order to admit Mrs. Gagné into a severely overcrowded neonatal unit.

The Sault’s neonatal unit, along with nine others in the province designated for caring for critically ill infants and their mothers, has been battling shortages of funding and especially shortages of critical-care nurses.

The Minister of Health knows that Ontario is short at least 1,100 nurses, with northern Ontario particularly hard hit. Nurses have been leaving the profession and leaving the province. Meanwhile, the government has avoided the issue, awaiting disaster.

Surely it is time for the minister to come up with better funding and better rewards for nurses, and it is time to ensure that a standard of quality health care is accessible to mothers and infants right across this province.

SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION

Mrs. Marland: I am standing today in this Legislature to speak on behalf of the thousands of parents in the region of Peel who have school-age children. Their opportunity for education in acceptable accommodation is not being met.

Last week the Minister of Education (Mr. Ward) met with Chairman Margaret McKee of the Peel Board of Education and other representatives of the board, and Chairman Bob Hall and his trustees and staff of the Dufferin-Peel Roman Catholic Separate School Board. This meeting was requested by me in June 1987, seven months ago, because the solution for funding in this high-growth area has not been found. After waiting seven months for this meeting at the political level, I found the meeting to be a complete waste of time.

The Dufferin-Peel board has 23,000 of its 53,000 students in portables. Notre Dame Secondary School has 27 portables, and the students line up for the washrooms after they walk through the snow to the main building. This school was built for 500 students and it now has 1,172. They have five lunch periods in order to fit into the cafeteria, and the first lunch period is at 8:30 in the morning. Other classes are using the stage area in the auditorium. They are using the library for classrooms. The students have never been in proper classrooms. Many of the students graduating this year will have never been in anything but a portable.

This situation is intolerable. It is unacceptable. We need the opportunity for equality in accommodation in the region of Peel.

ABORTION

Mr. Dietsch: In the wake of the Supreme Court of Canada’s judgement, rendered January 28, striking down section 251 of the Criminal Code of Canada, we as members of this assembly and legislative assemblies across this country are obviously faced with great challenges. I, with many others in this House, hold strongly to the view that life is precious and, indeed, sacred. Recognizing the complexities involved, I encourage our federal colleagues to respond immediately, to bring forward legislation to provide protection for the unborn.

I do not ask my colleagues in this House to put aside their convictions or compromise their integrity. Many, both inside and outside this House, have deeply held feelings and beliefs on this issue. It is imperative that all parties constructively address the needs of those in our society who require assistance. I believe that we can successfully meet the challenge of better educating young people in the area of human sexuality and that we can provide better support mechanisms in our community for those in need of counselling. A better-educated society in this regard would serve us all well.

The initiatives put forward to provide holistic service by the introduction of women’s health centres are a step in the right direction. We need to emphasize the alternatives to abortion now more than ever. I trust that we can and will work together in this House in a spirit of co-operation to resolve this challenge.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr. Swart: No one should be fooled that the Liberal government of this province will eliminate high auto insurance rates for young people. Although we have had all kinds of government promises to do that, and age classification will be excluded by the bill, the government simply proposes to replace age classification with a “years of driving experience” classification.

Young drivers who have been licensed for fewer than seven years, or even up to 14 years, will pay the same kind of unreasonable, excessive rates they are now paying. The only difference is that the rates of young men and women will be equalized, with young females having huge increases in picking up the savings to the young males.

What a travesty of justice, particularly to young women, when the Liberal government promised to apply high rates only for a bad driving record. Of course, it is all political. The government does not want to spread the $300 million that it will lose from the young drivers as additional premiums over the great numbers of good adult drivers.

1340

Let me say that the whole idea that some group or groups have to pick up the 10 per cent shortfall that will result from putting young people on the same basis as everyone else is stupid. Overwhelming evidence to the all-party auto insurance committee clearly demonstrated a saving to a public system not only would absorb that 10 per cent shortfall but also would leave another 10 per cent to reduce rates to everybody.

Let there be no doubt that it is this Liberal government’s decision and it alone that is going to shift unreasonable rates from one group of innocent people to another. That is not our way of doing things in this party.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Mr. Eves: Later today, we will be dealing with Bill 1, An Act to provide for greater Certainty in the Reconciliation of the Personal Interests of Members of the Assembly and the Executive Council with their Duties of Office. The short title of the bill, although easier to remember, is no more accurate. Therefore, I will be moving an amendment this afternoon to change section 20, the short title of the bill, from Members’ Conflict of Interest Act to Members’ Disclosure Act.

This bill is not conflict legislation. It does nothing to address the issue of conflict. It does not prohibit members of the cabinet from making personal contracts with the government; it does not require divestment; it in no way prevents a cabinet minister or his or her family from making personal gain at the expense of the Ontario taxpayer.

There is a member of cabinet whose family owns some office buildings that are currently leased by the government. Surely the Legislature cannot condone this. There is a member of cabinet whose family currently has very lucrative construction contracts with the government. Surely we cannot condone this. There is currently a cabinet minister with a $20-million forest management agreement. Surely the Legislature cannot condone that. There is a member of cabinet whose family has substantial business dealings with this government. Surely we cannot condone any act that permits this.

This is not the toughest conflict legislation in Canada, as the Premier (Mr. Peterson) likes to say. It is merely a disclosure act which enshrines in legislation the ability of a cabinet minister to reap potential personal gain from the public purse.

FUTURES PROGRAM

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Yesterday, the third-quarter financial review came down on this government, and amazing as it may seem, the Ministry of Skills Development has already underspent its budget this year by $27 million for the Futures program. The reason given in the document is that there has been a failure of young people to take up the program. It is true that there is a 50 per cent drop, as a matter of fact, and all members should know it.

It is a real disaster of a program, which is actually counting as neutral outcomes kids who have been incarcerated during the period that they are in the program. They are suggesting that the success story is a kid who leaves the program because it is not financially beneficial to stay in it, and takes a job above minimum wage when the child is still illiterate and is not capable of being adaptable within our society afterwards.

We have a Minister of Skills Development (Mr. Curling) who is entirely incompetent. Perhaps it makes no difference that he is in the Caribbean this week rather than being here.

We have a program that is failing thousands of children in this province: native children -- the government has only spent $75,000 this year on children on northern reserves; francophone kids who are not making use of this program in the numbers we know they should be; and inner-city kids from around this province who are being left high and dry by a government that was supposedly committed to making them capable of operating in a sophisticated society such as we have today.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry for 15 seconds.

SUBSTITUTE FOR ROAD SALT

Mr. Villeneuve: Yesterday, at the Rural Ontario Municipal Association convention, the Minister of Transportation (Mr. Fulton) was asked on two occasions about the use of a corn-derived substance as a replacement for existing road salt. The minister was not even aware of what the questioners were talking about.

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES

Hon. Mr. Elston: I have a message from His Honour the Lieutenant Governor, signed by his own hand.

Mr. Speaker: The Lieutenant Governor transmits the supplementary estimates of certain additional sums required for the services of the province for the year ending March 31, 1988, and recommends them to the Legislative Assembly. Signed by His Honour Lincoln Alexander.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

DRINKING AND DRIVING

Hon. Mrs. Smith: I want to bring the House up to date on my ministry’s efforts to win the war against impaired driving.

As members know, the Premier (Mr. Peterson) promised during the election campaign to make the Reduce Impaired Driving Everywhere program a year-round, province-wide effort. Today, we have taken another significant step towards achieving that goal.

Letters have gone out to every municipal police force around Ontario, asking them to submit proposals for receiving special one-time RIDE funding. This funding program begins this spring and offers one-time financial assistance to municipalities which want to establish or enhance RIDE enforcement activities. Municipalities will be able to apply for funding in either 1988 or 1989 to cover costs, such as staff overtime, equipment purchases and the promotion of enforcement activities. My ministry will devote $2 million to this program over the next two years, and we hope to start dispensing this money by the end of April.

I should add that this is just part of my ministry’s RIDE initiative. We will be purchasing new equipment and enhancing the capabilities of the staff at the Centre of Forensic Sciences to deal with RIDE-related issues, like breathalyser training and evidence. We are well on our way to creating special six-officer RIDE teams from all 16 Ontario Provincial Police districts. These 96 officers will be dedicated solely to RIDE and will make the year-round, province-wide program envisioned by the Premier a reality. The annualized pricetag of these efforts will be approximately $6 million, but it will be money well spent.

Anyone who has doubts need only look at the statistics the OPP recorded from RIDE checks and regular patrols during this winter’s holiday season. Between November 15, 1987, and January 9, 1988, OPP officers checked 369,403 motorists and charged a total of 1,683 with alcohol-related driving offences. During the 1986-87 holiday season, OPP officers checked 357,167 drivers and charged 1,812 of them with alcohol-related driving offences.

I should add that fewer 12-hour licence suspensions were issued during this winter’s Christmas-New Year period: 1,999 compared to 2,938 the previous year. The same statistical story is unfolding elsewhere. In Metro Toronto, for example, RIDE units checked 187,228 motorists during the recent season of Christmas, compared to 167,621 the previous year, and found 10 fewer impaired drivers: 28 compared to 38. Those statistics are a clear indication that programs like RIDE are having the desired effect on holiday-season revellers.

If we are checking more drivers and finding fewer offenders, it can only mean one thing: Programs like RIDE are convincing people it is just plain foolish to take a chance by drinking and driving. I am delighted that my ministry’s new initiatives will allow us to hammer that point home year-round. Any step that reduces the tragic toll exacted by impaired driving is a step worth taking.

The people of Ontario have made it abundantly clear that they support our efforts to reduce drinking and driving. All over the province, community groups have devoted long hours to the struggle to change public attitudes. These groups have our gratitude and we hope these initiatives will encourage them to work even harder.

COUNTY GOVERNMENT

Hon. Mr. Eakins: I would like to inform members of the House today about my review of county government in Ontario.

As members will be aware, an advisory committee was formed to study the current composition of county councils, their voting systems, a possible role for them in waste management and other services, and the relationships between them and the lower tier.

The committee was chaired by the member for Niagara South (Mr. Haggerty), then parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. The other members of that committee were Doris Brick, reeve of Ennismore township and 1987-88 president of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario; Al Bouwers, mayor of Osgoode township and a director of AMO; Ron Eddy, reeve of South Dumfries township, chief administrative officer of Middlesex county and director of AMO.

1350

The committee conducted consultations with different municipal associations, organizations and a wide cross-section of local and county municipalities. It completed its consultations and study late last year and submitted its report last November.

I would like to express my deep appreciation to the chairman and members of the committee for their valuable insights into a most complex area of local government. I released the report last week and copies have been sent to all municipalities within the county government system for their comments as the next stage in the consultation process.

The committee has pointed out some of the difficulties, for instance, in achieving balanced representation in counties where municipalities range in size from those with only a few hundred electors to those with as many as 30,000. The committee has also noted a wide range of perceptions among municipalities and their representatives as to the kind of reforms they would like to see.

In view of these findings by the committee, I feel it very desirable to enlarge this last phase of the consultation process to cover these issues.

I would like to inform members that I have asked a committee with experience in municipal issues to undertake this task. The group will be chaired by the member for Oxford (Mr. Tatham) and will include the member for Cornwall (Mr. Cleary), the member for Northumberland (Mrs. Fawcett), the member for Grey (Mr. Lipsett), the member for Prince Edward-Lennox (Mr. MacDonald), the member for Prescott and Russell (Mr. Poirier), the member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. M. C. Ray) and the member for Lambton (Mr. Smith).

Members of this committee will visit all parts of the province within the county government system to discuss the advisory committee’s report directly with councils and interested individuals. They will also examine the issues connected with the smaller and separated municipalities as well as individual counties. I have asked this committee to suggest, on the basis of its direct discussions, a complete package of reforms covering all aspects of county government and responding to the advisory committee’s findings and recommendations.

This approach will have several advantages. It combines the final phase of consultations on the advisory committee’s recommendations with the study of the other areas recommended by that committee for separate review. It will deal with county government reform as a comprehensive package rather than piecemeal. It will benefit from direct contact with the communities affected by any proposed reform, without proceeding on the basis of centralized perceptions.

That, briefly, is our objective with all municipal reform, which I have made a personal priority, namely, to provide for fair and reasonably uniform representation for the interests and needs of communities of varying sizes and capacities and to establish the framework for strong and self-reliant institutions of local government, fully responsive to the needs of their electorates.

RESPONSES

COUNTY GOVERNMENT

Mr. Breaugh: I want to respond to the rather unusual announcement by the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Eakins) today. It is true that he had a group of people studying county government in Ontario and that they reported last November. Oddly enough, the report was not released until about two weeks ago, I think. It unveiled a number of perplexing problems with county government, a system that has worked for a long time, but which also kind of evolved on its own and has inherent in it some rather vexing problems.

The response to those findings has been to establish another committee. Normally, of course, this would go to a royal commission, an outside task force, a consultant or something like that, but I guess things are backed up, because now the minister is announcing today an unusual phenomenon, one that I regard with some concern: that is, to strike a committee which is, and it is carefully worded in the statement, a committee of members of the Legislature. There is only one problem with this committee. This committee does not have anybody but government members on it. It will tour Ontario purporting to be a committee of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, except that there will be no opposition members there. It is an interesting twist to it all.

I ask the minister to pause in implementing that committee. It is one thing to have a group going around from one of the three political parties saying, “We are here on behalf of the New Democratic Party and we want to find out what you think.” That we are accustomed to. I believe the next step, where the minister says it will be a committee of the Legislature but only government members will be on it, has now been taken. Even with the pangs that happened last fall with the election results, they did not produce a one-party state in Ontario yet. The government is taking us that next step.

I am going to ask the minister to reconsider that structure. I believe that to be inappropriate. It is one thing if the minister wants to send around a group of Liberals saying to people, “We represent the Liberal Party.” That is fair game, but he should not be sending around a group of members of the Legislature that does not adequately reflect the Legislature itself. In my view, that report should be referred to a legislative committee, which should then do its job. That would be a normal process for us to use. I want the minister to reconsider this new technique he has announced today. I believe it to be totally inappropriate.

DRINKING AND DRIVING

Mr. Hampton: I want to address, just for the moment, the announcement that has been made on the Reduce Impaired Driving Everywhere program today. I think it is very important to note that almost everyone in this House, if not everyone, supports the RIDE program. We are well informed as to the effectiveness of it, but I think it is certainly noteworthy to say that only $2 million is being devoted by this government here today to what is supposed to be year-round enhancement of RIDE.

In some people’s minds, $2 million may be worthy of a press release or worthy of capturing press attention, but it is hardly enough money to do the job for all of the municipal police forces we have across this province. In fact, it will not do the job at all. It will not even start to do the job. To pretend that $2 million will do the job is to distort the facts out there.

I say good. The RIDE program is an excellent program. We agree with its effectiveness, but to say that it is going to be somehow greatly enhanced by the tune of $2 million is a complete distortion of what is needed.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: How much is needed? How much do you want?

Mr. B. Rae: The Premier asks, “How much is needed?” Perhaps he should look at the commitment he made in the election campaign on August 24, 1987, when he announced a $15-million program over the next two years. Today he is announcing a program that is worth about half that and so he asks how much is needed.

I will tell the Premier how much is needed. The amount that is needed is the amount he committed himself to providing in the election campaign. If it was good enough for the voters in the election campaign, it is good enough for the citizens of Ontario in 1988 when the time comes due to pay his bills. That is when it is due and that is the amount that is required.

He also announced in the election campaign that he was going to be introducing a measure with respect to liquor companies, asking them to set aside revenues for advertising. He has not announced anything with respect to that particular plan.

If he asks what it is we are asking him to do, all we are asking him to do is what he committed himself to doing when he wanted the votes of the people of Ontario. When he got their votes, he forgot about them. That has been his record on this issue and on every other issue he has confronted since September 10, 1987.

Mr. Cureatz: I would also like to respond to the statement of the Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith) this afternoon on the continuation of the RIDE program. I have nothing but the highest regard for the Solicitor General. I congratulate her on bringing forward this statement and, as she has done, congratulate all those offices and people that have been involved in the RIDE program across Ontario.

I can think of myself who, interestingly enough, participated in an interesting debate on free trade here over the Christmas holidays. That very night on my way back through Colborne to our then home, I say to the member for Northumberland (Mrs. Fawcett), I was stopped by the Ontario Provincial Police. Happily enough, I passed the test. It was a cold winter’s night at about midnight. The officers were out there. They were freezing cold but they did a stalwart job, and we must congratulate all of those who participate in the program.

Interjection.

Mr. Cureatz: The interesting thing, though, I say to the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh), is that once again this government is doing the old trick of taking credit for a program that was brought forward by -- who else? -- a Conservative government. If the Conservatives cannot take credit, then at least the Liberal administration should give credit to all members in the assembly, who have been very supportive of the RIDE program, and not come out with a statement indicating we are beholden to it, that it was the one that was blessed with coming up with this idea in terms of drinking and driving.

1400

The interesting thing -- and I give credit to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. B. Rae) and I follow up on his remarks -- is that the minister says right on page 1 -- and I say this to the Premier (Mr. Peterson), if he can focus his contact lenses over here -- that it is a one-time funding.

We have the old trick again of ministers coming out with a wonderful statement in terms of what they are going to do. Do members know what is going to happen? After one year has gone by, all the local police forces in Ontario are going to have to go back to their own property taxpayers to get funding so that they can continue with the RIDE program, a program that should be continued through the Legislative Assembly and through the government of Ontario, as the Leader of the Opposition has indicated.

We would like the minister to come back again and in another few months come out with an announcement, let us say by next Christmas, indicating that the funding for the RIDE program will be a continuation to the police forces year after year and not a one-time shot where the local police forces are then going to have to come back year in and year out to their own taxpayers.

COUNTY GOVERNMENT

Mr. McCague: The statement from the Minister of Municipal Affairs would certainly not have been characteristic of his thinking prior to his entrance into this Legislature, but as uncharacteristic as it is, I have to agree with my colleague from the New Democratic Party.

Interjections.

Mr. Breaugh: Hold it. I may want to retract something here.

Mr. McCague: We agree from time to time.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. McCague: I think the Liberal Party has gone to a new low in saying in a statement that it has appointed a committee of the House and then naming -- what is it? -- eight Liberal members of this House. It says right in the statement “committee of...the House.” The minister was careful to avoid that part when he said it verbally.

This is no more than a little geography lesson for a few back-benchers who have no work at all. The minister knows without having his first study what the problems are out there. He has had the first study. Now he wants eight more people to go around and tell him again.

Why does he not start listening to the people on the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, the Rural Ontario Municipal Association, the Ontario Good Roads Association and all the municipal associations and get on with the job, instead of stalling until after the next election?

ORAL QUESTIONS

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. B. Rae: I have a question of the Premier. I want to go back and talk about Sunday shopping again and just say I wonder if the Premier can explain again the battle of the headlines and the very different stories that we get, depending on when the Premier is speaking.

For example, today the headline is very clear. It says, “Won’t Give in to Sunday Shopping Foes, Peterson Says,” on the front page of the Toronto Star.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: Couldn’t you blow it up and put it on cardboard?

Mr. B. Rae: I would like it to be as big as possible because it contrasts so dramatically with the headline in the Toronto Sun of August 5, 1987, which again was just as the election campaign was starting: “Sunday Closing OK with Preem.” Again, it comes from the Queen’s Park bureau of the Toronto Sun.

Mr. Goldstein writes: “Premier David Peterson said yesterday --

Interjections.

Mr. B. Rae: Perhaps members would wait for it – “he has no plans to make major changes to Ontario’s controversial Sunday closing law.

“Peterson said he believes Ontarians generally support the concept of a common pause day, as an all-party committee of the Legislature recently concluded.”

That is what he said during the election campaign.

Mr. Speaker: Question?

Mr. B. Rae: I would like to ask the Premier, are there two people who are impersonating David Peterson? What is going on here? Why is there one position good enough for an election campaign and then a flip-flop as soon as the election is over when it comes to this issue?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I regularly find people trying to impersonate me and I do not blame them for so trying, but let me say, Mr. Speaker, it is not easy to do, as you can imagine and as you personally know from experience. You would substantiate that. But I think we have gone through all this discussion on why the government took the position it did, and I think that eventually my friend will end up quite comfortable with it.

Mr. B. Rae: This is a matter of integrity. The Premier cannot do this on every issue. The Premier cannot get away with this. There has to be a question of accountability here.

He had precisely the same facts before him in August as he did in May when his members sat on that committee and voted in favour of the compromise that was agreed to in that committee in terms of a common pause day. He had exactly the same facts before him right throughout the election. If it was good enough for the people of Ontario during the election to say that he did not intend to change the law with respect to Sunday closing, if a common pause day was good enough as the message that he wanted to take to the people when he wanted their votes, why is it not good enough today in January and February 1988, when he has changed the position and has taken away the common pause day for the workers of Ontario?

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

Hon. Mr. Peterson: My friend is quite entitled to make his speeches, but I think we went through the discussions in cabinet and caucus and a variety of other places and came to the conclusion that the suggestions that were made in the select committee on retail store hours were not workable and just created more exceptions and more difficulties. Then the cabinet took the position that it did on this matter, and I think it is a sensible conclusion to this matter.

Mr. B. Rae: If it was a difficult question and something upon which the Premier had a different opinion, why did he not express that opinion all throughout 1986, when the issue was before the Supreme Court of Canada, when the Supreme Court made its decision clear and said it was perfectly constitutional for Ontario to protect the common pause day and that it was perfectly proper, understandable and reasonable for the Legislature to want to protect that? In fact, Chief Justice Dickson said the reasons for doing that, for providing that protection, are self-evident.

The government’s members on the committee said they supported a common pause day. The Premier said it was good enough for the election campaign. Why is it not good enough for the people in February 1988, when he has his majority? Why is it not good enough now for the people to have a common pause day if it was good enough to take to the people back in the election campaign?

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

Hon. Mr. Peterson: What my honourable friend does not understand and does not realize, based on the experience of Christmas and the reaction of certain retailers and the problems that were inherent, is that things have changed in that regard. We very seriously went through the report of the select committee and came to the conclusion that, frankly, it was unworkable, and then we were charged with the responsibility of making decisions on the basis of that.

I think that, based on what happens in other provinces where it works extremely well, my honourable friend’s fears are misplaced in this regard. Just so often he makes these judgements, and I can understand his always wanting to go backwards rather than forwards in these matters. But with regard to the conclusion that was come to that allows municipalities to make the decision, mindful of the fact that municipalities make the decision six days a week now -- mindful of all of that -- I think we have come to a very sensible conclusion in dealing with this issue.

Mr. B. Rae: If the Premier thinks there is some sort of a correlation between Christmas and the election of a majority government, then --

Mr. Speaker: Order. New question to which minister?

USE OF PRESCRIPTION DRUGS

Mr. B. Rae: I have a question for the Minister of Health.

I have a letter to the minister dated January 18, 1988, signed by Dr. George Carruthers, who is professor of medicine and chairman of the division of clinical pharmacology at University Hospital in London. As the minister will know, Dr. Carruthers was for some time the chairman of the Drug Quality and Therapeutics Committee. The minister will know that this letter is Dr. Carruthers’s letter of resignation from that committee.

He has resigned, he says: “...it is because we see the enormous and inappropriate waste of our tax dollars; it is because we despair of the folly of polypharmacy in the elderly that we raise these issues. That your ministry should ignore our entreaties to improve the current system we find disturbing and frankly incredible.”

As the minister consults her file folder, I wonder if she might tell us, why would Dr. Carruthers have felt it necessary to resign as a protest against what he describes as an “absurd special authorization system which squanders millions of dollars annually, in large part for drugs which have little or no proven therapeutic activity”? Why would Dr. Carruthers have had to resign to make effective his protest?

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

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: Let me respond to the Leader of the Opposition by saying that I have not had an opportunity to meet with Dr. Carruthers. I understand that the Deputy Minister of Health met with the Drug Quality and Therapeutics Committee to discuss our concern regarding the whole issue of drug utilization from a quality-of-care point of view, and I was sorry that I received that letter prior to having an opportunity to meet with Dr. Carruthers.

1410

Mr. B. Rae: The minister should know that on January 15, Dr. Carruthers met with the deputy minister as well as with a number of other members of this committee, and he says to the minister in his letter of January 18, which is now some weeks ago: “I shall not belabour the details of the meeting. In brief, we were advised that there was little likelihood of change in the current system.” I would remind the minister that this is a system which cost the government $489 million in 1986-87 in terms of her health care budget.

He lists six points that he says he has raised on a number of occasions and has received no satisfaction that the minister is going to take them seriously. They are all contained in the letter, but he describes two or three in particular that I want to raise with the minister: “The universal ridicule of the Drug Benefit Formulary, which barely deserves the title ‘formulary,’ a list of medications which includes ineffective, toxic or excessively expensive drugs.” Then he goes on to mention, and I will repeat it because it really is important, “the absurd special authorization system which squanders millions of dollars annually.”

This doctor, who is chairman of the committee, is accusing the ministry of squandering millions of dollars. What is the minister’s reply?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: As I have stated before in this House, we are very concerned about the issues raised around quality of care, particularly for seniors. We released recently a utilization review of world literature and have said that this is in fact a very complex issue. Earlier, in response to a question from the member’s colleague, I said I would be interested in the views of members of this House so that we could ensure the distribution of drugs for the purpose of quality. We are looking, at this very point in time, at all of the very complex issues that surround the Ontario drug benefit plan and the formulary, and I would appreciate the views of the member opposite.

Mr. B. Rae: My views are going to be the views of many who have come to the minister, and they are that there is a serious problem here and it is one that is being addressed directly by Dr. Carruthers. The problem is that he felt sufficiently strongly about it and got the message from the minister’s own deputy that the government was not listening to what he was saying. He talks directly about the folly of polypharmacy in the elderly. When I spoke to the doctor today, he said, “All I am talking about is the overdrugging and the overuse of drugs by the elderly,” many of them being what he describes as “ineffective, toxic or excessively expensive drugs.”

He says it is a widespread practice that many physicians are prescribing drugs which have little or no effect, which do not do what the drug companies say they are going to do and which are of no benefit to the patient. If, as Rosemary Speirs said on the weekend, the government is so determined to do something, why would Dr. Carruthers have felt he had to resign because the government was not listening? Why would he have put himself in that position?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I think it is very important for us to understand that this is such a complex issue, regarding not only the dispensing, the distribution and also the quality of care that results from the drug program, that I do not think any one individual has all of the answers. The deputy minister went and spoke to the DQTC to get its views as we look at this whole issue.

As I have said before, I would ask the members opposite. I believe this is going to be an issue that will require some public debate and I would suggest that the response from any one particular individual or any one group is an important part of the overall debate.

I am sorry I have not had an opportunity to meet with Dr. Carruthers and I hope I will have a chance to meet with him in the near future.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Brandt: I want to return to the Premier on the question of the Sunday shopping issue.

I am sure the Premier is aware that the Coalition Against Open Sunday Shopping represents some 300,000 people. Sean O’Flynn, who is the secretary-treasurer of the Ontario Federation of Labour, represents some 800,000 workers in Ontario. The president of Idomo, who has been running ads in the newspaper, has represented now some hundreds of retail owners and thousands of workers in Ontario who are in the retail sector.

We have four leaders of the largest Christian churches; those denominations represent millions of Ontario citizens. We have the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, which voted against the Premier’s position 70 to three. The Rural Ontario Municipal Association last night indicated it was in disagreement with his position.

In light of this tremendous amount of objection to the position he is taking on Sunday shopping, would the Premier indicate whether it is still his position that this matter should simply be shuffled off to the municipalities, which will result in wide-open Sunday shopping in Ontario? Is that still his position?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am mindful of those people the honourable member lists who disagree with what we have done. It is not a question of shuffling off the responsibility. It is a question of extending the present responsibility that municipalities have, which regulate store hours six days a week, as the honourable member says.

My honourable friend recites a list of people who disagree with it and he is quite right, but there are a number of people who do agree with what we are doing. Let me give an example. The member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry (Mr. Villeneuve) said the store hours should be loosened to meet local wishes. He said, “I think local municipalities should and must have a good deal of say in the matter because that is where the action is.” So we have a lot of very thoughtful, progressive people who agree with this government on this matter.

Mr. Brandt: I do not know how many petitions the Premier has received from that long list he has read out of people who are in support of his position, but I would like to point out to the Premier that I have received in my office some 8,000 petitions, headed up, “Now it’s time to tell your MPP that you are against Sunday openings.” I will not take them all out, but I think the Premier can look at the numbers I have here.

I have an entire box beside me with signatures of 8,000 people, in addition to the list that I have read, all of whom are opposed to the Premier’s position. The Premier has taken a position which is simply not in concurrence with the mainstream of thinking in Ontario. Why will he not change his mind on this?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I say to my honourable friend that, first, I can understand how good it must make him feel to get some mail these days, and I can understand his wanting to tell everybody about that. He has a view, being a member of the former government which sort of governed by polls and responses and moved the line of, shall we say, least resistance on all occasions. But this government has struck forward, and there are many people besides his colleague the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry who agree with this government.

I can give another example. This is in the Windsor Star. It says: “Windsor-Riverside MPP David Cooke, a prominent member of the New Democratic Party says, ‘I am not absolutely convinced myself that Sunday shopping is something that should be halted. An argument can be made that there would be an increase in part-time jobs, particularly for students.’”

Let me tell you something else, Mr. Speaker; you will be interested in this, because this is typical, and he revealed the secret of the NDP: “It was last debated by our party 12 years ago.” That, my friends, is the problem with the New Democratic Party; it has not moved forward in 12 years and it will not in the next 12 years.

Mr. Brandt: Now the Premier has two, apparently. Let me just say with respect --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I would like to hear the final supplementary.

Mr. Brandt: It certainly is, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to say to the Premier that when you are in opposition you get mail from some very interesting places. In addition to the 8,000 petitions I have just indicated to the Premier that have come from the average citizen right across this great province, I have another 8,000 petitions which have come to my attention and were sent to my office from the city of London, where the Premier used to live. These 8,000 people have indicated they, too, are in opposition to his position. I would be happy to share their names individually with him, but I do not have them all recorded yet.

I want to tell the Premier there is an absolute avalanche of opposition to his position on this question. Will he do the right and proper thing and preserve the seventh day in this province, as it has been historically over the years, and give the people a rest from a full week of commercialism? Will he do that?

1420

Hon. Mr. Peterson: My friend is suggesting perhaps that this is somehow going to destroy the family unit. He believes that. Has it been destroyed in Point Edward in his own community, in his own constituency where it is wide open under a tourist exemption now? Has the family unit been destroyed in Point Edward?

I ask my friend how he can stand and articulate and suggest a policy that suggests these different points of view and indeed does not take into account some of the differences that exist. Right now, as he knows, some stores are closed Saturday, some Sunday. There is no evidence in Alberta, Calgary, Vancouver or Montreal that this is destroying the family unit. I do not think my friend can present that evidence here at all.

I think it takes into account the diversity of this province, the different nature, the different communities, be they Point Edward or Sarnia, Niagara-on-the-Lake or Sault Ste. Marie. Should they so desire, they can make their own decisions. He stands and wants to make the decision for everybody right across this province. I say, let us recognize the diversity of this province, let us recognize municipal autonomy, let us recognize that each municipality is different and let us have some respect for the municipal politicians to make these kinds of decisions.

Mr. Speaker: Order. New question, the member for Sarnia (Mr. Brandt).

Mr. Brandt: The Association of Municipalities of Ontario recognizes the diversification of this province and voted against the Premier’s plan 70 to three.

Mr. Speaker: And the question is to which minister?

Mr. Brandt: I have another question.

Mr. Speaker: To which minister?

Mr. Brandt: To the Premier. I was pointing at him. I thought he knew that I was.

ABORTION

Mr. Brandt: Another issue of importance to this province on which the people deserve to know where the Premier stands is the whole issue of abortion and the access with respect to abortion and the rights of the unborn.

We have heard from the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan) on this question. We have heard from the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney). Four years ago the Premier was troubled by this question and indicated that he had some concern about the numbers of abortions. Three years ago he proposed that the Ontario health insurance plan pay for a woman who had to travel more than 300 kilometres for an abortion.

What is the Premier’s position today on this question, since he failed to respond to my question with respect to the same issue yesterday? Where does he stand on the issue?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I stand exactly with the Minister of Health and the Attorney General (Mr. Scott). who articulated the position of the government yesterday.

Mr. Brandt: Let me suggest to the Premier exactly what some of his back-benchers have been saying in regard to this issue, since he quoted one of my back-benchers relative to the issue of Sunday shopping. I think it is interesting, if I may quote the member for Etobicoke-Humber (Mr. Henderson), quoted in the Globe and Mail as saying: “Legislators cannot fully jettison the responsibility to guard whatever rights we assign to unborn children. The right to live and die should be included in that list of rights.”

One notices that there is no mention of federal or provincial legislators. It is a shared responsibility, as I suggested to the Premier yesterday. That is the position of our party. Could the Premier please tell me whether he agrees that it is in fact a shared responsibility?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I want to answer this seriously. The answer is I do not. I think the Attorney General answered that question very clearly yesterday. I do not want to be provocative because it is a serious issue. The member recognized that in his own letter to the Prime Minister. I understand that and I think he would understand that and I cannot understand his change of position.

Let me just say this. I read the article of the honourable member and if the member talked to all the members of this House there would be different shades and complexions of opinion on this matter. This is one of the most profound moral questions of our day, not just today, but it has been for many years and will be, I believe, for many years into the future as well.

The Supreme Court of Canada has pronounced on the legality of a particular federal statute. That is under the Criminal Code and that is what we have to deal with today in as sensitive and thoughtful a way as we possibly can.

I recognize, and the member recognizes inside his own party, the different opinions on this and I say to you, Mr. Speaker, and through you to the honourable member, I respect the individual positions of individual members of this House who reflect, I think, the broad community, but I believe that the minister and the Attorney General are dealing with this in a sensitive and thoughtful way within the confines of the federal law.

The member admitted yesterday in his letter to the Prime Minister that the legislation with respect to the so-called rights of the foetus versus the rights of the mother are exclusively the prerogative of the federal Parliament. That is a matter the federal Minister of Justice will be dealing with, possibly on the advice of the attorneys general; I do not know, but I can tell the member that the responses from our ministers, who I believe have conducted this discussion in a most thoughtful and indeed, shall I say, nonpartisan way, will reflect as best they can the views of our community to help come to a successful resolution right across this country.

Mr. Brandt: By way of my final supplementary, for the clarification of the Premier and this House, let me point out to the Premier that in the context of the letter I wrote to the Prime Minister I made it abundantly clear that the responsibility of the federal government related to the Criminal Code and did not relate whatsoever to the question of health procedures in this province, which are the purview and the responsibility and the mandate of the Minister of Health. I made that very clear in the letter I wrote to the Minister of Health, from which the Premier is not quoting. He is quoting specifically out of one letter relating only to the Criminal Code.

I ask the Premier again, in light of the fact that many of his back-benchers, including the member for Chatham-Kent (Mr. Bossy), whose speech at his own annual meeting of a week ago I could quote to the Premier, indicated that this is a shared responsibility and that this matter should be shared by the members of this Legislature in terms of determining the rights of the unborn in this province and that it is not exclusively and singularly the right of the federal government, will the Premier and his government put forth a nonpartisan position so that we can, in fact, take a position with respect to the protection of the unborn in this province? Will he do that?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I think the honourable member is not characterizing this debate quite properly. There are some things that are under the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal government, as the member said in his own letter. I will read it for him: “The federal government is the only body that can enact legislation that would encode protection for the unborn child in the Criminal Code.”

So we are dealing under the context of the Criminal Code; that one provision of the code was struck down, and now the federal government, on the advice of some of the Supreme Court justices, will be dealing with that very sensitive question, to which, I say to the member frankly, I do not know the answer, and I do not know whether my honourable friend does, about where the rights of the mother collide with the rights of the foetus and at what age period or how many weeks into the pregnancy. Those are questions the federal Minister of Justice will be dealing with.

There are other matters that are under our jurisdiction, there is no question about it: the question of access, the question of payment, the question of where procedures are performed. The minister has said to the member that she is consulting widely with the Ontario Hospital Association, members of the profession and the College of Physicians of Surgeons of Ontario on these questions, but our responsibility is to make sure that every single person in this province has access in a humane and sensitive way to legal medical care, and that is where this government sits on the matter.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr. Swart: I want to preface my question to the Premier by reminding him of a couple of other promises he made before the last election. Three days before that election, he said in Cambridge, “We have a very specific plan to lower insurance rates.” He said to students at Brock University in St. Catharines a few months earlier, “I am all in favour of government-run auto insurance if it can be proved that the system would be cheaper and not subsidized by government.”

1430

Given that the evidence at the all-party hearings on insurance demonstrated conclusively that there will be further substantial rate increases in auto insurance this year in addition to the 4.5 per cent that the government already awarded the insurance companies and in spite of the rate review board --

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Swart: -- and I proved that public plans in the west are far more efficient, with no subsidization, cheaper rates and a better product --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Swart: Will the Premier now, even at this late date, abandon his silly plan for a rate review board and instead proceed to implement a public plan as he promised at St. Catharines?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: No.

Mr. Swart: I guess there are none so blind as those who will not see, even though they have made promises. Now we have increased rates when the Premier promised lower rates. Now he is reneging on a public auto plan when he promised one, on conditions that have now been substantiated.

Is it not true that all Bill 2 and the Premier’s program do is pay his election debt to the insurance companies for their election support? Quite simply, he and his government have been --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am not sure where my honourable friend was during the campaign, but I think this matter was fully litigated --

Mr. Swart: You deliberately misled this House, and you know it.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the member for Welland-Thorold withdraw those words?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Will the member for Welland-Thorold withdraw --

Mr. Swart: They’ve got their hands so deep in the insurance companies’ pockets, their knuckles are dragging on the ground.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the member for Welland-Thorold withdraw? I have no alternative but to ask Mr. Swart to remove himself from the chamber for the balance of the day.

Mr. Swart left the chamber.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. There are other members who would like to ask questions.

POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS

Mrs. Marland: My question is to the Minister of the Environment. David Edwards, who is the leading authority in his ministry on polychlorinated biphenyls, has said that PCBs have the same toxicity as Aspirin. Can the minister tell this House if that is now the ministry policy, and is he now taking PCBs for his headaches?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I have not seen any particular comments of that kind and I think it would be unwise for me to comment on something that I have not seen. I know that a previous Minister of the Environment once said that the only life that would be affected by it would be if a rat ate the pavement or something. I certainly disagreed with that at that time and still do.

Mr. B. Rae: Why is there asphalt on your lips?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I do not know what to say after the Leader of the Opposition intervened, but I will try to answer it.

Mr. Speaker: Would you try? All right. Thank you.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I think one would recognize that some considerable research has gone on that would indicate there are legitimate concerns which have been expressed about PCBs. There have been a number of scientific studies which have indicated that, at least in laboratory tests that have taken place, they have been detrimental to the health of certain animal life.

Certainly, the member would know the manner in which we have dealt with PCBs, the very careful manner in which we have always attempted to have them stored appropriately until such time as there is a destruction mechanism. On that basis, I think the member would know my long-standing view that PCBs are substances with which we should be concerned. It is my intention to continue to take all appropriate action to ensure the public is protected from them.

Mrs. Marland: This minister himself has referred previously to the toxicity of PCBs and called them a toxic menace. I am also pleased to hear him say that he has always seen to it that PCBs were stored in a proper location because my supplementary is to ask him about that location which is now provided as a storage site for PCBs in the flood plain of the Don River. I might add that if that flood plain does flood in the spring, it will wash right out into Lake Ontario from which we have thousands of people obtaining their drinking water.

The question is, when the minister allowed the approval for this site, was there any public input? Were they invited to comment? Were alternatives considered? Was there an environmental assessment? Why did he do it?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: If the member were sensible about this, she would know there are PCBs right across Ontario. She knows darned well that Ontario Hydro for years utilized PCBs in this province for the purposes of a coolant and that all over Ontario there is secure storage of PCBs. That is a regulation we have in effect. It is a regulation that has been emulated by some other provinces. It is a regulation which in fact has drawn a lot of favourable comment from those who are following Ontario’s lead in this regard.

I am always happy to look into any specific instance that members of the House bring to my attention, but to pretend that this would be the only quantity of PCBs there is in the province is interesting. I will tell the member where the worst example of the storage of PCBs is in this province. It is going to cost the taxpayers of this province a heck of a lot of money, because her government left the largest quantity of PCBs in Canada sitting in Smithville and it is going to cost the people of this province millions of dollars to clean it up.

Mr. Harris: You are going to move it to the Don Valley. What a hero.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: You check Smithville.

Mr. Harris: We will move them from there to the Don Valley.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: You check Smithville.

Mr. Harris: Your answer is the Don Valley.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. There are other members waiting to ask questions.

LANDFILL SITE

Mr. Owen: I too have a question for the Minister of the Environment. In my riding, in the township of West Gwillimbury, is located a landfill site which has had a fairly lengthy career and certainly a very controversial one. Last summer, I had the opportunity to walk this site, and while it has a magnificent view towards the Nottawasaga River and Georgian Bay, the immediate view is a vision of what should not be done in the management of a landfill site. It used to be owned privately and has now been taken over by the township.

My question to the minister is, what is the ministry doing to determine the extent of problems developing from the bad management at the site? Who is going to be looking after the cost of whatever the study or the appraisal is going to result in? In other words, is the township going to be stuck with it or is the --

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

1440

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The site, as the member has correctly pointed out, was previously owned and operated by York Sanitation and was later purchased by Waste Management Inc. and its Canadian landfill division. Subsequent to that, in 1966, the township of West Gwillimbury purchased the landfill site from Waste Management Inc., and the township now has assumed the responsibility for maintaining the integrity of the site as the new owner of that site.

The Ministry of the Environment, as the member has asked, has required that West Gwillimbury township have consultants who will prepare a report outlining the impact of the existing facility and the potential impact of the proposed new area. That is a method which we follow on a regular basis. This was required because of the encroachment of the landfill on to the adjacent lands that the member has made reference to.

The failure to maintain the required 50-foot buffer to the east and poor operation have been matters of great concern to us. A number of requests from the township to resolve this matter --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Supplementary.

Mr. Owen: I would like to ask, first of all, does the minister have any idea when the study might be completed and available to us and to the community to determine how bad the situation is? Is there any determination as to who is going to look after part or all of the costs that are probably going to be facing us?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The member makes reference to the operation of the landfill site, and I can tell him that the certificate of approval certainly did include the establishment of a comprehensive ground-water and surface-water monitoring program, which I think people in the area were looking for; a program of remedial action to protect all site boundaries from the unacceptable offsite impact; a new entrance; scales and operating plans; an inspector on the site. I think that is exceedingly important.

The ministry presented a draft certificate of approval for the review of the concerned residents so that they would have input. The new provisional certificate of approval was issued on October 19, 1987. Of course, if there is not compliance with that certificate of approval -- and we hope that it will be implemented as soon as possible -- the ultimate, when there is not compliance with that of course, is that the investigations and enforcement branch of the Ministry of the Environment has, under Bill 112, the prerogative of conducting an investigation and ensuring --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

INJURED WORKERS’ MEDICAL REPORTS

Miss Martel: I have a question for the Minister of Labour concerning the office of the worker adviser, which is under his ministry. The minister will be aware that the office of the worker adviser was established mainly in response to the overwhelming number of Workers’ Compensation Board appeals that MPPs were handling. Even with this office in place, there are many of us who are still handling a tremendous number of appeals on behalf of injured workers.

The minister will also know that in order to fight the appeals we require up-to-date medical reports from general practitioners or from orthopaedic surgeons, and unfortunately, in Ontario the practice of extra billing for these has not ended. Annually -- and members of the House should be aware of this -- the ministry provides a sum to the office of the worker adviser to pay for these medical reports. Last year that sum was approximately $50,000. I am wondering when I and other members of this House can expect money from the ministry to pay for these medical reports as well.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: It is an interesting suggestion. The question really does go, certainly, beyond simply the expenses that MPPs or constituents of MPPs might be incurring to the whole functioning of the office of the worker adviser.

My friend the member for Sudbury East is right, of course. It is two years ago now since the office of the worker adviser was set up, and it is very busy indeed right across the province. Notwithstanding that, many of us in this House, many of the 130 members who are here today, have a fairly substantial case load of workers’ compensation claimants who come to their MPPs for advice and oftentimes assistance in conjunction with appeals.

What the member is suggesting in her question is that some source of funding be provided through the ministry to pay for medical reports. It is a suggestion, frankly, that I have not heard before, but it is certainly one I will consider. I will have to do an assessment of the extent to which members are incurring those expenses.

Miss Martel: We could easily end the problem if the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan) would stop the extra billing, but I do not expect that to happen.

Given that a number of regional offices now have a backlog of anywhere from three to six months, which is the situation in Sudbury, given that the injured worker who has had his benefits terminated cannot afford to pay $100 for an orthopaedic surgeon and given that MPPs’ offices do not have a budget for this, I am wondering if the minister can give us some kind of time or date when this assessment can take place so we can continue with the business of trying to service injured workers in our own ridings.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I hope my friend the member for Sudbury East can get her facts straight. This is certainly not an issue of extra billing. Medical bills that arise in conjunction with a claim against the Workers’ Compensation Board are separate and apart from the Ontario health insurance plan billing system. It simply does not have anything to do with the Minister of Health or anything that would touch on the whole process of billing through OHIP.

The member suggests that there should be a system of providing ongoing funding for claimants to pay for those costs. It is not an issue that has been brought to my attention before, and I cannot tell the member the extent of the problem across the province. Certainly, there is some backlog in some offices of worker advisers, and we are going to be looking into that backlog to ensure that claimants who come to the office of the worker adviser are handled in a speedy and expeditious fashion.

TRADE DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Sterling: I have a question of the Premier. I would like to welcome him back from Europe, although we are not exactly certain what he achieved there in terms of multilateral trade.

If the Premier is so concerned about encouraging multilateral trade in Europe, why has he not appointed a new provincial agent in France, a position which he knew was going to become vacant as far back as 1986? And does he not now regret the closing of the Brussels office?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: We have an acting agent who is doing an excellent job. Everybody who has been through Paris tells me that. In fact, the member was over there visiting Europe last year on behalf of the government, and I am sure he would agree with the very same thing because he travelled about there.

Interjections.

Mr. Sterling: I am not an agent general.

Interjections.

Mr. Sterling: Yes, that is right. I am not even a general.

In November 1986, we raised with the then Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology the fact that he did not have a new assistant deputy minister for industry and trade development or expansion. The then minister, the member for Quinte (Mr. O’Neil), told us in November 1986, in his words, “In fact, the advertisement is in the newspaper this morning.” That was 15 months ago.

Last week, more than a year later, we were advised that they were advertising this position as it was still vacant. If trade development is such a high priority with this government, can the Premier tell us why, after more than a year, this very key position has not been filled?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: We have a very active trade policy group that is working around the world. As a matter of fact, trade is virtually at record levels.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: My honourable friend appears to be applying for the job as agent general. He would not be the first in his party, but we can very happily interview him, along with the many others. I am sure his merits will be quite outstanding to all the people who interview.

In fact, we are pushing very hard on the trade fronts in the Pacific Rim, as the member will know. His honourable leader joined us in the Pacific Rim a year or so ago, and as I recall he enjoyed the trip very much. Every time I saw him he appeared to be enjoying the trip, I must say. That is the kind of initiative we need. I appreciate the help of the honourable interim leader of the Progressive Conservative Party in that trade mission to the Pacific Rim.

We are running trade missions now in Europe, and the honourable minister is in India -- on this day, I believe -- establishing new links between Ontario and the emerging world. I believe that this province has the capacity to be one of the great multilateral traders and build on the great strengths we have, not only for the benefit of the people of this province but right across the free world for the benefit of those people with whom we trade.

My honourable friend is quite right to bring up these matters, and I appreciate his support.

1450

ROUGE VALLEY

Mr. Faubert: My question is to the Minister of Government Services. Many residents of Scarborough and most community groups, including many in my riding of Scarborough-Ellesmere, have expressed concern that development of the tablelands outside but adjacent to the Rouge Valley system could harm the ecological systems of the valley and damage historic sites and wooded areas. Their position is that this would prevent future generations from enjoying this unique area. Some recently raised the further concern that the decision has already been made in principle that these tablelands will be developed for housing.

Can the minister advise this Legislature whether such a decision has been made?

Hon. Mr. Patten: I would like to thank the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere and inform him that the cabinet has not made such a decision.

He should be aware that the Scarborough council has agreed to or is in the process of submitting a proposal for some rezoning that would keep this land open or for recreational purposes. That process involves a proposal to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. When that proposal comes forward, everyone will have a chance to respond accordingly.

Mr. Faubert: I would like to thank the minister for clarifying that. I am aware there are many competing interests and concerns the minister is confronting in making a decision on this matter. However, can the minister assure this Legislature that he will consider the ecological effects on the Rouge Valley that any development of the tablelands may bring about?

Hon. Mr. Patten: I can assure the member that all parties that have an interest in this particular piece of land will be heard and all interests will be considered. I think we have demonstrated our interest and concern for the environment and that we are committed to the planning process which will assure full consultation.

EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES PROGRAM

Mr. Allen: I have a question of the Minister of Community and Social Services. According to that ministry’s own estimates, over 100,000 able-bodied on welfare are missing out on employment opportunities to get off welfare because the employment opportunities programs of the government are of insufficient scale to include them. On the other hand, some 15,000 who do manage to get on them are not able to stay at work but go back to welfare because they cannot survive in the low-wage, dead-end jobs the minister’s program leads to.

What is the minister going to do to provide adequate employability programs that will get the able-bodied, those in need of training, etc., off welfare rolls and into decent and well-paying jobs?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: Our ministry, in co-operation with the Ministry of Skills Development, is involved in a number of training programs. The honourable member will be aware that we are currently co-operating with the federal government in a two-year employability program specifically for those people who are currently on either welfare or family benefits. That is a joint $100-million program -- $50 million from the province and $50 million from the federal government.

This provides job-developer opportunities at the local municipal level. It even provides opportunities for recipients to start businesses of their own. It reinforces some of the programs this ministry already has in place; for example, the social service employment program whereby single mothers can, for up to one year, work in one of the various social service programs in their community and be supported with respect to employment. The member is aware we have the work incentive program, which enables people to get out into productive employment and be supported financially. The member is aware we have programs for the children of recipients of social service, both for after school and for the summertime.

Those are the ones available in our ministry. The Ministry of Skills Development is responsible to a larger extent for the broader community. I want to reinforce, however, that the employability program between the two levels of government is a clearly targeted program whereby we are redirecting resources that would normally go --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Supplementary.

Mr. Allen: The minister knows that even with the best success of all those programs, he is probably still not going to reach more than 25,000 of the people I alluded to. Let me refer specifically to the community economic development program, which is part of that employability package. Four lines or so were devoted to that in an announcement on July 31. The next significant thing that happened was on December 10, when 23 people from across the province, a preselected group, were given the complex guidelines that were necessary and given a panic button deadline of January 22 in order to respond with programs that could amount to $1 million in scale.

Obviously, either the minister has preselected the group that will respond to that program or else that program is going to go undersubscribed. Is that the effective and imaginative way he plans to go about getting people off welfare in these new programs and into substantial and well-paying jobs?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The honourable member did put his finger on part of the difficulty. The program I am describing and that he has referred to is a two-year, time-limited program between the two levels of government. The purpose of it was for us to explore jointly a number of possible ways of assisting people who are on social assistance. It is a short time period and we have put out a number of proposals working directly with the municipalities, sometimes working through the federal government’s employment offices and sometimes working through our offices.

Because of the time limit component to it, we did ask a consultant to try to pinpoint for us those communities and those kinds of potential operations that would be more likely to succeed in the very short run, or that would at least have a reasonable chance of success in the short run. So if we can jointly with our funding partners at the federal level decide to go forward to a longer-term run, we would have some successes that we could show them.

The member refers to the fact that we asked people to come up with a proposal within a month. We had a couple of communities -- his own, for example, in Hamilton -- that said they needed a little more time. They were given a little more time, and those proposals are now coming forward.

I have no way of knowing for sure whether the time line that we have suggested in terms of demonstrating their ability will be sufficient. It is a program whereby we are going to try a number of initiatives.

SUBSTITUTE FOR ROAD SALT

Mr. Villeneuve: I have a question for the Minister of Transportation. The minister will be aware of a couple of mistakes he made yesterday when answering questions at the Rural Ontario Municipal Association convention, when he said he did not know that corn could be used to provide an environmentally safe substitute for road salt. In fact, his ministry has been testing CMA, calcium magnesium acetate, for years and has published reports that if corn were to be used to produce the acetate in CMA, then the cost could decline substantially.

Is the government of Ontario willing to commit itself to get rid of road salt in favour of CMA, which is environmentally safe?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: It has been a very informative afternoon. Earlier we learned who or what was eating our asphalt roads, and now I have learned that corn is the ingredient in calcium magnesium acetate. Perhaps had the member availed himself of the ROMA convention yesterday, he would have heard the question asked of me from a member from eastern Ontario.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: It was a good answer, too.

Hon. Mr. Fulton: I gave an excellent answer. Thank you.

The fact is that I did refer to calcium magnesium acetate, but I really was not deeply involved in the chemistry that brought that product on the market. I apologize that I was unaware that corn was the aggregate in that product.

1f the member had been aware of questions last year, we dealt with this very issue in looking at that product as a substitute for salt. The fact of the matter is that whereas salt is in the price range of $30 to $35 per ton, CMA at the moment is in the range of $1,045 per ton. The magnitude is in the hundreds of millions of dollars to this province. At this time, while we will continue, as we have, exploring other options and alternatives to the use of salt on our roads and highways, we certainly are not in a financial position to eliminate the salt and go with the new product, which in any event is not in the supplies required for Ontario’s needs.

1500

Mr. Villeneuve: The minister is right when he says calcium magnesium acetate has probably been too expensive in the past. But I am sure that he will know now that if CMA is produced from corn, it can be done for 12 cents a pound, a cost which would save taxpayers money due to considerably less corrosion and structural problems being caused by calcium.

If industry had a clear commitment that CMA would replace salt, more economic manufacturing would be possible. Will the minister now pronounce himself in favour of an environmentally safe product and give a signal to the industry that CMA will he used in the not-too-distant future?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: Certainly, we will continue to pursue a less environmentally sensitive product than salt. One of the problems is, as I stated in my first answer, that the availability of the product is inadequate for our needs and the lowest base price that I am aware of is more in the range of $500 a ton. If indeed our needs could be met, it is still in the order of 15 times the cost of salt; but certainly the member has my undertaking and my ministry’s undertaking, as the member to his right can attest.

We have been exploring and experimenting with many products for a continued period of time. Obviously, it is in our best financial interest as a ministry, and certainly in this government’s interest, to reduce the outlay for those purposes. It is certainly in the interests of the motorists, the municipalities and everyone else with whom we are financially involved across this province. Certainly, the member has my commitment that we will continue to pursue an alternative.

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD

Mr. Hampton: My question is for the Minister of Labour. The minister should know that there is an incredible backlog of hundreds of cases at the Workers’ Compensation Board office in Thunder Bay. One of those cases, but I would suggest not an unusual case, is the case of a Gordon Gallinger of Atikokan, who has been fighting with the board’s bureaucracy since 1975. In that time, he has seen three medical specialists who all confirm his disability.

Over a year ago -- a year and a half ago in October -- he was told by the board’s bureaucracy that he would be assessed for a disability pension within one year. As of last Friday, we telephoned the board to see when the assessment was going to be, and it said maybe in nine or 10 months. Does the minister think it is fair that an injured worker should survive on a poverty-level income for two years while the board’s bureaucracy decides if it can assess him? Does he think it is fair, and what is the minister going to do --

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think the question has been asked.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: Obviously, with the time expired in question period, I do not want to get involved in a lengthy answer and I could not provide details to my friend on the specific case. My friend should know that there are well over 400,000 cases that are dealt with by the board every single year. He will also know that in the current regime we have a system whereby pension assessments and supplements are under very substantial review.

I hope in the spring session we will be bringing in reforms so that those sorts of reviews can happen more expeditiously, a better system for people who suffer permanent but partial disabilities. If my friend likes, I will make inquiries about the specific case and then, if he likes, I can get back to him privately.

PETITIONS

INCOME TAX ASSISTANCE

Mr. Pouliot: I have a petition signed by well over 600 people in the riding of Lake Nipigon:

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

“We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario to impress upon the federal government the immediate need to address the inequities and shortcomings in the qualification process for income tax assistance for residents of remote northern communities.”

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Possibly, we should just wait until there is a little less commotion.

RECREATION TRAIL

Mr. Pollock: I have a petition to the Lieutenant Governor and the members of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

“That we are in favour of the former Canadian National Railway line known as the Marmora subdivision being developed as a recreation trail.”

It is signed by 303 in favour and one opposed.

NATUROPATHY

Mrs. Stoner: I have six petitions with a total of 65 signatures dealing with the subject of naturopathy.

The petitions “call on the government to introduce legislation that would guarantee naturopaths the right to practise their art and science to the fullest without prejudice or harassment.”

Mr. McGuigan: I have a petition:

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

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

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

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

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

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order once more. Thank you.

Mr. Revile: My petition is in the same style as that of the member for Essex-Kent. It is signed by 50 residents of Metro Toronto and is forwarded through the chiropractic and naturopathic clinic at 320 Danforth Avenue. It has the same request to the Legislature.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mrs. Marland: I have a petition to the Premier (Mr. Peterson), which says:

“The undersigned objects to your decision to pass the responsibility for seven-day retailing on to the municipalities and also objects to the inevitable increased costs and the elimination of the opportunity for a common pause day for families.”

This petition is presented through the collection facility of Lansing Buildall at several of its branches. There are in excess of 900 in this particular group.

Mr. Speaker: I listened carefully. Was that addressed to the Lieutenant Governor in Council?

Mrs. Marland: Actually, it is addressed to the Premier.

Mr. Speaker: Oh, well.

Mrs. Marland: Is it possible to ask the Premier to forward it?

Mr. Speaker: You may send it to the Premier.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

MACHIN MINES LIMITED

Mr. Kanter moved first reading of Bill Pr34, An Act to revive Machin Mines Limited.

Motion agreed to.

PROW YELLOWKNIFE GOLD MINES LTD. ACT

Mr. Kanter moved first reading of Bill Pr38, An Act to revive Prow Yellowknife Gold Mines Ltd.

Motion agreed to.

1510

ORDERS OF THE DAY

House in committee of the whole.

MEMBERS’ CONFLICT OF INTEREST ACT / LOI SUR LES CONFLITS D’INTÉRÊTS DES MEMBRES DE L’ASSEMBLÉE

Consideration of Bill 1, An Act respecting Conflicts of Interest of Members of the Assembly and the Executive Council.

Etude du projet de loi 1, Loi concernant les conflits d’intérêts des membres de l’Assemblée et du Conseil des ministres.

Mr. Chairman: Are there any questions, comments or amendments, and if so, to which sections of the bill? I ask the members at this point, since I would like to address a complete list of any of the sections they may want to amend at this moment, please. I think it will make it easier for the chair to be able to proceed with the revision of the bill.

Mr. Eves: I have one amendment, and one amendment only, that we are proposing to section 20 of the bill.

Mr. Chairman: Section 20, thank you. Any other members?

Mr. Sterling: I would have proposed many amendments to this bill. However, during the committee hearing our caucus presented over 20 to 25 different amendments to different sections, and in a bill like the Members’ Conflict of Interest Act, where we had understood the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) was going to listen to amendments with some reason or objectivity, we had expected that there would have been some acceptance of at least a few of the amendments. We were rejected in every case, on every amendment.

Therefore, our caucus has decided to introduce only one amendment at this time because we feel the Attorney General is not receptive to change, not receptive to reason, not receptive to objectivity, even though this is the kind of legislation which should be forged and made by all parties in this Legislature.

Therefore, it is with some regret that I do not present those amendments again for inclusion at this time.

There were some good amendments put forward, not only by our party but also by the New Democratic Party, and very few were accepted. There were various minor ones accepted, but there were none of substance accepted by this government. Their attempt at appearing to listen to reasoned argument, even to listen to the unofficial commissioner of complaints, the Honourable John Black Aird -- even his reasoned amendments or suggested amendments fell on the deaf ears of the Attorney General.

Therefore, we are facing this particular part of the procedure and trying to save the time of the House only so that we will not bore members with good reason which will not be accepted by an arrogant majority government.

Mr. Offer: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: With respect to the particular amendment which has been indicated, I am wondering if that is an amendment to section 20 or if it is more properly section 21.

Mr. Eves: Quite right, Mr. Chairman. I have just been given a copy from the table, and I see that, as the bill has been reprinted, it is now section 21. So the amendment will be with respect to section 21.

Mr. Chairman: Do other members wish to list at this moment other sections to which they would like to present an amendment or on which they would like discussion? I understand, therefore, that the only amendment concerned is on section 21. Is that correct? Fair enough. In that case, shall sections 1 to 20 carry?

All those in favour will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Sections 1 to 20, inclusive, agreed to.

Les articles 1 à 20, inclusivement, sont adoptés.

Section/article 21:

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Eves moves that section 21 of the bill be amended by striking out “Members’ Conflict of Interest Act, 1988” in the first and second lines and inserting, in lieu thereof, “Members’ Disclosure Act, 1988.”

M. Eves propose que l’article 21 du projet de loi soit modifié par substitution, à «Loi de 1988 sur les conflits d’intérêts des membres de l’Assemblée», aux première et deuxième lignes, de «Loi de 1988 sur la divulgation exigée des membres de l’Assemblée».

Mr. Eves: As my colleague has already indicated, we are moving only one amendment in committee of the whole. I do not believe in taking up the entire Legislature’s time with the many amendments our party and the official opposition moved in committee, which were defeated, as my colleague has said, by the majority members on that committee, the government members in many instances.

It was pointed out by government members throughout the debate on this bill in committee that, for the first time, we had disclosure legislation. In fact, the Attorney General on numerous occasions in committee, when he was talking about the bill, did not refer to it as “conflict-of-interest” legislation. He referred to it as “disclosure” legislation and “this disclosure act.” For the first time we will have provisions with respect to “disclosure” in the province of Ontario.

All that is quite right. The Attorney General is quite right in that regard. In fact, he is so right that we have moved this amendment with respect to section 21 because, in effect, that is all this bill really does. It definitely does require disclosure by members, and members of the executive council, of potential conflicts and what their interests are so that all other members of the public, and members of the Legislature, can see where potential or perhaps actual conflicts do exist.

But there is nothing in this act, as we have indicated on several occasions in committee, in the Legislature and here again this afternoon in the House, prohibiting members of the executive council from entering into very direct agreements, arrangements and contracts with the province of Ontario. If we read and interpret the act correctly -- and if we do not, I wish some other members of the House would enlighten us -- there is nothing that requires a cabinet minister to divest his or her interest where a conflict exists.

They merely have to state that they have a conflict. They obviously cannot participate in any vote or discussion with respect to that particular matter, but once they have done that it is fine to fill their pockets with the taxpayers’ money as long as they have disclosed their conflict. We, in our party, believe -- and I believe the official opposition does as well -- that surely there has to be a much higher standard among members of the executive council than that.

In this province in the past, it is interesting to note, even when there was no conflict-of-interest legislation but merely guidelines -- for example, in the Bill Davis government years -- this type of activity could not have taken place. There are several cabinet ministers sitting over there today who, with all due respect to them, would not be able to be cabinet ministers in a Bill Davis government because of the fact there is no divestment required here. Under this potential legislation, Bill 1, cabinet ministers can have contracts directly with the province. As long as they disclose that conflict, it is fair ball.

1520

For example, you can be a cabinet minister, have a forest management agreement and make $20 million of the taxpayers’ money. As long as you disclose that interest, that is fine. You can own an office building in a numbered company and lease it to Ontario. As long as you disclose it and do not take part in those discussions as they come up in cabinet or wherever and do not vote on the same, that is fine too.

I do not really think that is what the average member of the public out there looks at or thinks of when he is thinking about conflict-of-interest legislation. I am sure most members of the public would be shocked. If we look at some of the goings-on at the federal level in recent months, and indeed at the provincial level as well --

Mr. Callahan: Is something happening up here?

Mr. Eves: The whole point of this act, the reason we have this act in the first place is because there were a couple of cabinet ministers in this government who found themselves in difficulty, so now we are going to write a conflict-of-interest act. That was the whole point of this act in the first place.

Originally, it started out to cover members of the executive council. Then the government decided maybe we should expand this to members of the Legislative Assembly as a whole. We in our party do not find anything wrong with that concept. In fact, we think that is great, but surely there has to be a higher standard or degree demanded of members of the executive council who are making the day-to-day policy and operational decisions of a government. Surely there has to be a higher standard of conduct expected of those members of the executive council than of ordinary members, because they have access to very confidential information which ordinary members of the Legislative Assembly do not have. They also make decisions and have powers which members of the Legislative Assembly, as ordinary members, do not have.

Along with that responsibility, along with that power and that access to confidential information, surely goes the responsibility of delivering it properly and prudently. The perception is as important as anything, that Ontario is entitled to government without conflict of interest and without cabinet ministers lining their pockets at the expense of the Ontario taxpayer.

Surely, if you are going to be a member of the executive council, as you had to do during the Bill Davis years, if you are going to accept that appointment you know ahead of time that you are going to have to divest yourself of any holdings you may have which bring you into conflict with the government and which end up, as a net result, with taxpayers’ money in your pocket or that of your family or your associates. I think that is crucial. That cuts right to the quick of this whole issue.

This act is really nothing more than a disclosure act. It really does not do much about conflict of interest per se. That is why we in our party are moving that the short title of this act be changed from the Members’ Conflict of Interest Act to the Members’ Disclosure Act. We quite agree with the Attorney General; we think it is a disclosure act, as he referred to it many times in committee. We think that is basically about all it does.

It does not go far enough. We would have liked to see many amendments made which we moved during committee and some amendments the official opposition made, as well. We think they would have greatly strengthened this act.

There are other jurisdictions in Canada which have tougher conflict-of-interest legislation right now. Surely, if we in Ontario are moving now to enshrine in legislation conflict-of-interest guidelines, we should be making them as strong as possible, not making them stronger for ordinary members but weakening them for members of the executive council.

There are other deficiencies in this act. Those comments I will reserve and others of my colleagues will reserve until third-reading debate, which I understand will, by agreement, take place this afternoon as well. I will not take up more of the committee’s time other than to point out the fact that we feel very strongly that this indeed is a members’ disclosure act as opposed to a true piece of conflict-of-interest legislation.

Mr. Breaugh: I want to speak briefly to the amendment that has been proposed because it is a matter that we did discuss at some length during the course of the committee hearings.

The government makes an argument that the cornerstone of what it is trying to do with this legislation is disclosure. I would agree, and my caucus agrees, that is one of the important parts of a conflict-of-interest bill.

I am afraid I would like to accept the amendment, but I cannot. The conclusion I came to during the course of the committee hearings is that, if anything, this bill is not a disclosure bill. This bill purports to put on the public record, so that the public can see and understand, where the possible conflicts might arise in a cabinet minister’s stock investments and the business interests that he might have.

It does not do that. Here is, I think, one of the fatal flaws in the bill. It purports to be a bill which provides the public with information about its elected officials and it does not do that.

Let me just quote one example, because there has not been much attention paid to the disclosure statements that were filed by this cabinet now in office after the last election. There is a reason that no one is writing a whole lot of news stories about those disclosure statements. There is not very much information there. One can get a rough cut at who has some interest in some areas, but try this on for size; pretend for a moment that you are not a member of this Legislature or you may not have a whole lot of investments of your own and you have heard that the cabinet in Ontario files and makes public its private interests and that you, as a private citizen, now have a right to find out what those interests are, and you read the public disclosure statement made by the Premier (Mr. Peterson).

Here it is. He has interests, shares, in a private company, 729252 Ontario Inc., London, Ontario. If you are into investments, if you happen to know who owns this numbered company, you might just have received some information. If you are an ordinary citizen in Ontario or a member like me, this statement tells you absolutely nothing -- not a thing.

It says the Premier has a residence in London, that he has a registered retirement savings plan with a self-directed portfolio, Industrial Growth Fund. He has bank deposits. He has Canada Treasury bills. He has Canada savings bonds. He has participation in the following underwriting syndicates of Lloyd’s of London: Marine syndicates 228, 321, 334, 406, 741, 851, 888; nonmarine syndicates 43, 90, 435, 799; aviation syndicate 312; motor syndicate 533.

This is what is on the public record as being information about the holdings of the Premier of Ontario. I contend that this is not a public information process. This is a public disinformalion process. This does not tell the public in Ontario anything about any of those numbered companies. It does not tell the public of Ontario anything about the size of the investments that might be there.

We had interesting arguments in committee as to whether the amounts were relevant. There was some disagreement, I should tell you, in the committee over that. I argue that there is a difference between someone who has a dollar’s worth of shares in a company and someone who has $100,000 worth of shares in a company. I am not interested that you give me the specific dollar value, which may be difficult to do, but I am interested in some classification system that would indicate that this person is a heavy hitter in the stock market or just dabbles on Friday morning.

I think there is a distinction to be made there, just as I would say there is a distinction between what I own, which is 100 shares in a food co-op in Oshawa that does not exist any more, and somebody who has 100 shares in a large food chain that is currently in operation.

Those are distinctions which I think ordinary people make. They want to know these things, and they want it written in language which is clearly understood by them. This should not be a law that is written so that the lawyers understand and no one else does. It should not be a law written in such a way that an investment broker could understand it, but no one else in our population stood a chance.

1530

It is interesting that in the course of our discussions in committee, one or two little amendments were accepted; one, for example, which said that if it were a private company, you could give a better description. There was general agreement that there could be a better description where it was a publicly held corporation and you knew what its activities were. But I want to put on the record this afternoon that in my view the disclosure provisions of this bill are nonexistent, that this bill provides for disinformation rather than information and that this provides an occasion to cover up your holdings rather than reveal them. I believe that to be a fraudulent act. I believe it is fraudulent to say to the people of Ontario, “We now have public disclosure of our cabinet’s investments,” when in fact you put it out in a form the public cannot possibly understand.

There are some other things I find unsettling. The original idea was that there would be a public statement of assets and liabilities. I think what we were searching for as a consensus in committee was certainly not the American model because, members may know, in many jurisdictions in the United States when they talk public disclosure they do not jack around; they mean all your bank accounts, a full investigation by the federal income tax people and an investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. They mean the Securities and Exchange Commission takes a look at what you have and all this goes on the public record.

The Americans seem to live with that. Sometimes they withhold portions of that. Under certain circumstances only a select group of people gets to see the information. But when they talk disclosure down there, they do not jack around with the process. They put it all out on the table and everybody has access to it. There are a few limitations to it, but very few. Our system is exactly the opposite.

In reading the statements that are made public by this cabinet, I kept finding something really unusual. Under the section named “Liabilities,” a large number of people put down that they have absolutely no liabilities. They do not owe anybody anything. Either we have one of the wealthiest cabinets in the country or there is more misinformation under way here.

Where I come from it is normal that a person in my position would have a house; but it is rather unusual that the house would be completely paid for, so you owe a mortgage on something. There are a few people who pay cash for their cars these days, but not many. For most of us who live in this country, we know assets and liabilities. We have perhaps not much understanding of stock investments. Maybe we do not know a whole lot about growth funds, but we do know that we own some things and here is what they are and this is roughly what they are worth; and we owe money for these other things, and those are our liabilities.

It may well be true that there are members of our cabinet -- the Premier is one example -- who have absolutely no liabilities, absolutely no debts anywhere; but I really find it hard to believe. It may be true, but I do find it difficult to understand that there would be absolutely no moneys owing anywhere, of any amount. If you said there were amounts owing of less than $5,000 and that was your classification system, I would agree that was probably not worth bothering with, except to note it.

If you look at it, it is interesting how this matter of conflict of interest keeps coming back into the political cycle in Canada. It simply will not go away now. In the federal government, although this sounded like a theoretical exercise when we were going through it in committee, the latest scandal in the Mulroney cabinet has to do with liabilities, has to do with loans and mortgages and the circumstances under which they were arranged and the amounts.

I would contend that if there were a minister in the Mulroney government who this morning was found to have forgotten to disclose a liability of a $1,000 mortgage on his house, people in Canada would look at that a whole lot differently than they would on what we now know: that a minister of the crown had liabilities in the order of a quarter of a million dollars and that he lived in a condominium that was financed through one of those loans. The circumstances make the difference and the amount makes the difference.

As we go through our political process on conflict of interest, each time we turn around we see a new problem that goes from the theoretical to reality in a hurry. I was very interested in what the Parker commission had to say on this kind of thing. The one thing that struck me about all the $3 million worth of words that the Parker commission put into effect on the Sinclair Stevens inquiry was simply this: “No matter what you do, it must be done in clear, straightforward language.” That was the essence of the argument. You could not obfuscate this thing; you could not cover it up. In my view, that is precisely what this bill does, and that is why I cannot support this amendment, as much as I would like to.

I wish this bill did cause disclosure in Ontario but, in my view, it does not do that at all. It produces piles of paper. These are the disclosure statements from the current cabinet. What amazes me is that there are whole sheets in here with absolutely nothing on them.

Here is one from a minister of the crown where, included in the member’s statement -- this is a version of a public document that was put out. There is the sheet, the official filing paper of this member’s statement and it says, “Other Matters.” It has the member’s name at the top and there is not one other word on the whole sheet of paper.

Perhaps the purpose of the exercise was to create bulk, in which case it has succeeded. There is a lot of bulk in all this but there is very little fibre in it. There is very little in the way of real information. It strikes me still that the vast majority of what the government repeatedly calls the cornerstone of its legislation, that is disclosure, remains hidden.

In committee we went through the delicate argument, and I believe it is a delicate argument, of distinguishing between any member’s private interests and what should rightfully be made public. I think we agreed that there is no need here in Ontario law to put together a disclosure clause in this type of legislation that has everybody’s bank account as a matter of public record. I do not think that was anybody’s intention. Nobody moved any amendments like that. We spoke against it in committee, because we did not think that was relevant.

Surely, between that extreme, which perhaps would be the American model -- as a matter of fact I know would be the case in some American jurisdictions, where the bank accounts of every single member of the Legislature would be a matter of public record. I believe that is a substantial invasion of privacy, but I do think it is possible to do some kind of classification system and I do think it is possible to provide relevant information.

I go back to what looks to me to be more than coincidence. I know there were good intentions on the part of the commissioner. I believe there were good intentions on the part of the government when it drafted this bill. But the end result was to hide more information than it made public. I believe that is morally wrong.

It would not be so wrong if the government did not go about touting the fact that it had a public disclosure process. The previous government never said anything like that, never said it was going to tell us who owned what or what the assets and liabilities were. They never made that promise. So you could not really fault them when they never made that information available. But this government makes a big deal out of being open, out of providing a disclosure process that is public and provides the public with information.

The tragedy is that it does no such thing. It hides the information. It adds the air of authenticity by striking a commissioner. It chooses one of Canada’s public servants, John Black Aird, to be the interim commissioner. By lending his name to the process he adds a great deal of what people would call respect, authority and legitimacy to the process.

I think it is unfortunate that at the end of this process we have a disclosure process which gives us no information at all, which hides information. It really struck me, in looking through the statements, that if the government was to devise a system whereby members of the cabinet could hide their assets, that is what we would wind up with. If they were trying to start out and devise a process that would keep from the public any pertinent information, that is what we have.

I would like to support the amendment that is being put forward by my colleague this afternoon, but I cannot because this is not a process. This bill does not provide the public with information about anybody’s assets or anybody’s liabilities.

1540

We did listen to the arguments. Some of this stuff I find fascinating, to tell the truth. I think it is fascinating, as the Attorney General, who is not with us this afternoon -- and perhaps that is an indication of the amount of respect he has for this bill in the Legislature. I listened to the Attorney General in committee repeatedly saying, “Well, if it is a publicly traded company, nobody knows its assets.” He kept talking about Inco. Nobody knows the assets of that corporation, and in fact even though you might be a shareholder you cannot go to the annual meeting and find out what its assets are.

I think I could tell members what Inco has. I may not be able to tell them all of it, but I think I could tell them some places in Ontario where they have mines and where they have assets. I think if I were a shareholder in that organization, I would want access to an annual report which told me what they were doing with my money. I think that is a reasonable expectation, and I think most people would want it. It might be right that technically you cannot force them to disclose all the investments they have made all over the world.

The Attorney General did accept the amendment which said a private corporation could have its assets limited, but he led a spirited defence that maybe no one knows what that numbered corporation has as its assets or liabilities. Somebody ought to know. How else will you detect when a conflict of interest occurs if you do not know readily what the investment really is all about?

I found a bad taste in my mouth after we had gone through this process, because I think we made the arguments clearly in committee, both opposition parties did, and I do not think they were given in a spirit of meanness. I think they were given in a spirit of openness to try to point out to the Attorney General, who is a very intelligent man, that there is a problem here. He cannot call this a public disclosure system when it is put in a language that the public does not understand. So I cannot believe for a moment that he did not get the message. I cannot believe for a moment that he did not understand that.

This again is something that I really find sad. He began the process in committee by saying, “The government recognizes that this is not about a conflict-of-interest bill that satisfies only the government side.” He began by talking to me privately and publicly saying, “This ought to be done by consensus.” But every time someone pointed out a part of the bill that should be changed, he said, “But consensus means what I want, not what you want.” That is a different form of consensus than I have ever heard of.

I will make this argument briefly now and perhaps a little more later on. The problem is, the government is incredibly stupid if it really believes that it can pass a conflict-of-interest bill which makes its members all smile but which the opposition parties do not accept. It may think it gets itself off the hook by saying, “We have filed with the commission this much paper;” but there are people who actually read this much paper and there are people who actually ask, “What does all this junk mean?”

The credibility of the government is on the line. It cannot say, “This is about public disclosure,” and then not disclose anything. It cannot say this is about the behaviour of all members of the Legislature when the opposition parties look at this bill and say, “It is wrong;” and the government says: “We do not care what you think. We are not about to take your amendments. We are not about to take into consideration any points which you want to make.”

It may be true. I have heard the old Attorney General, bless his soul, say this on other occasions. This is probably the kind of legislation that should be done in a minority parliament, where whether the government wants to or not it has to listen to some opposition amendments.

Mr. Sterling: Do not bet on it.

Mr. Breaugh: I do not see any difference today than I did three years ago, to tell the truth. I see the same arrogance rolling out of a government with a big majority that I have seen here many times before. It is true that in here, in this House, when the votes are called, the government does not have to listen to us at all. It is true that in here the government can design conflict-of-interest legislation which meets its own political, personal preference and pays no attention to anybody else, but in the long run that is a pretty risky business. I want to point to our federal colleagues to point out what can go wrong with a huge majority, where a government is so insensitive that even on a bill like this it says, “We have no time for what the opposition says.”

Now it is true, I will give them this much: the public out there today probably does not care about this bill, and the people out there today are probably not lining up at the Clerk’s office to get a look at these disclosure statements; but I will tell members, when it goes wrong, they are going to be there. The press are not hounding members this afternoon about conflict-of-interest legislation; but when something goes wrong, they will be. And when it goes wrong, government members are not going to be able to look over here and say: “Well, listen, all the members agreed that this bill was a good idea. All the members agreed that this was workable legislation. All the members agreed that this thing was doing what had to be done.” It does not do that.

When the government members get in trouble -- and I did not say “if,” I said “when” -- they will look over here and they are going to find some very angry people. Then they will go outside to the press gallery and they will again find more angry people. And eventually they will face the population, who will indeed be very angry. You see, they may not remember all the fine points; they may not remember every detail in a law like this. It probably is of no interest to them. But maybe, just maybe, the government should have gone down to Ottawa and talked to Brian Mulroney, because I do not remember a time in Canadian politics when we have ever had this much attention paid to conflict of interest.

I am reminded as I read the Parker commission report on Sinclair Stevens that in the end Sinclair Stevens said: “I didn’t do anything wrong. They have a wrong definition of ‘conflict of interest.’” We, the people of Canada, spent $3 million. At the end of the process, the guy is found guilty on 14 counts, and he walks around saying, “I did not do anything wrong.” Give us a break, folks. There has got to be some sanity in this process somewhere.

You see, there is a government with a huge majority. There is a government that started off very much as this government did: no problems, big majority. It should be able to do things without any difficulty at all. Then, one by one, the wheels kept falling off the cart. Members cannot convince me or anybody I know that that little wagon can be put back together again by the time the next election rolls around. What is more, in the process I believe they have done incredible damage to the whole political structure in Canada.

I saw the Prime Minister of Canada in a press conference in one of those little scrums in the hall -- I think it was probably about Wednesday or Thursday of last week -- the Prime Minister of Canada, with a huge majority, standing in the halls of Parliament saying: “I raised hell with my cabinet. I read the riot act to them.” Fine; I expected him to do exactly that a long time ago. But he is sitting there with one of the hugest majorities in the history of the Canadian Parliament. He has had repeated scandals and he is standing there in the halls of Parliament saying, “I cannot do anything about this.” Well, I do not think that does any of us any good.

It is late in the day, and I am not going to argue on this clause any longer. We have had our say. We tried to warn the government that they are doing things the wrong way; that they can pass it, but they are not going to get themselves out of trouble. This whole process of saying that they have a public disclosure process at work when in reality they have not is morally wrong, and they should be ashamed of themselves for trying to put this one over on the people of Ontario.

Mr. Sterling: I would just like to respond in some way to the concern of the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) over this amendment. In my view, the title of this bill should be “An Act to whitewash Future Cabinet Conflicts Totally and in Every Way.” That is really what this act is all about. It sets up a phoney disclosure system, it sets up a toothless tiger as a commissioner and then it declares in the title that it is a conflict-of-interest act.

Trying to find a title to describe properly what this act really does is a difficult task in itself. That is why my colleague has brought forward this particular amendment, first to point out that it is not a conflict-of-interest act. That is the most important point. Number two, it is a disclosure act, but it is a very, very weak disclosure act, as the member for Oshawa has pointed out.

1550

Number three is that this act is much worse than the status quo. I would much prefer the existing situation because, as you know, Mr. Chairman, even if this Legislature in its eminent wisdom wants to look into a matter after the commissioner has looked into an alleged conflict of interest, we eliminate that possibility within the act. It is the first act I have ever seen in my 11 years as an MPP in this Legislature where we have tried in legislation to limit what we could do here in the Legislature in the future. It is a shameful act in that regard, more than any other way.

We expect the amendment not to carry because we know the government side wants to go out to the public so it will, hopefully, get headlines tomorrow that will say, “Conflict of Interest Act Passed by the Ontario Government,” “All Conflict Problems Resolved in Ontario,” etc. There will not be any conflicts of interest in this province in the future because they set up a system to whitewash everything that is going to happen in this Legislative Assembly in the future. It will not matter whether a minister is doing business with the government. It will not matter what he does in the future. He will not be disqualified from sitting as a member in here in the normal situation.

I mean the joke of this whole act, of the whole act being a conflict-of-interest act: do the members know what it does? It gives the commissioner the right to make recommendations back here. The commissioner comes back with the recommendation that a Liberal member or a Liberal cabinet member should be disqualified from this assembly. Do the members think there is going to be free vote in here as to whether that member should be disqualified, because we are all going to have to sit around here and deal with a recommendation of the commissioner?

Do the members think 94 Liberals are going to vote against a colleague who has been shown and recommended by the commissioner to be disqualified? Do the members think they are going to vote individually on their own conscience? Nothing could be further from the truth. This is an act set up for a majority government to quash any valid claims for conflict of interest. It sets up a toothless commissioner and a poor disclosure system.

The amendment of the member for Parry Sound (Mr. Eves), in my view, is the second-best choice. As I mentioned, my first choice would be not to have this act at all. I would ask the member for Oshawa to consider it as the second-best choice in terms of its not being a conflict of interest, number one, but being a very poor disclosure act, number two.

Mr. Chairman: Do other members wish to participate?

Mr. Offer: I would like to rise and address some comments to the amendment at hand, in particular with respect to my position of not supporting the amendment.

I have heard the members for Oshawa, Parry Sound and Carleton (Mr. Sterling) talk about what the act is and what the act is not. It is interesting that the member for Parry Sound indicates that it is only a disclosure act, the member for Oshawa indicates that it is not a disclosure act and the member for Carleton indicates it is possibly a disclosure act.

I think we have to realize that the aim of this legislation is primarily to set the standards by which the members can measure their conduct and be measured, from which they can gain assurance that compliance will protect their integrity. That is the primary aim of this legislation. In this perspective, the intent of the law is somewhat facilitative; that is, it assists members in the performance of their duties and obligations by virtue of a clear understanding as to what is conflict and what is insider information and influence. It gives the members that information. It allows them to avail themselves of the use of a commissioner to ask that commissioner in private questions concerning how they may be affected by this particular legislation and by the definition of conflict of interest, insider information and influence.

I think this legislation is not only disclosure legislation; it goes much further. It addresses a major problem that members of this assembly may come up with in dealing with the frequent confusion about the distinction between a conflict of interest and a disclosure of interest. It addresses on the public side that a member’s failure to disclose an interest, however minimal or remote and however inadvertent, is perceived as a conflict of interest. On the member’s side, there is a tendency to believe that if one has complied with all of the disclosure requirements, it is not possible to have a conflict of interest. The failure to appreciate the difference between the general prohibition against the conflict of interest and the specific duty of disclosure increases the tension between the public and its elected representatives.

That is what this legislation is designed to eliminate and alleviate. This bill is not only disclosure. This bill has four very important and key elements.

It provides a clear, comprehensive and objective definition of conflict of interest and establishes a concise code of conduct for all members of the assembly.

Second, it requires full financial disclosure of the member’s interest and the interests of spouses and minor children.

Third, and maybe for most of us most important, it establishes a procedure for us as members to receive advice and recommendations from an independent commissioner.

Fourth, it provides for the resolution of allegations against members through investigation and the recommendation to the Legislature of sanctions by the commissioner.

This bill is not only disclosure, it has four very important key components, components which will help us carry out our duties as members, as elected representatives. As such, I stand in opposition to this particular amendment.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Eves has moved that section 21 of the bill be amended by striking out “Members’ Conflict of Interest Act, 1988” in the first and second lines and inserting in lieu thereof “Members’ Disclosure Act, 1988.”

All those in favour will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the nays have it.

Motion negatived.

La motion est rejetée.

Mr. Chairman: Shall section 21 carry?

All those in favour will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Section 21 agreed to.

L’article 21 est adoptée.

Mr. Chairman: Shall the bill be reported to the House without amendment?

All those in favour will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Bill ordered to be reported.

Le projet de loi devra faire l’objet d’un rapport.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Ramsay moves that the committee of the whole House rise and report.

Motion agreed to.

The Acting Speaker (Miss Roberts): The committee of the whole House begs to report one bill without amendment and asks for leave to sit again.

All those in favour will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Report received and adopted.

À la suite d’une motion présentée par M. Ramsay, le comité plénier fait rapport d’un projet de loi sans amendement.

1600

MEMBERS’ CONFLICT OF INTEREST ACT / LOI SUR LES CONFLITS D’INTÉRÊTS DES MEMBRES DE L’ASSEMBLÉE

Mr. Offer moved, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Scott, third reading of Bill 1, An Act respecting Conflicts of Interest of Members of the Assembly and the Executive Council.

M. Offer propose, au nom de l’hon. M. Scott, la troisième lecture du projet de loi 1, Loi concernant les conflits d’intérêts des membres de L’Assemblée et du Conseil des ministres.

Mr. Offer: It is my pleasure to make some preliminary comments with respect to third reading of Bill 1. I just indicated in committee of the whole some of the elements which have gone into the design of this bill and also what this bill is aimed and designed to achieve.

I think it is important to reiterate the four key elements; that is, the provision of a clear, comprehensive and objective definition of conflict of interest and also the establishment of a concise code of conduct for all members of the assembly. This bill requires full financial disclosure of the members’ interests and the interests of their spouses and minor children. It establishes a procedure for members to receive advice and recommendations from an independent commissioner. It provides for the resolution of allegations against members through investigation and the recommendation to the Legislature of sanctions by the commissioner.

I spent some time in the Legislative Assembly committee as it was dealing with this bill and reviewed the discussions which were had by the members of the assembly and the Attorney General (Mr. Scott). It was and is important through discussion and debate to have attempted to achieve a consensus, because this is a piece of legislation which is not just for the government side but also for all members of the Legislature.

The Attorney General entered into full, open and frank debate on many aspects of this legislation, on the concerns with respect to disclosure, on the concerns with respect to how the whole question of conflict of interest ought to be defined and on time periods, time elements. I think those debates and that discussion were good, needed and necessary.

Whether one has or is able to obtain consensus, we will only know at the end of this day, but it was not for lack of debate, not for lack of discussion of very important aspects of the legislation in the opinion of the members for whom this legislation is designed, designed to help them in carrying out their duties, their roles as elected representatives free from aspersions cast against their integrity.

This legislation is designed to and, hopefully, will achieve a breaking down of the perception that many in the public eye now have. I believe this legislation meets the object for which it was designed. It fully comes to grips with the aims which have already been indicated by myself. I ask that this legislation be passed by all members of this Legislature, not only by government members but by all members of this Legislature, as a clear signal to all that we know through this legislation the parameters and the ways in which we as elected representatives ought to govern ourselves and are prepared to enact legislation designed to meet our role as elected representatives.

The Acting Speaker (Miss Roberts): Mr. Breaugh moves that the motion for third reading be amended by striking out all the words after the word “that” and substituting the following therefor:

“Bill 1, An Act respecting Conflicts of Interest of Members of the Assembly and the Executive Council, be not now read a third time but that it be read a third time this day six months hence.”

M. Breaugh propose que la motion soit amendée par substitution, aux mots qui suivent le mot «que», des mots suivants:

«le projet de loi 1, Loi concernant les conflits d’intérêts des membres de l’Assemblée et du Conseil des ministres, ne reçoive pas maintenant la troisième lecture, et qu’il la reçoive d’ici six mois».

Mr. Breaugh: Those who are fans of the parliamentary system will know this is what is known in the trade as a hoist motion. It is usually proposed when someone feels it is time to call a halt to the process, just go back to the drawing board and think about it for a while; that there are not just one or two little things wrong, but the process has gone awry.

I believe the reason we should do this this afternoon is precisely that. We were in this chamber some time ago arguing the bill in principle on second reading. I for one have been for some time an advocate of the idea that we need more than guidelines, that there really ought to be legislation which governs conflict of interest. The component parts, I suppose, by anybody’s definition, would be a reasonable disclosure process; a reasonable definition process of what is a conflict and what is not; a reasonable provision in there so that people’s lives are not totally shut down because they happen to be in the political process; establishing the boundaries as to when someone must divest his interest in a particular business; and going through the process of sorting out all the players, who are the lobbyists, and how one would regulate them.

I think when you do a hoist motion of this kind, you have to give a reasoned argument, so I am going to try to do that. The problem with this bill, as the parliamentary assistant perhaps inadvertently said actually here this afternoon, is that it is essentially a bill which is not designed in the public’s interests at all. As a matter of fact, the public is not mentioned once in this legislation. The public’s right to know, for example, what the private interests held by a member of the cabinet are, is not once asserted, because it is not here. Not once is there a definition in here of precisely what is meant by a conflict of interest. There is a definition section, but it is such a fuzzified section, so broad in scope, that no one can ever be convicted for that crime.

The perspective brought to this bill is the wrong perspective. This bill, if it had a proper title, would be called kind of a defence mechanism for members, and it is written from that point of view. It provides the members with a commissioner. It provides the members with advice. It provides them with protection. It prevents disclosure. It prevents an opportunity where, really, all members of the assembly would be treated equally. It retains the notion that there is one set of rules for the cabinet and another set of rules for everybody else, and that is very difficult to do.

1610

For example, when one starts to think through the everyday, practical process of how the bill will really work, for most of us, as I am doing now, most of what we do is done in public. If there is not always television coverage of the process, as we have here in the assembly, it is done off in committee, where at least there is a full Hansard service available. So on most of the occasions when I could enter into a conflict, I have to do so in the public eye, and it becomes then a relatively straightforward matter for me to declare that conflict and to get it on the public record.

For people in the cabinet, that is not true. The tradition of a parliament has all these kinds of secrecy provisions written into it. The cabinet has privacy when it makes its decisions.

The rumour has it that this cabinet has designed some system whereby a cabinet minister can have noted that he or she had a conflict of interest. We do not quite know the specifics of that yet. We do not quite know how that will be done. We know that the cabinet may provide minutes of a cabinet meeting, that there may be provided to the public, at the discretion of the secretary of cabinet or someone of that nature, a document that says, “This minister declared on this occasion a conflict of interest.”

We may well find an occasion when a member of the cabinet who will be accused of a conflict of interest said, “But I left the room.” This is not exactly a standard defence used in courtrooms across Ontario, that when someone is accused of a crime he gets off the hook by saying, “But I left the room.” But it will be used, I think, repeatedly under this legislation.

There were some interesting aspects of our discussions on this as we went through it. We said initially on our side that there are two or three really basic things that have to be done. We have to use a good public disclosure system. You define all your parameters, but the public has a right to know. This government believes very strongly that the public has no right to know and it has designed a system that will ensure that the public never does know.

We said there has to be provision in this bill for divesting. There must be an occasion when the commissioner, who has knowledge of a conflict of interest, can say to a member or a member of the cabinet, “You must get rid of that investment or that business” or whatever. We admitted quite freely, and I want to put it on the record again today, we do not think this will happen very often. But I do think it is stupid in the extreme to say he cannot say that, because it means the commissioner will be party to the crime. The commissioner will know that someone has a conflict of interest but will not be able to do anything about it.

That is really what this bill is about, because it is not written in terms of what the public has a right to, either a right to know or a right to expect in terms of the performance of cabinet. It is written for the convenience of the cabinet. That is a harsh thing to say, but it is true. The public is not mentioned in this bill because the government did not want the public involved in this. This is all about the cabinet’s private business.

It is interesting that when we were in committee discussing whether or not the commissioner should have a right to divest, the Attorney General (Mr. Scott), who is not with us this afternoon, took this position. He said, “Yes, we accept your notion” -- this was on one of his days when he was thinking about consensus -- “about the commissioner having the right to force a member to divest, but only if you are talking about causing him to give back a gift.”

This is the kind of torn, demented psychology that is at work in preparing this bill. You would have the ludicrous situation that somebody who got a set of gold cufflinks could have an order from the commissioner to give back the cufflinks, but the commissioner would have no right to intervene with a member of the cabinet who made a $1-million profit on a forest management agreement.

Give me a break here. There is a credibility problem at work to say: “We would accept an amendment that caused the ordinary members to give back presents. That is fine. But we will not accept an amendment that allows the commissioner to say, ‘Here is a major conflict of interest and the minister must get rid of his timber industry.’” That is what this bill says.

There was a lot of time and effort put in by whoever drafted this bill to find ways around the law. There is nothing in this bill that would ever be a conflict of interest; nothing. Members of the cabinet, for example; although we had some discussion about this in committee, it was generally held in previous governments around here that members of the cabinet could not do business with the government of Ontario. This bill facilitates that. This bill facilitates members of the cabinet doing business on a regular basis with the government of Ontario with virtually no restrictions. In essence, it says, “If anybody else can do it, a member of the cabinet can do it.”

Now there is a sick mentality here somewhere. Somebody over there honestly believes that by writing it in this bill and using its majority to pass it, this is going to get people off the hook. This is going to last about two days until somebody uncovers an occasion when a member of the cabinet does business with the government of Ontario. I say a couple of days because we already know that is true. It was the focus of questions during question period today, and I imagine we will hear that repeatedly.

The fact this bill says that is OK is not going to make one whit of difference to anybody. The government may think that opposition members are going to accept the notion. I imagine the Attorney General and the Premier will stand up and say, “There is Bill 1. Bill 1 is the bill that allows us to do business with the government,” and think that people over here are dumb enough to accept that and be silenced. No one on this side will be. No one in the public will believe them. They will look like idiots.

We talked at some length about the need to register lobbyists, but in every other jurisdiction that we looked at that was serious about this matter, there was a need to identify in some way who the players are in the system. In the conflict hearings that this assembly had in the last year or so, much of the discussion centred on that. Much of the discussion centred on the notion of who lobbied the government of Ontario for what grants, who got financing from the government of Ontario and what were their relationships with members of the cabinet. The Attorney General says, “Yes, but that is a real big problem and we will do that later on, maybe.” That is about as far as we got with that one.

I do not think for a moment that this is going to hold water. The government may suggest it will bring in some bill that will register a lobbyist. We understand there are problems with that, but we are arguing that they have to make a start at it and it has to be part of this bill.

They may say, and I imagine they will, when the scandal is uncovered, and it will be, when somebody in the cabinet had a spouse who was representing a huge development industry investment and wants money from the government of Ontario -- when that scandal is uncovered, and I suspect it will not be too long before something of that nature will be uncovered, somebody will stand up and be stupid enough to say: “But here is the conflict-of-interest bill and it is not mentioned in there. We did not register lobbyists, so it must be all right.” That does not remove the problem. The problem remains.

The Attorney General in committee, I think, understood that. It struck me that he was not giving us much of an argument that at some point in time the government has to do some kind of identification of who lobbyists are and what they are allowed to do. They will need to have, at some point in time, a registered list of lobbyists. In a strange way, that is recognized in the bill itself. There is an indication in the bill that when people leave a cabinet, they should not go out and set up shop and then do business with the government and trade on all their friendships.

But it is generally accepted in the Legislature itself that this is now a growth industry in Ontario, as it is in Ottawa. People who are part of the political process until not too long ago are now in the private sector working for companies and basically selling their knowledge of the process, their contacts, people they know, how governments work. Magazines are full of articles about these power players who introduce their clients to members of cabinet, deputy ministers, people who make important decisions. There is kind of a wink and a nod in here that this is a bit of a problem, but it really does not do very much.

1620

I thought initially that both opposition parties were not exactly outrageous in their demands, that there was a relatively short list of things that we thought needed to be put into this bill. We worked fairly diligently to put together the amendments, and I think no one was very dogmatic during the course of the committee proceedings. People were looking for some kind of consensus on how you would go about that. We were looking for common ground among the three political parties because we believe it is important that this bill be done by consensus.

The parliamentary assistant inadvertently said it in here again this afternoon, but it is very tough to believe that the government tried to move by consensus when it repeatedly rejected amendments proposed by either one of the opposition parties all the way through the process and when to this day it refuses to accept any amendment of any substance at all.

You cannot argue convincingly that you really want a public disclosure system but it does not really tell anybody anything. The mismatch between fact and fiction becomes startling the moment someone looks at the disclosure statements.

You cannot argue that you do not need to register lobbyists, but we need to know who the lobbyists are. How are you going to find that out if you do not put a list up somewhere? How are you going to determine who they are?

You cannot argue that the commissioner should be in possession of information where he establishes what is a conflict of interest but he cannot do anything about it. That is like putting our police officers out on the road with the Highway Traffic Act under their arms but they are not allowed to stop anybody for speeding. That is silly, and that unfortunately is what this bill is all about: a great deal of silliness, a great many untruths, a great deal of fraudulent activity.

I am pleading with the government this afternoon to very simply put this on hold, think about it for a while, wait another six months and try it again, try for consensus. It will be an indication, I think, of whether this government intends to simply proceed with its arrogance and put this bill through this afternoon. I am going to tell you now that they can do that, without question -- we all know that -- but they will not get away from the allegations and they will not ge t away from conflict-of-interest problems that are inherent in what they are trying to do here.

In the court of public opinion, which is the one that really counts, they will find this quite an incredible process. I want to caution them again that they should be learning from our federal government. There is an indication that conflict of interest has been an ongoing, continuing, serious credibility problem for the federal government with its huge majority, and this government is going to encounter the same things, except it is going to make it worse because the bill it is trying to get through the Legislature this afternoon is basically, in my opinion, a fraudulent attempt to parade something as one thing when it really is quite another.

Those are harsh words that I do not use very often, but I believe that, inadvertently or otherwise, this bill is written for the convenience of this cabinet. I do not very often get to that harsh a judgement in a hurry, and I did not on this one.

Frankly, when the legislation was introduced, I believed it was written from the wrong perspective and there were some missing parts, but I seriously believed that we could go to committee and there we would gather the consensus, we would make the adjustments that were required and we would provide for the Legislature on its final reading a piece of legislation that would not be perfect but would be a good first step in terms of legislative action to deal with a very complicated, serious problem.

This is nowhere near that. That is why I really think that, although a hoist motion is one we do not use a great deal around here, it would be a great exercise in common sense for the government this afternoon to simply say: “Wait a minute. If we haven’t got anywhere near consensus on this, maybe it is just misunderstanding, maybe our intentions were misunderstood, maybe we could accommodate.”

There is no question in my mind that this government could have accommodated with ease most of the amendments that were posed in committee by either of the two opposition parties, because there was nobody in there saying, “It’s got to be exactly this wording.” Everybody was in there saying, “Here’s what we want to do, this is what we think is important and we will accept any kind of wording you want.” Time and time again, the government said, “Nuts to you.”

That is the government’s right, I suppose, but I am going to point out to it this afternoon that I believe that to be a serious error. I believe this government would be well served this afternoon if for one afternoon we all just kind of took off the partisan coats and said, “Listen, this really does not have to do with party politics. This has to do with the credibility of the political system in Canada,” which I believe to be seriously undermined by the public not really feeling secure in the knowledge that there is a level of conduct, a code of ethics at work in Ottawa or even here at Queen’s Park. I note that it has not escaped the municipal level.

There are things happening, which are getting reported in the newspapers and on television, that have really shaken the public’s faith in the political process. We as legislators need to take steps now to reassure them. I note with great sadness that this bill does not even give the public a look into the system. It does not even talk about the public’s rights. It only talks about what the members can do. It provides a process that protects the cabinet.

I do not object to that. I do not object to the commissioner being around to advise the members on all kinds of things, but surely somewhere in here the government could have found a couple of lines to indicate that it thought the public had some right to know. Surely the government could have found a little bit of time in here to indicate whether it thought registering lobbyists as an industry was a serious problem or not. If some members of the assembly felt it was, if members felt there was a need on some occasions to establish the power of the commissioner to cause a member of the cabinet to divest his interest in a particular firm, we ought to have included it in this kind of legislation.

We are all saying that it will not happen every day; it will be a rare occurrence, and the general idea is not to have it ever happen. But surely -- and I think the Attorney General admitted this in committee -- members understand that if the commissioner finds there is a conflict he has to be able to say, “You must sell off that business” or “You cannot do business with this ministry.”

What this bill does -- in many senses, it is a very devious little piece of legislation -- is provide the weasel words that will allow members of the cabinet to do business with the government of Ontario, to line the pockets of their friends and be able to stand up in the assembly and say, “But, technically, it does not violate the bill.”

But conflict of interest is not about technicalities; it is not about filing pieces of paper; it is about ethics. Maybe that word was so alien to the government that it could not find it in its vocabulary, but it should have. This bill should be all about common sense, and it is not.

We have gone through a cycle in Canadian politics where it used to kind of be the code of the west. Premier Davis, Robarts, Frost and people like that had a certain stature, a certain aura about them. It was a generally accepted feeling that, “These are very honourable people, and we have a very strict code of behaviour for members of the cabinet. They would never do anything wrong and if they did we would throw them out that very day.” I think, by and large, the people of Ontario generally accepted that.

I think that is long gone. I do not believe we will ever again establish that kind of faith in the process, that kind of belief that there is a whole lot of integrity in place. Maybe that was misdirected. I really do not know. Maybe it is just coincidence that there are all of these front-page stories about conflicts of interest at almost every level of politics in Canada that you could think of. Maybe it is just all aura; the stars are in the wrong place and it is all happening all at once. Maybe it is just that there is a lot more information out there, that people can dig this up, that it is not the private club any more that it once used to be. Maybe that is quite good.

But I do know this legislation is seriously flawed. It has some basic faults to it. Members can pass it, but they will pass it at their peril this afternoon. God forbid, if they were wise, if they had any common sense, if they as individual members had the guts and the brains to say, “This has to do with me and whether I am a decent human being trying to do a good job here,” maybe they would all individually stand up and say: “That is not a bad thought. Let’s think about this for a little while. Let’s put this on hold for a while.”

The world will not come to an end. The process, as it is laid out in this bill, is in operation anyway. The government had the temerity to implement the legislation before it passed it, which was perhaps an indicator very early on that we should have known things were going off the track here. It is the first occasion on which I have ever seen any government in this building implement a law before it even introduced it in the Legislature. That takes a lot of chutzpah. It has got that, but I do not think it has the brains to go with it. I believe it should have taken all the warning signs that this was not a sensible way to proceed, that this bill is seriously flawed.

1630

I believe this afternoon the government would do itself a great service by saying: “Let’s just pass a little motion here that says we will hoist this bill for a six-month period and we will think about what we tried to do. We will think about the number of ways in which we could accommodate all the members in the assembly. We will think about whether this is really a bill which deals with the things that ought to be dealt with: the public’s right to have a decent, honest form of government; the public’s right to have a reasonable mechanism to rectify it when things go wrong.”

This should not be as it is. This is a bill to make things easy for the cabinet. This is a bill to cover up political problems. This is a bill which will facilitate the members. It should not be. This ought to be a bill which addresses itself to, I believe, a very real need in Canadian politics at almost every level I can think of, and absolutely no one has escaped it so far. The government would be well served to take our advice this afternoon and hoist this bill for a six-month period.

The Acting Speaker (Miss Roberts): Does any member have any comments or questions on the remarks made by the member for Oshawa? Would any other member like to participate in the debate?

Mr. Eves: I would like to rise on behalf of our party and support the motion made by the member for Oshawa. I think it is a very valid motion and I think the members opposite, on the government side, should give some thought to the suggestion the member for Oshawa is making, that this bill be set aside for some six months and perhaps rethought. Many of the points the member for Oshawa makes are very valid and I think this piece of legislation indeed will come back to haunt this government in the weeks and months ahead.

I would like to reiterate a few comments I made with respect to the title of the bill and then go on to the basic improvements we think generally should be made to this piece of legislation. Throughout the hearings of the standing committee, the Attorney General consistently referred to this bill as “the toughest disclosure legislation in North America.” It is interesting to note that the Attorney General never once referred to this bill as the toughest conflict-of-interest legislation in North America. It may arguably be the toughest disclosure legislation in North America; however, it is not the toughest conflict-of-interest legislation, not by a long shot.

By adopting the provisions of this bill as the guidelines for the cabinet last fall, the Premier allowed four of his cabinet colleagues to sit in cabinet who, interestingly enough, would be ineligible to be cabinet ministers under the 1972 Bill Davis guidelines and, very interestingly enough, would not be eligible to sit as members of cabinet in many other jurisdictions right here in Canada.

Members who would be allowed to sit in cabinet in Ontario under this bill would not be allowed to hold a cabinet position in the federal government in Ottawa, in British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Quebec, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island or Newfoundland. In fact, some of them would not even be eligible to sit as members of the Legislative Assembly in Alberta.

The Premier says he hopes this legislation will help restore public confidence in the integrity of politicians. However, it is difficult to understand the relationship between integrity in office and merely telling everybody what one owns.

As I stated earlier, our party in committee tried to move amendments which would, one, make the bill tougher or more preventive of acts of conflict of interest, something this bill does not do; two, provide for divestment on the part of members of the executive council of financial interests in companies doing business with the government; three, eliminate conflict inherent in the commissioner’s role, as both an adviser and an investigator; and four, restructure the bill to more accurately recognize and reflect the differing roles played in the parliamentary process by ordinary members of the Legislature, by parliamentary assistants, by cabinet ministers and by senior public servants.

Every one of these amendments was defeated by the Liberal majority on the committee, in spite of the fact that Mr. Aird, the acting commissioner, agreed with the need for many of them.

I would now like to review the changes we wanted to make to this bill and our objections to the piece of legislation as it now stands. We wanted to, first, make the bill much tougher on and more preventive of acts of conflict of interest and, second, provide for divestment of financial interests in companies doing business with the government on the part of members of the executive council.

Under the bill as it now stands, a member can financially benefit from the public purse while he or she is charged with the responsibility of safeguarding that public purse. Even in terms of disclosure on this score, the bill is flawed. While a member must disclose his or her financial interest, he or she has no duty to disclose that as a result of his or her financial interest, the member is profiting from the public purse.

The commissioner, in his report of last fall, identified this loophole in the disclosure requirements as a flaw in this piece of legislation. In his appearance before the standing committee, the acting commissioner agreed that in certain instances, divestment of financial interests on the part of cabinet ministers would be absolutely necessary, in his view, absolutely necessary.

When we discussed the need for divestment in standing committee, the Attorney General said it was not necessary to include such a section in the bill because section 10 of the Legislative Assembly Act prohibited any member of the Legislature from having financial interests in companies doing business with the government. I would suggest that the Attorney General stopped reading too soon. He should have continued on to read section 11 of the Legislative Assembly Act. This section outlines so many exceptions to that rule that I am sure -- and I am sure the Attorney General knew this as well -- one would have difficulty in thinking of an actual case which would not qualify as an exception under section 11.

When I suggested to the Premier here yesterday, asking the Premier this question in the House, he refused to give a commitment to the Legislative Assembly and to the public of Ontario that he would see to it that these loopholes and exceptions outlined in section 11 of the Legislative Assembly Act be eliminated or done away with. Yet our amendments to close this disclosure loophole and provide for divestment were defeated. The bill does not address the need for members of government to maintain public confidence in government by refraining from entering into situations where there would be even an appearance of a conflict of interest, particularly situations in which the public would perceive there to be a bias in decisions made resulting from a personal interest on the part of the decision-makers of government.

Our amendment to address situations of apparent conflict of interest was also defeated. Apparent conflict of interest is an issue that was dealt with at some length in Judge Parker’s report with respect to the Sinclair Stevens inquiry. I note that when we mention Sinclair Stevens in this assembly, many government members snicker and giggle and laugh. I am not here to defend Sinclair Stevens but there are four members of the executive council sitting on that side of the House today who have a much more direct conflict of interest than Sinclair Stevens ever had, but because they write the bill to include their conflicts, that is hunky-dory. That is just fine. As soon as they get their 94 members in here and bulldoze this legislation through, they are going to be fine. That is going to be the standard of conduct in the Ontario Legislature.

This bill provides that members must disclose when they accept a gift over $200 in value as part of their duties of office or social obligation. However, the bill then allows the member to keep the gift. Once again, the emphasis is on disclosure but not preventing or doing anything about the actual conflict of interest. We introduced an amendment to require that the member return the gift, or turn it over to the province. That amendment was defeated. We encouraged the Attorney General to come up with a government amendment to allow the commissioner to direct what happens to such gifts. That amendment was also defeated.

1640

Third, we proposed to eliminate the conflict inherent in the commissioner’s role, both as an adviser and an investigator. Currently, the commissioner must both advise members and then investigate any complaints made under the act. This puts the commissioner in somewhat of a conflict himself. It puts the commissioner in a position of having to decide instances of conflict of interest on matters which he originally advised the member on. It is like being a lawyer on one side of a case and putting on your other hat and being the judge on the same case,

Such a situation flies in the face of established principles of justice as we know them in this country called Canada. Yet our amendments to separate the roles of adviser and investigator by providing other vehicles for advice and by granting the commissioner an expanded investigative role were all defeated.

Fourth, we suggested that we restructure the bill to more accurately recognize and reflect the differing roles played in the governmental process by ordinary members of the Legislature, by parliamentary assistants, by members of the executive council and by senior public servants. I have had the honour and the opportunity to have been an ordinary member of the Legislature, a parliamentary assistant and a member of the executive council, and I know what potential conflicts of interest are and how those conflicts are different for every single one of those situations. They are not the same.

It is my belief that the conflict-of-interest bill should reflect these realities of government and how it works, if it is going to be effective. The gap between reality and this bill as it now stands is so great that I cannot decide whether the government simply does not want the bill to be effective or whether some of the Liberal members opposite just have not figured out yet quite how the government system works here at Queen’s Park.

Let me explain to them, just in case the latter is the case. The cabinet ministers and parliamentary assistants are appointed by the Premier; they are not elected by people, as ordinary members of the Legislature are. Whether they hold that office or remain as back-benchers is solely in the discretion of the Premier of this province. Yet nowhere in this piece of legislation is that very basic fact recognized. Nowhere must the Premier who appoints those people accept responsibility for his decisions on who gets those positions of power and who does not, or for the integrity of those people he chooses.

Our amendment to rectify this situation was defeated, which brings us to the reason that we need this kind of legislation in the first place, which is because we have recently discovered here in Ontario that it is quite possible to have a Premier who refuses to accept the responsibility for his choices to the executive council, one who cares not to enforce his guidelines on conflict of interest. Even under the section in which the commissioner can recommend penalties, the basic fact of government is overlooked.

The commissioner can recommend to the Legislative Assembly that a seat be vacated or that the member be reprimanded, but the Legislative Assembly cannot remove a member from the executive council or reprimand that individual. Only the Premier can do this because only the Premier can appoint that individual to the executive council. The members of this Legislative Assembly can vote from now until the end of time. They simply do not have the authority to remove an individual from cabinet; only the Premier of this province has that authority.

I know from my experience, and the Premier and the Attorney General should certainly know from theirs, that an ordinary member of the House seldom, if ever, is involved in making decisions that affect the public purse. The parliamentary assistants can, if their ministers so choose, become very involved in such decisions and the cabinet ministers are always involved in such decisions. While the Attorney General seemed to admit this reality in committee, he does not seem to believe that his piece of legislation, this Bill 1, should reflect it. Because parliamentary assistants are not always involved in such decisions, the Attorney General says that they should not be covered by the stricter requirements established for members of the executive council.

If the Attorney General were really interested in a strict conflict-of-interest piece of legislation, he would have included parliamentary assistants with members of the executive council because of those instances when they are involved in decisions affecting the public purse, not left them out because there are times when they may not be. Yet our amendments to achieve this were also defeated.

Our amendments to extend this bill to cover senior public servants were ruled out of order. At that time, I pointed out that such persons were clearly political appointments. They were more involved in decisions affecting the public purse than ordinary elected back-bench members of the Legislative Assembly.

I invited the Attorney General to bring forward amendments to the Public Service Act to recognize this reality. He has failed to do so. Once again, he either cannot recognize the realities of government or he is not as interested in protecting the public interest as he would appear to be.

There are great flaws in this piece of legislation and they have put our caucus in a somewhat awkward position. Because of the recent behaviour of the Premier we are acutely aware of the need for legislation in conflict of interest. The public interest in this regard cannot be left to the moral whim of the Premier of the day. We have seen that happen all too often in recent months here.

However, this bill, if it goes through -- and I am sure it will with the arrogant majority over there ready to vote -- will allow situations to exist in Ontario which in most other jurisdictions of Canada would be considered to be a conflict of interest and prohibited either by law or by guidelines.

I suppose that by voting against this bill we run the risk of having our vote misconstrued. It might be claimed we are not interested in conflict-of-interest legislation. But we have decided we must take that risk because we cannot bring ourselves to vote, like the member for Oshawa and his party cannot, for a bill which allows situations which would be considered conflict of interest in most other jurisdictions in Canada to be readily acceptable and approved by the stamp of legislation here in Ontario.

The people of Ontario deserve the same protection as people and citizens in jurisdictions in other areas and parts of Canada. They have the right to expect the same degree of integrity on the part of their public officials. I can remember a time when Ontario was thought to be a leader in almost every single piece of legislation it ever introduced. We do not seem to have that same distinct spirit, that initiative, that desire, with this government.

If we in Ontario and the legislative members of this assembly are going to pass a conflict-of-interest piece of legislation in this assembly, in my opinion, it should be the toughest in Canada, bar none. What we are finding here is a disclosure bill, with respect to ordinary members of the Legislature, and our party simply cannot support a piece of legislation which provides members of the executive council with a lower standard than they have had to adopt here in this province since 1972.

It is for these reasons that we will be supporting the motion of the member for Oshawa. I think it is an interesting motion. I congratulate him on his initiative and I think this is one time that the members opposite should sit down and think about not voting according to the party line. There is a lot of truth in what the member for Oshawa said and perhaps we should rethink this piece of legislation and permit us the time to do so.

Mr. Offer: I rise in opposition to this so-called hoist motion. I would like to respond to some of the comments that were made by both the member for Oshawa and the member for Parry Sound (Mr. Eves).

I think the member for Oshawa indicated that I had, and indeed the Attorney General earlier had, inadvertently indicated our attempt to obtain some consensus. That is not an inadvertence. That is an advertence that is something which we have attempted to do through debate, through full and open discussion of many different aspects of this legislation. It is not by inadvertence that one has stated that one wished to have some consensus.

1650

The member has indicated once more the question of lobbyists and has also alluded, I think, to the public servants issue. When that came up in the committee, I believe it was indicated that, yes, this might be an area where further discussion and further work may be necessary. I believe the member for Parry Sound indicated that today with respect to the Public Service Act. But it was also indicated that this is not the piece of legislation for those matters to be founded on. This is a piece of legislation which deals with, and I will read the title, An Act respecting Conflicts of Interest of Members of the Assembly and the Executive Council.

It is a piece of legislation which talks about our actions as members of the assembly and the executive council. It is in other areas where one should talk about lobbyists and public servants. We do not mean to say that is not important because it is, but it is not proper for this legislation at hand.

The member has alluded to problems that are currently before the federal government. There is no question about that, but of course one wishes to reiterate that that particular government does not have legislation at hand and it is for this reason that it is working, I would imagine, to get legislation such as possibly the legislation we have here.

This is legislation which has a long history. It might have had its beginnings in 1972 when Premier Davis first issued guidelines. It was carried forward in 1985 with the guidelines of the present Premier. We cannot absent ourselves from the knowledge of those provisions of the Legislative Assembly Act and indeed of the Criminal Code.

This legislation has a long evolution and it is here before us now. It has gone through a great deal of discussion, a great deal of debate, a great deal of work in order to get this legislation here at hand. It is for us as members of the Legislature to vote on this legislation today. It is for this reason that I stand against the motion brought forward by the member for Oshawa.

The Acting Speaker: Pursuant to standing order 59(a), the first question to be decided is, shall the bill be now read a third time?

1714

The House divided on whether Bill 1 should now be read a third time, which was agreed to on the following vote:

La motion de troisième lecture du projet de loi 1, mise aux voix, est adoptée:

Ayes/Pour

Adams, Ballinger, Beer, Black, Bossy, Bradley, Callahan, Campbell, Caplan, Carrothers, Chiarelli, Cleary, Collins, Conway, Cooke, D. R., Cordiano, Daigeler, Dietsch, Eakins, Elliot, Elston, Faubert, Fawcett, Ferraro, Fleet, Fontaine, Fulton, Furlong, Grandmaître, Haggerty, Hart, Henderson, Hošek, Kanter, Keyes, Kozyra, LeBourdais, Leone;

Mahoney, Matrundola, McClelland, McGuigan, McLeod, Miclash, Miller, Morin, Neumann, Nicholas, Nixon, J. B., Nixon, R. F., Oddie Munro, Offer, O’Neil, H., O’Neill, Y., Patten, Pelissero, Peterson, Phillips, G., Poirier, Polsinelli, Poole, Ramsay, Reycraft, Riddell, Ruprecht, Scott, Smith, E. J., Sola, Sorbara, South, Stoner, Sweeney, Tatham, Ward, Wilson, Wong, Wrye.

Nays/Contre

Allen, Brandt, Breaugh, Bryden, Charlton, Cousens, Cureatz, Eves, Farnan, Hampton, Harris, Johnson, J. M., Johnston, R. F., Laughren, Mackenzie, Marland, Martel, McCague, McLean, Morin-Strom, Philip, E., Pollock, Rae, B., Reville, Runciman, Sterling, Villeneuve, Wildman, Wiseman.

Ayes/pour 77; nays/contre 29.

1720

House in committee of the whole.

ONTARIO AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE BOARD ACT

Consideration of Bill 2, An Act to establish the Ontario Automobile Insurance Board and to provide for the Review of Automobile Insurance Rates.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: The member for York Mills (Mr. J. B. Nixon) is going to be speaking for the ministry in answer to the positions taken by the honourable members in the House. I wonder if it would be acceptable if he took a more convenient seat, let us say about where I am here, so that perhaps the staff of the ministry might be able to come on to the floor to assist in the discussion.

Mr. Chairman: Regarding Bill 2, are there any questions, comments or amendments and, if so, to which sections of the bill? Will those people who want to bring amendments please rise.

Mr. Farnan: I have an amendment to section 3 of the bill, to add subsection 3(1a).

Mr. Chairman: Are there any other sections that members would like to consider?

Mr. Hampton: I have two amendments to section 11 of the bill, subsections 11(4a) and 11(4b), an amendment to subsection 12(1) and an amendment to add section 14a.

Mr. Chairman: Do members wish to bring other amendments and, if so, to which sections? Does that complete the list? If that is the case, shall sections 1 and 2 carry?

Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.

Section 3:

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Farnan moves that subsection 2 of section 3 of the bill be amended to read:

“(1a) At least one half of the members of the board shall be members of consumer associations or persons representative of the interests of consumers.”

Mr. Farnan: I think this amendment is a very critical and important one if this bill is to have any credibility with the people of Ontario and with the consumers, the drivers of Ontario, to whom it applies. Very early in the hearings, I gave notice that I would move this amendment because I thought it was critical. I can recall the Consumers’ Association of Canada, in what I thought was a vital statement, had this to say -- they were speaking to the committee and, through the committee, they were speaking to the government – “We have ignored the Slater report, we have given the ball back to the industry.”

Frankly, my friends, it frightens me when a group representing the Consumers’ Association of Canada has the perception that what is taking place is the status quo. Is that what this bill is about, simply to leave things as they are? The reason we are here and the reason we are looking at this bill is because there was a tremendous dissatisfaction among the drivers of Ontario. The perception was that they were being ripped off. It was a perception and a reality, a reality that dug into their pocketbooks in ever-excessive premiums. This issue was not an issue that the New Democrats invented; it was an issue that was crying out to be addressed, and we focused the issue.

It appears that the government, in approaching an election, came up with a situation it hoped would quell the flames. I say to the government that if this bill goes through, what we are going to see is simply a continuation of the escalation of premiums and the drivers of Ontario continuing to be ripped off.

During the committee hearings, I heard much about having a window on the industry and how we need a window on the industry because it has been impossible to examine the statistics, to examine the facts, to get the insurance companies to come forward with the real facts. But there is no point having a window to the industry if the only one allowed to look through that window is the insurance industry itself. The window only makes sense if the consumers of Ontario can look through that window, see the facts and feel that the premiums are being justified.

What has happened with this bill, as the Consumers’ Association of Canada has said, is that we have given the ball back to the industry. The industry will be the people who are represented on this board and the consumers will not have the kind of representation that is required.

1730

I heard some rather extraordinary statements made during the course of the committee hearings. The member for Kingston and The Islands (Mr. Keyes) and the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Kanter) had this to say, “In a sense, everybody is a driver, so no matter who we put on this committee, the consumers are being represented.” What absolute hogwash to suggest that the president of an insurance company, simply because he drives a car and pays a premium, is somehow going to be protecting the interests of the consumers of the province in the area of insurance. He is in the business of looking at the profit margin, not at what are fair and equitable premiums for the drivers of this province. This is the fundamental weakness of this bill.

I draw the members’ attention to the wording of the bill in the section that we are debating. “The members of the board who are not crown employees shall be paid such remuneration and expenses....” My apologies, I have the wrong section here. I will come back to this particular item as soon as I have the wording in front of me.

Right now, I want to talk about the principle that is at stake. It is critical that we have consumer representation and that we do not simply have a situation where the majority of the people on this board are appointed on the principle, for example, that was expounded that we need people who have experience in the industry. I think we need people who have experience with the industry as well as in the industry. There are two sides to this coin and it is very important that the consumers be equally represented.

At the rate review board, the insurance industry is going to use all its clout, all its power and all its financial resources to have its point of view carry. The consumers, the drivers of Ontario, are going to pay for the very high-priced legal and financial advice that the insurance companies will have as they address the board. The reality of the matter is that the consumers, the drivers, are going to pay the bill for the insurance companies’ advocacy before the board and they are also going to pay for their own advocacy, but they are going to be appealing to a board that is already loaded against them.

There is precedent in other legislation. I think if we look at legislation like the Public Service Superannuation Act, the Labour Relations Act, the Ontario Drug Benefit Act and the Funeral Services Act, we can see in all of those cases a situation where the consumer or the various parties who will be affected by the bill are represented in a significant or equal manner.

From time to time as delegations came before the committee I asked them a very simple question. It will be recorded in the committee minutes and it was recorded also on the road. The question I asked the delegations was, “How important is it to you that we have significant consumer representation on this board?” Without exception, the answer was: “Yes, it is very important to have consumer representation. Unless that representation is there, we cannot have any faith, we cannot believe, we cannot hope that justice will prevail within this board.”

There are so many groups out there who are discontented, who are uneasy and who have a sense that what was going on was unfair and they just could not find out what was going on, but the premiums told them indeed that there was a real problem. The hope was that this bill might address in some way the problems that existed, but believe me, the way this bill reads right now, that “The members of the board shall be representative of insureds, the insurance industry and the public,” says absolutely nothing. They are words that give no guarantee to the consumer.

The difference in the wording that I am putting forward on behalf of the New Democratic Party gives the confidence and assurance to the consumers, the drivers of Ontario, that there might be some fairness, that at least half the members of the board shall be members of consumer associations or persons representative of the interests of consumers. Indeed, some of the consumers said when these appointments are being made -- and they would be made by the government -- these people should have some experience, they should have some knowledge and there are people out there representing consumers who do have experience and knowledge.

This government is really slapping the drivers of Ontario in the face when it says, “We are going to do something about this,” and then comes up with a charade, because this is what it is. It is a charade. The government is saying to the drivers of Ontario: “Trust us. We are staying with the status quo. The insurance industry will continue to dominate the board, and we will have a window and the people looking in the window will be the Liberal government and the insurance industry.” Well-met, good companions, loyal servants of the government; the insurance industry will indeed be very happy that the only people looking in the window with them is the government. Because when you look in that window and see the profits continue to rise, it will be: “Nudge, nudge, wink, wink. We have a fair system. We have a window. We are looking in the window. Everything is fair.” But, indeed, the drivers of Ontario will know it is not fair because their insurance rates will continue to escalate and continue to skyrocket.

My friends, it is a simple principle. It is a principle of honesty and it is a principle of integrity. When you have an arbitration hearing and you go to that hearing, at least you want to feel the system is fair. That is what you want. So, in most arbitration hearings, you get a system where the two people who are going before the arbitrator have the ability to choose one lawyer each or one judge each and then the two of those judges will pick a neutral member and hopefully, you then have a fair hearing. I think the drivers of Ontario would feel they were having a fair hearing if they were guaranteed that they had consumer representatives in significant numbers, equal to the numbers appointed by the insurance industry. Then, of course, there would be some fairness.

I have never personally believed that what we were trying to achieve with this bill was fairness. What we are trying to achieve with this bill is to quell a fire. Even if the unfairness continues to exist, the principle is there. The people of Ontario are looking at this government and making a judgement of this government. I think most people will accept governments making mistakes. I suspect the people of Ontario are getting used to that now, but most people will accept governments making mistakes as long as they feel there is some honesty and integrity in the process.

The one thing the people of Ontario will not, should not and need not take is a government that attempts to hoodwink them, a government that says to the people of Ontario: “Hey, trust us. We’ll have a board. We’ll put on the insurance interest. We may have a token member of the consumers’ association.” Is that not grand? We will have somebody and we will be able to say, “Yes, this is a member of the consumers’ association.” We will be able to say, “Yes, the president of this insurance company drives a car and he pays premiums and he really is a consumer.” That is not going to wash.

1740

The whole bill, in my view, sinks or swims on the integrity of the principle of fairness of representation. I am sorry to say that on honesty, integrity and fairness, with this bill this government has failed. It has sent the message to the consumers, the drivers of Ontario that yes indeed, this is the payoff for the insurance industry support that was there for Liberals during the election, that was faithful to them during the election, that dropped off its propaganda into the mailboxes of candidates that were opposing the Liberal candidates. This is the handing over of the dollars, which says: “Guys, you stood by us when we needed the support. We will stand by you now. Your profits are intact, they are guaranteed, they will increase. The consumers, the drivers of Ontario? Did we ever do a number on them.”

Mr. J. B. Nixon: Just a couple of preliminary remarks before I respond to the member for Cambridge (Mr. Farnan) and his motion. I would just like to say that the bill before us today, as all members know, provides for the establishment of an independent automobile insurance board and for a regulation to introduce a mandatory, uniform, industry-wide classification system for automobile insurance rates. I wanted to say that to remind the members opposite, particularly in that direction, why we are here.

We have recognized that this legislation constitutes substantial reform for the automobile insurance industry and therefore merited full consideration through public hearings, clause-by-clause review and debate by all members.

Bill 2 has now had the benefit of opinions from the public and comprehensive review from the standing committee on the administration of justice.

I would personally and on behalf of the ministry like to thank the committee members for the thorough scrutiny they have given the bill. As a result of this process, the bill did undergo a number of changes which we believe have improved the legislation and I think all members who sat on the committee would agree.

Bill 2 will bring public accountability and greater fairness to automobile insurance rates. As such, it is deserving of the support of all members of the Legislature. I would like to respond in that context to the member for Cambridge and remind all the members of this committee that the proposal of the government is that there be on the board representatives of the insurance industry -- yes, as he proposes -- of insureds, consumers of the automobile insurance product, and the public.

The language we have used is very similar to the language used in the Workers’ Compensation Board legislation and other legislation in this government.

Interjections.

Mr. J. B. Nixon: They like that one.

I would suggest to the member that notwithstanding the argument he heard in committee, he has failed to amend his proposed motion. Valid questions, I think, were put to him, such as: What is an appropriate consumer association? Who appropriately represents that consumer association? Who represents consumers? I believe my friend the member for Rainy River (Mr. Hampton) --

Mr. Harris: Not your party.

An hon. member: Not you.

Mr. J. B. Nixon: Not me, no. The member suggested that all the bodies we would consult with would have a veto on our appointments. Let me tell the member, because he may have forgotten, that back on April 23 when the then minister, the member for Wilson Heights (Mr. Kwinter), announced this legislation, he said he would be consulting with a variety of groups, including consumer groups, user groups, industry-user groups, taxicabs, for instance, to seek their advice on various appointments. I can tell the member that process is under way. We think the people on the board should represent a wider interest than just the particular interest of the insurance companies or the insureds.

There are a variety of people who may be appointed from a professional background, actuarial, legal, whatever, who will be useful to the board but do not specifically represent the interest of an auto insurance company or an auto insurance consumer. If the member’s motion was accepted, I think we would be faced with the kind of debate in this House that does not serve anyone well when we debate an individual’s point of view and the appropriateness of his position and who he represents. I have seen it in this House in my brief career and I suggest that is what would follow.

In any event, the government does not need to be bound by a rigid formula or definition of who should sit on this board. I have more faith in this government and its appointments policy, which I think has been exemplary. I do not share the same doom-and-gloom expectations that the member does that there will be a series of auto insurance company presidents sitting on the board. The government will make its decision, and I feel confident as a private member in telling the House that it just will not be that way.

Mr. Runciman: I will make a few brief comments on the amendment. We are not going to be supporting the amendment.

Interjections.

Mr. Runciman: Surprise, surprise.

Mr. Breaugh: I was worried there for a minute.

Mr. Runciman: I missed the parliamentary assistant’s comment, so I may be repeating something he said with respect to the amendment, but one of the concerns that was expressed when this amendment was put forward at the committee hearings was the fact that we have heard -- I think it was pointed out quite clearly during the committee hearings -- concerns respecting really who indeed are consumers’ associations.

We had an instance where we had a front organization, if you will, appearing before the committee. Upon questioning by myself and the member for Kingston and The Islands (Mr. Keyes), it was determined that the individual who supposedly was representing a consumers’ organization concerned about auto insurance rates was actually representing himself and the New Democratic Party of Ontario. Surprise, surprise, surprise.

Mr. Breaugh: He probably worked for the CBC too.

An hon. member: For the Canadian Security Intelligence Service.

Mr. Runciman: In any event, I think we have some valid concerns and I think the government had some valid concerns with respect to the kinds of groups or so-called organizations who were indicating that they were representing consumers’ interests in this province.

I personally have a great deal of difficulty even with the well-established organizations which indicate that they are representing the best interests of consumers in this province and I expressed that view when the Consumers’ Association of Canada appeared before the committee during the hearing process.

I certainly do not doubt the sincerity or the motivation of the individuals who involve themselves in that organization, but I do not for a moment believe that in all instances they are indeed representing the interests or the viewpoint of the majority of consumers in this province, let alone across this country. In some instances, I feel they have taken stands which are very much in disagreement with the views of the majority of consumers. I will not get into specifics because that is not going to serve any worthwhile purpose this afternoon.

1750

In any event, we have some real concerns. We have concerns about all of the amendments. This one has some superficial appeal, if nothing else, but we are reluctant to support any amendment simply because our party has a great deal of difficulty with the principle of this bill. We do not want to give any indication of support in any way, shape or form for the principle. We think it is a bad initiative on the part of this government.

We concur with the New Democratic Party that it is going to result in higher auto rates, but this is really playing its game. They are putting on a show of concern in that respect, but I suspect they are quietly very pleased with the initiative and feel that at some point down the road this is eventually going to lead to state-run auto insurance.

Miss Martel: I hope so.

Mr. Runciman: I know she hopes so.

Mr. Mackenzie: You haven’t blamed the unions yet.

Mr. Runciman: I do not need to. With the member as their spokesman, he does more damage than I could ever do.

That really sums up our stand on this amendment.

Mr. Farnan: I would like to make a very brief reply. Having sat through the committee, I talked about the window on the industry. The reality of the matter is that the Conservative viewpoint is they would be happy with just one person looking through the window, that is, the industry. This bill, I think, allows the partners in crime, the government and the insurance industry, to look through the window. What we are saying is, “What is going on behind the window?”

We can feel some sense of fairness only if there are people representative of the consumers in significant numbers. We are suggesting 50 per cent of the makeup of the board be representative of consumers. I can assure the House I will look very carefully and our party will be looking very carefully.

The parliamentary assistant has suggested: “Do not worry, boys. We are honest guys and we will put on the right people. The people we put on this committee, you will be able to trust.” I hope the parliamentary assistant will then consider the dissatisfaction that will exist among the drivers of Ontario when they look at the makeup of this group and see that it is indeed loaded with members of the insurance industry. To suggest that somebody who has served his life working within the industry, and who is now simply moving on to a consulting position, represents the consumers, I suggest is a fallacy also.

Mr. Hampton: There were some comments made by the parliamentary assistant that I think merit a response. I also want to go over some of the points made by my colleague the member for Cambridge (Mr. Farnan).

The parliamentary assistant suggested that I had said various consumer groups should have a veto over who should be appointed to the review board. 1f he checks the Hansard of the committee meetings, I think he will find that what I suggested was that the people the government wants to appoint, or that the Lieutenant Governor in Council wants to appoint, to this board should be vetted with various consumer groups, not that the consumer groups should necessarily have a veto, but that they should be vetted. In other words, groups like the taxi drivers’ associations, the limousine drivers’ associations, the truckers’ associations, the consumer groups, etc., ought to be consulted in a meaningful way.

To merely have what we have in the bill now, that the board shall be representative of the industry, the insured and the public, and leave it that leaves a great deal of leeway -- too much leeway, we suggest -- and can very easily lead to a situation where you have one or two people on the board who represent or are supposed to represent consumers, you have a bunch of people on the board who come from an insurance industry background and you have some academics, some economists, some actuaries, who are supposed to represent the public, but because of their background or because of the philosophical position they come from, are more in tune with the insurance industry. That is what the present wording of the bill would allow.

Let us be very clear. There is an opposition of interest here. We saw through the hearings that we could have, on the one hand, an insurance company representative or an insurance broker representative come before the committee, sit down and look at a given body of statistics and say, “This is what it means to us.” We also saw that we could have someone from a limousine drivers’ association or a taxi drivers’ association or a truckers’ association or just a plain consumer of insurance come before the committee and say: “That is what those figures mean to me. That is how they impact on me as a consumer in this field.” It is remarkable how those two people could come to such remarkably different conclusions as to what those figures mean and how they impact.

That is what we are saying, that where you have a rate review board, where you have such diametrically opposed interests -- the interests of someone who is trying to make a profit out of insurance and the interests of somebody who wants to drive his vehicle without paying exorbitant rates -- you ought to have it clearly delineated in the bill that half of the people who are going to be on this board shall be from the industry and one half shall be representative of consumers and that is a requirement placed on the Lieutenant Governor in Council.

In that way, we can be assured that if the Lieutenant Governor in Council does not vet the appointments, we have the kinds of consumer groups that are interested in insurance and we will hear about it loud and clear from the consumer groups. That puts a clear responsibility on the government to sit down and do that kind of consultation.

As the wording of the bill stands now, that kind of consultation is not clear. There is too much leeway. There is too much room for people to find their way on to this board saying, “Oh, yes, I think I can represent consumers; I think I understand their point of view,” when in fact they do not represent them at all and they do not, from their point of view and from the way they approach the insurance industry, represent a consumers’ point of view.

The parliamentary assistant made another comment, actually in the committee hearings, that I think should be reflected upon here. We refer to some of the other boards and commissions where there is a representative nature to the commission or the board. The parliamentary assistant said, “Look, this is not the class struggle.”

I want to say to him he is correct, this is not the class struggle, but what is very clear here is that the insurance industry has its body of interests. It may have a bunch of other interests, but it has its body of priority interests, and its body of priority interests are setting rates such that it makes a very good profit. In fact, anyone out of the insurance industry would say that his duty is to the shareholders of the corporation and his duty to the shareholders of the corporation is to win as large a profit as possible. If the consumers get hurt in that search for a very large profit, well, too bad.

Any insurance industry executive would tell you that is what he is out to do. Anyone who seriously studies our system of corporate law, our system of corporate activity, would say, “Yes, that is what the executive of an insurance company should do, that is what the executive of a bank should do, that is what the executive of any profit-making corporation should do; he should win as large a profit as possible for his shareholders. That is the prime interest of the insurance industry.

Who is going to represent the prime interest of the consumers? We suggest very strongly that the kind of leeway in this bill does not assure in any way, shape or form the prime interest of consumers, that is, getting reasonable and fair insurance at a reasonable price. We suggest very strongly that interest is not represented by the way the bill is currently worded. There is far too much leeway there to appoint an economist who, in terms of the language of the bill, may be representative of the public but who, because of where that economist has come from and the kinds of economic theories that economist professes, may be much more representative of the insurance industry than of the general public.

Similarly, because the bill does not require 50 per cent representation on behalf of consumers, there is no assurance whatsoever and there is no requirement placed on the government actually to go out and vet with consumer agencies, the appointments that will be made on behalf of consumers.

Mr. Chairman: Order. May I ask the member to look at the clock, please. Do you want to continue tomorrow?

Mr. Hampton: Yes. I would like to continue briefly tomorrow.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Elston, the committee of the whole house reported progress.

The House adjourned at 6:02 p.m.

February 9, 1988

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

PERINATAL CARE

SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION

ABORTION

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

FUTURES PROGRAM

SUBSTITUTE FOR ROAD SALT

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

DRINKING AND DRIVING

COUNTY GOVERNMENT

RESPONSES

COUNTY GOVERNMENT

DRINKING AND DRIVING

COUNTY GOVERNMENT

ORAL QUESTIONS

RETAIL STORE HOURS

USE OF PRESCRIPTION DRUGS

RETAIL STORE HOURS

ABORTION

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS

LANDFILL SITE

INJURED WORKERS’ MEDICAL REPORTS

TRADE DEVELOPMENT

ROUGE VALLEY

EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES PROGRAM

SUBSTITUTE FOR ROAD SALT

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD

PETITIONS

INCOME TAX ASSISTANCE

RECREATION TRAIL

NATUROPATHY

RETAIL STORE HOURS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

MACHIN MINES LIMITED

PROW YELLOWKNIFE GOLD MINES LTD. ACT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

MEMBERS’ CONFLICT OF INTEREST ACT / LOI SUR LES CONFLITS D’INTÉRÊTS DES MEMBRES DE L’ASSEMBLÉE

MEMBERS’ CONFLICT OF INTEREST ACT / LOI SUR LES CONFLITS D’INTÉRÊTS DES MEMBRES DE L’ASSEMBLÉE

ONTARIO AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE BOARD ACT