Journal des débats 1986-juin-26 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr. O'Connor: It is an honour for me to speak today on the bill I introduced to this House on May 22, 1986, that is, Bill 42, An Act to regulate the Activities of Paralegal Agents.

For the past year, it has been apparent to me and to many members of this assembly that regulation of the growing business of paralegal agents is fundamentally necessary. Let us make no mistake. The number of paralegal agents practising in this province is growing weekly. If the situation is not regulated, it will be out of control very quickly.

The government, by its abdication of duty, is permitting anybody to set up shop as a paralegal agent. In allowing this condition to develop, the government's failure to act allows the antics of a few to blacken the reputation of hundreds who are honest, competent and hard-working men and women, practising in an area to which they bring a unique expertise.

The Independent Paralegal Guild of Ontario, formed last fall as an interim measure to enhance the integrity and credibility of independent paralegals and to provide some protection for the public, recognizes the need for such regulation. It has requested the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) to introduce legislation to establish paralegals as a regulated profession.

The failure of the Attorney General to act is somewhat surprising in the light of statements attributed to him in the March 22 edition of the Globe and Mail. It is indicated he said, "The legal profession has created an all-or-nothing situation, where the client either gets Cadillac service with a lawyer or goes on foot by himself, when in truth Buick service with a paralegal might be entirely adequate and far better than what he will do on his own."

I note the presence of the Attorney General in the House, applauding his own remarks.

The Deputy Speaker: But not in his seat.

Mr. O'Connor: Not in his seat yet. I take it he is not officially here then.

Some three months have passed since the Attorney General made this statement. It is apparent that the government has no intention of acting immediately to meet this issue. This is particularly surprising, after listening to the Premier (Mr. Peterson) this morning on CBC radio telling us his government faces its problems and does not practise the politics of delay. Is this not curious, given the situation existing in the House this morning?

This issue is not something that can be passed off as a case of the previous government's failing to act. Undeniably, this is an issue that has arisen solely since this government took office. The responsibility is its alone. It has taken a responsible opposition to fill the void.

I am a lawyer, as are the Attorney General and the leader of the New Democratic Party. As such, we have all acknowledged the need that paralegals are serving. We must go forward from this point today to ensure that the legal profession does not bury its head in the sand and hope that the problem will just go away. The Attorney General has suggested he might bring in his own legislation in this area later this fall rather than immediately. With all due respect, I suggest this is an ultimate cop-out.

On May 4, the president of the Independent Paralegal Guild of Ontario, Brian Lawrie, who has carried the fight from the beginning on this issue, said of paralegals, "We are here to stay." I suggest that paralegals, whether the legal profession likes it or not, are here to stay. To oppose this bill, saying that legislation may not be required, is blatantly to ignore reality. The Attorney General may as well stand on the beach and try to roll back the waves, for he will meet as much success in that endeavour as he has in hoping the paralegal dilemma will simply go away.

We know legislation is required now. We know our responsibility as legislators is to ensure the protection of the public. It is time to put aside partisan differences on this issue and to work together to see that the necessary protection is forthcoming. We should pass this bill through second reading today, get it into committee where we can hear the concerns legitimately expressed by everyone who has an interest and then make the necessary amendments.

We have an obligation to the people of this province to enshrine their right to competent, affordable access to the justice system. In this regard, I might quote from the Attorney General's remarks on Tuesday of this week when he introduced legislation to amend the legal aid tariffs and Legal Aid Act, when he said we must mark a new beginning in our quest for equal access to justice in Ontario. This bill, regulating the activities of paralegal agents, will provide for a large measure of that affordable and equal access.

Let me outline some of the provisions of the bill. A paralegal agent is defined as anyone, other than a lawyer, who attends for a fee, on behalf of someone else in a court or a tribunal where the citizen's rights are determined. Excluded from the definition are paralegals acting under the supervision of a lawyer. The courts and tribunals included are primarily those where this Legislature and the Parliament of Canada have, by legislation, already permitted nonlawyers to represent clients. These include provincial offences courts, small claims courts, landlord and tenant tribunals, immigration appeal matters, coroners' inquests and so forth.

The intent of the bill is to regulate and to control the burgeoning paralegal agent population for the protection of the public. The bill creates a governing body of two benchers of the Law Society of Upper Canada, five paralegal agents and two members of the public appointed by order in council, whose initial function will be to establish proper education and certification standards and to oversee the administration of rules, regulations and registration. Section 6 of the bill requires the carrying of liability insurance, as is the requirement for all lawyers in the province.

There is a provision for the disciplining of members in exactly the same manner as provided for lawyers under the Law Society Act. The discipline committee hearing complaints against paralegals will be comprised of a majority of benchers and one less than a majority of paralegal agents. The penalty set out for offences against the act are severe enough to discourage those who would try to take advantage of an unsuspecting public.

10:10 a.m.

This Legislature has created the profession of paralegals itself by permitting agents to attend in lower courts and tribunal proceedings. At present, the government employs some 39 full-time provincial prosecutors and several part-time prosecutors to handle minor cases such as Highway Traffic Act and Liquor Licence Act offences.

In a recent judgement before the district court, in the case of Regina versus Brian Lawrie and POINTTS Ltd., His Honour Judge Garth Moore upheld the acquittal of the two accused for practising law without a licence and made some interesting remarks. I will quote from the last several pages of that judgement. He says:

"I mean that the various acts of the Legislature I have referred to above permit agents to appear and act and represent others in provincial courts and, in some cases, surrogate and district courts. This legislation does not just permit an appearance in place of a defendant. It also permits an appearance with and for a defendant. No prohibition or restriction was brought to my attention which prevents the same person appearing as agent for a different person on numerous occasions or even receiving remuneration for so doing.

"The Legislature has thus created a new trade or calling; that is to say, the calling of paralegals. At present, it would appear from my observation that the control, supervision and discipline of such agents cannot be found in the provincial statutes, and to paraphrase a popular saying of the day, I am suggesting that the province get its acts together and so provide."

What Judge Moore was suggesting is exactly what this bill intends to provide. I might offer another interesting quote, that being from a recent editorial in the Toronto Star published on June 4, 1986. The editorial was headed "Room for Paralegals." I will read several paragraphs as follows:

"It is unreasonable for the society," being the Law Society of Upper Canada, "to declare war on paralegals, who can offer useful assistance in a variety of areas where full legal qualifications aren't necessary and lawyers don't normally work.

"Wouldn't it be far more sensible for the society to use its knowledge and resources positively -- say, by helping draw the thorny line between those areas where lawyers' services are really required and those areas where they are not?...

"Consumers may also want to watch closely, and ask whether the protection the law society is so forcefully asserting is really intended for them."

I point out to those who oppose passage of this bill or seek to delay such legislation that paralegals would not exist in the province if there were not a viable market for their services. The Attorney General acknowledged in his address to the Osgoode Hall law school annual lecture series just recently that there are instances where their services are entirely adequate.

I wish to thank the many members of the Progressive Conservative caucus who have, on behalf of their constituents, supported this initiative. In the face of some pressure to delay this bill, they have stood on the side of the average citizen, knowing that the rights of the majority must be paramount.

The members of the New Democratic Party have, in this issue, once again demonstrated their concern for the rights and protection of the consumers of Ontario. I am particularly pleased by the comments of the member for Ottawa Centre (Ms. Gigantes), as reported in the press yesterday, that they intend to support the bill en masse.

I believe that, in the best interests of the people we represent, we can put aside our partisan differences and co-operate in the matter before us. The people directly affected by this bill -- the consumers of Ontario, paralegals and the legal profession -- must have the opportunity to come before a legislative committee to express their concerns and offer suggestions for improvement.

We acknowledge by the very existence of the committee system that draft legislation is never perfect, and we as legislators can always benefit from public input. Let us go forward from here today determined that, after today, we will begin the steps necessary to ensure fair access to all by competent, affordable, skilled agents practising in the justice system in Ontario.

I will reserve the balance of my time for reply and will conclude there.

Ms. Gigantes: I rise in support of Bill 42. I do so in a way that is not typical for me, I believe, in that my support for Bill 42 is a kind of wishy-washy support. I am going to support it so that we can take it to committee and look at many of the issues, which, as the member for Oakville has mentioned, were brought to the standing committee on administration of justice in its consideration of Bill 7 by Brian Lawrie. Those issues are interesting and are issues of the time in terms of the justice system and they deserve a good, hard look. The vehicle of this bill provides us with the mechanism for doing that.

In its essence, it is both a progressive and a conservative bill. It is, as the sponsoring member, the member for Oakville, points out, an attempt to provide a kind of consumer protection in a situation where justice services and representation in our justice system are normally now available only through the services provided by a self-regulating group, the lawyers of Ontario, organized through the Law Society of Upper Canada and providing a service in a way that many would describe as a monopolistic format.

However, the bill in itself is an attempt to regulate services that have grown up very much in a free private enterprise way. It provides this regulation through the operations of the very body that operates the monopolistic provision of services, namely, the Law Society of Upper Canada. When the member for Oakville says, as he does -- I think he means it earnestly, I can see why he says it and I support him in the way he says it -- that what he is looking for is the provision of services for consumers in Ontario from competent and affordable legal representation, that is what this bill directs itself to.

On the other hand, it also directs itself to setting standards that will be operated through the Law Society of Upper Canada and that will be in large measure controlled by the Law Society of Upper Canada, since the committee that will do the regulating will be a committee of the Law Society of Upper Canada. These standards will run the gamut: educational achievement that must be demonstrated, hours of training, courses of study, approval of the schools a paralegal must go to and so on.

I am not convinced that what the consumer looks for when he looks for competent and affordable legal representation through the services of paralegals is necessarily somebody who has gone through a scheme of preparation, training, testing and so on that might be required by the Law Society of Upper Canada. However, this is one of the items we will have to look at as we discuss this bill. As I understand it, there is all-party interest in seeing it go to the justice committee.

You will be interested to know, Mr. Speaker, that there will not be a monolithic opinion from this caucus on this subject. You will find a refreshing divergence of views. I can advertise the fact that my fond colleague the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere (Mr. Warner) has agreed with me that he will speak second in this debate and that he will be in opposition to passage of this bill. That is fine with me and I am sure it is fine with the member for Oakville. That is the purpose of having private members' time.

10:20 a.m.

I point out in closing that there are many other groups providing vital professional services in our society in Ontario that are not regulated. They have not achieved, sometimes even though they wish to achieve, the status of a recognized self-governing body, which would therefore have status in the eyes of the government and, for example, in the case of the psychologists of Ontario might be eligible to have their patients receive benefits under the Ontario health insurance plan for treatment.

The same is true for marriage counsellors, also loosely called family counsellors or marital mediators, as we refer to them in the Family Law Act which we passed earlier this year. These people all operate in Ontario without any formal regulation or recognition by the government, even though in some cases they take part in our justice system, either as witnesses or through involvement in cases going to court, before the court will accept certain approaches by applicants to the court.

The question of how we recognize and regulate these many service providers in Ontario is one that deserves a general examination in 1986. I am pleased this bill will give us some opportunity to do that. In that way, it serves a very useful purpose, and I will be pleased to support it on those grounds.

Mr. Epp: I am pleased to be able to speak today on Bill 42. The rights of paralegals are very important. The subject is timely, even though all of us probably have enough things on our plates these days that we do not have to add something else. Nevertheless, it is an important subject.

Like everything else, legal fees are rising. As the Deputy Speaker, being a lawyer himself, is aware, in many cases people of moderate means may not be able to afford a lawyer, particularly if there is not a great deal of money at stake, such as in fighting a traffic ticket. Probably all of us have experience in that, although we regret to admit it. There are many other such minor charges. Representation by a lawyer may not make sense, considering the charge or the money at risk and the amounts lawyers charge, which may vary from $75 an hour to $200 or $300 an hour.

At the same time, the number of people acting as paralegals is increasing. My information is that there are at least 150 people who are registered with the Independent Paralegal Guild of Ontario. There are probably 10 times that number who are practising as paralegal people. The issue is made even more important in the light of the recent provincial court decision, upheld by the district court judge, that dismissed the charge brought by the Law Society of Upper Canada against a paralegal for unlawfully acting as a barrister and a solicitor, contrary to the Law Society Act. Since then even more paralegals have entered the field.

There are several good points in favour of supporting the continued use of the paralegal profession and, therefore, of supporting the bill itself. In many situations, the services of a lawyer are not required. Paralegals can provide a valuable service to clients at much less cost than a lawyer -- a cost more in keeping with the charge or the matter at hand. Every hearing does not require a lawyer. As the member for Oakville has pointed out, many hearings are conducted in front of someone who is not a lawyer. It does not make sense to require a lawyer to represent someone who is appearing before a justice of the peace who himself or herself is not a lawyer.

Many paralegals are highly professional and have a great deal of experience. In many cases, they are former police officers who have the practical experience required in situations such as we are talking about. At present, there are a large number of paralegals in business. Several provincial statutes allow for the use of agents or paralegals. An example of such a statute is the Landlord and Tenant Act. Provincial prosecutors are also used and many are former police officers, as I pointed out.

These people are not lawyers. They handle minor prosecutions such as charges under the Highway Traffic Act and the Liquor Licence Act. Law students also carry on many similar functions for law firms. They are sanctioned by these law firms and by the Law Society of Upper Canada. The Law Society of Upper Canada is not enthusiastic at this point about the paralegal trade. In the light of the activity by nonlawyers that already exists and the benefits paralegals can provide to the consumer in legal services, it is vital that they be regulated in some fashion.

It is also important that we make clear the situations where paralegal agents can serve the public. We may wish to clarify the present situation, which is cloudy at best. We must be certain that a paralegal, before going into business, has the proper training, education and level of skill so that the public is not harmed by inadequately educated paralegals. This is paramount in our thinking. We have to protect the unsuspecting public because people can act as charlatans in any profession.

It is therefore incumbent on this Legislature to have some controls on people who practise as paralegals. Once they are in business, we must ensure that the paralegals maintain a required level of professionalism and professional conduct. There should be adequate restrictions on the type of work a paralegal is entitled to do. Most important, we must ensure that a paralegal is covered by adequate insurance so that a client is not injured financially if a mistake is made. If a person retains a lawyer, that person has the knowledge that insurance is in place to help compensate for malpractice or mistakes. A similar system is necessary for the paralegal profession.

Bill 42 contains a recognition that registration, education and regulation of professional conduct and insurance are all desirable. I note that responsible members of the paralegal profession have also publicly called for regulation of the area by way of protecting the public and ensuring that only those with the proper qualifications and level of professionalism are in business.

Bill 42 is somewhat vague on what limits would be put on paralegals. I am sure that the member for Oakville is keenly aware of this. While mentioning the need for proper education, it does not spell out what that would be. Many decisions would be left to the paralegal agents committee. I would be interested to know what are considered to be proper courses of study and whether colleges currently offer courses that are adequate; otherwise, new courses will have to be developed across the province.

As I mentioned, insurance is vital. I would be interested in knowing whether insurance is currently available to paralegals and whether it will be available if they become regulated. A representative of the Law Society of Upper Canada has stated that "tossing laymen into the hands of an untrained, unsupervised body of charlatans is hardly the answer" to high legal fees and better access to legal advice. This is unfortunate rhetoric. Most paralegals are professional, hardworking and well-intentioned people.

They do not compromise on their standards and they do not comprise a body of charlatans. They welcome the possibility of regulating the profession. There may be some bad apples among paralegals, but that is the case in any profession or any business. We should not condemn the whole lot because there may be a few people who need to comply with higher standards of conduct.

10:30 a.m.

I reiterate that the bill does not set out specifically what responsibilities a paralegal can assume. We must be careful not to go too far. It should not be the intention of the bill to allow them to work in areas where the training of a lawyer is required. Insurance must be arranged and there must be included in the bill, once this Legislature acts on it, stricter standards than are comprised in this particular bill. What also must be dealt with more extensively is the discretion of the commission itself.

I will be supporting the bill, but I have a number of concerns that have to be addressed, and I am sure they will be addressed in the not-too-distant future.

Mrs. Marland: I rise to support Bill 42 this morning. When the bill was first introduced, I sent a copy to all the lawyers in my constituency. To date, I have received only one letter from a lawyer requesting further clarification of certain effects of the bill that she has identified as undesirable.

This bill probably better deals with the old axiom that you get what you pay for. I must admit I had no idea of the scope of paralegals activities in this province until I saw a flyer from a paralegal centre. I am not going to give its address and telephone number, however, since it is because of this flyer that I feel even more strongly than I did before about supporting Bill 42.

When one sees the scope of services this paralegal group advertises, even though it starts its communication with, "We are not lawyers," one realizes that it is into a great number of areas. I am not a lawyer, and that is significant in the fact that I am speaking in support of this bill this morning because, although there are lawyers in the Legislature who are supporting the bill, I am speaking purely as a consumer with none of the profession of law behind me. However, in my layperson's interpretation, I can see, as the member for Waterloo North (Mr. Epp) said, that some members of the public may not be able to afford a lawyer. My response, of course, is that there are members of the public who cannot afford not to have a lawyer in many areas. I feel very strongly that if there are areas where the members of the public who cannot afford a lawyer themselves require that professional service, they have access to it through legal aid.

When one looks at the list of services, one recognizes that they are offering to deal with wills, separation agreements, uncontested divorces and adoption in terms of family matters. Under the heading of business, they are dealing with the incorporation of Ontario firms, federal incorporations, registrations of proprietorship and power of attorney. What I really like under business is the last description, which says "all other matters," then in brackets, "depending on complexity." In other words, they actually hold themselves up as being able to deal with all other matters with respect to business. I feel this is absolutely no protection for the public. As members of this Legislature, we have an obligation to protect the public -- sometimes to protect us against ourselves.

It makes sense, obviously, that a paralegal could appear in court on behalf of an individual in an area in which that individual could also appear on his own behalf. In those areas where we can now represent ourselves quite adequately and perhaps quite successfully, but when we cannot afford the time from work or perhaps cannot get to that particular session, it makes sense for members of the public to have the choice to have someone else represent them as an agent. Certainly, in some of the areas that have been addressed, to have a paralegal as an agent is totally acceptable; but when one looks at the scope of services they think they are able to offer and to service the public adequately, that is where I feel we must be concerned.

I commend the member for Oakville for his professional conscience and for his public conscience, because in bringing this bill into the Legislature, he is recognizing that at the moment we do not have anything that defines the difference for the public between paralegals and the professional lawyer. Most lay people simply do not know what the differences are. Without regulation the public would not know whether it had any recourse on a paralegal agent.

We are certainly aware of the tremendous insurance coverage that becomes a requirement for an individual lawyer who is in practice in order that there always be some recourse for one of his clients to go back to that legal firm, if necessary, and be able to pursue that firm when he has had unsatisfactory service from it. As far as I am aware, there is no requirement for paralegal people to have any insurance or any form of protection for anyone who seeks out their services.

In areas in which I support the use of paralegals, their activities in those areas are to be encouraged. There is no question that a lot of the public are very inhibited by the formality of going to a lawyer's office, and in some areas they are quite inhibited by the fees. I am not here to justify or to question lawyers' professional fees, but I stand in this Legislature today to uphold the law profession, because the responsibility its members assume in rendering their services to those of us in the public who do not have their training is very great indeed.

When the law society expresses its concern, it is expressing it for very good reason. It sees the public seeking out a service thinking it is going to have the same advice, and subsequently the same protection, that it would have from a lawyer. Obviously, that is simply not so.

In supporting this bill, when we get it to the committee stage, I know the law society and those people who are concerned will be able to come to the committee to express their concerns. We will end up with a control, a regulation and a refinement that we simply do not have today. We will end up with something that will be acceptable to the law society because, for the first time, the public will be aware of what the differences are. Where we have obviously professionally trained people in the areas where their professional requirements are inherent in the responsibilities they assume in processing whatever that case is, then ultimately the public is protected.

It has also been suggested that the law society is protecting its own interests. It was suggested in one of the editorials I read that the law society is concerned about the competition and feels that regulating these paralegals will give it greater competition. I suggest the law society is not about to be concerned about competition, because it has enough competition with the number of lawyers within the profession in the province in the first place. I do not think it is concerned about inhibiting competition, but conscientious practising lawyers in our province are certainly concerned about and want to inhibit improper, poor professional advice being given where professional advice is needed.

10:40 a.m.

An earlier speaker this morning referred to this. I guess it was the president of the paralegal society who said they would ask to have the society recognized as a profession and to have the training requirements for the profession established once and for all. Personally, I feel strongly that professions are just that. One cannot have someone without the training of the profession, whatever it is, recognized as a professional on a par with people who have had the training.

I look for the support of this Legislature on this bill.

Mr. Warner: It is obvious from the attendance this morning that the members were not alerted that I would be participating in this debate.

Mr. O'Connor: They are all waiting.

Mr. Andrewes: They were alerted.

Mr. Epp: We were. We could not even give the tickets away.

Mr. Warner: If nothing else, I have managed to wake up those members who are in the chamber.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to participate in this debate. The member is to be congratulated for bringing forward a piece of legislation that, in some respects, is warranted. I have a few --

Mr. O'Connor: So far I like it.

Mr. Warner: So far, so good; now for the bad news.

The bad news is that I have some concerns about who might be included by this bill. I want to spend a few minutes going over the background to my concerns. The member for Oakville may know that I have spent a number of years working with Scarborough Community Legal Services. In that capacity, we have currently on staff five community legal workers, two lawyers and a clerk-typist-secretary. As is common with most clinics, the community legal workers spend a great deal of their time attempting to organize in the community, often around issues. They attempt to assist people before any of the social service tribunals; the tribunal under the Family Benefits Act administers that. They lend assistance to people before they go before a tribunal in preparing their cases adequately to seek some fundamental justice.

The community legal workers are also involved in public education around law issues. In that capacity, they go to high schools or meet with groups of single-parent mothers or with public housing tenants to attempt to explain what their rights are under the law and how to lobby effectively for any needed changes. There is a whole range of activities that community legal workers undertake. They are not lawyers. They are not trained to be lawyers. They have never taken training at law school. There is no precise job definition because of the variety of things they do. There is no set educational background or any particular experience that is required.

It was my experience on the hiring committee that when we hired a number of individuals, there were special abilities and talents that I was looking for and that I knew other members of the hiring committee were looking for, such as an empathy with the situation of the individuals with whom they would be working, some sense of organizing, some sense of how one is able to coalesce a particular section of the community around an issue and how to present that issue, how to lobby effectively, how to fight effectively against the injustices that have been systematically built into our social welfare system. These are the kinds of criteria I look for.

When the member describes paralegal agent in his definition section, on the one hand I can see that the person I have just described would fit into that definition, with the arguable point around whether the individual receives a fee. Because the clinics operate on a global budget, the people hired there are paid a salary and are not paid on a fee basis. Therefore, when community legal workers go before a tribunal, they are doing it as part of their job. They are not receiving a separate fee for that. They are still on salary. Would a salary be determined to be in a larger sense a fee?

If it can be determined to be so, then a community legal worker, unfortunately, would fall under the definition of being a paralegal agent and, I suggest, that would in turn lead to a stricturing of the definition. It makes it tougher. In other words, we then go to section 3, under the regulations, which means the community legal workers I wish to hire have to go through a whole series of hoops, none of which may be useful or helpful in attempting to get the kind of person needed to work in the clinic, and so it becomes a self-defeating proposition.

I look forward to hearing from the member for Oakville in his windup, because perhaps he will be able to address the concern I raise. If so, he may very well garner my vote. However, I reserve judgement.

I raise the concern because the clinics in this province serve the people of Ontario extremely well. The member for Oakville knows that the legal clinics have expanded. They were introduced under the previous government to the great credit of the then Attorney General, Mr. McMurtry, who was a tremendous supporter of the clinics. Similarly, the new government has shown support for the concept of the clinics and the Attorney General has personally pledged his support.

Within that atmosphere, the clinics have been able to grow, both in number and in size, so that we now have, I think, 52 clinics spread across the province, some of them specialist clinics, such as some that do only workers' compensation cases and others that do a wide variety of work. In each case, they look very carefully at their four-point mandate of working hard on law reform, of doing community legal education and case work and of organizing at the community level.

That work is extremely valuable because it means people who otherwise would not have access to our judicial system because of income have that opportunity. People who would not necessarily receive a legal aid certificate can go into a clinic and receive the kind of assistance which they require and an individual who needs to appear before the Social Assistance Review Board, for example, can be represented. We have found, unfortunately and very painfully, in many cases that have come before that tribunal, the individuals will not have received justice unless they had some representation. We do not need a lawyer to do that, but we do need someone who has some knowledge and who is committed to the process.

10:50 a.m.

I am extremely supportive of the clinics and the work they have done and urge their expansion. Therefore, if there is anything in this bill that may cause difficulty for the clinics, which from the way I read it there is, I am not inclined to support the bill. If, on the other hand, the member for Oakville can make a clear distinction, especially under the definition of paralegal agents, so that it will not have any harmful effect on the work of the clinics, I will be more inclined to support the bill. I anxiously await the response of the member for Oakville and I know he, in turn, anxiously awaits my support.

Mr. O'Connor: First of all, I thank the members who participated in the debate this morning, who provided very useful and interesting comments: the member for Ottawa Centre, the member for Waterloo North, the member for Mississauga South (Mrs. Marland) and the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere. I will make a few comments with regard to each of their comments or concerns.

First, to the member for Ottawa Centre I can say I understand her concerns about the makeup and composition of the governing body of paralegals. However, I point out to her that the governing body, although it is called a committee of the Law Society of Upper Canada, is set out this way for a particular reason, and that is to give it a home, so to speak, a place where it may avail itself of the support and staff that it will need immediately.

She should look at the makeup of the committee and note that the majority of its members are themselves paralegal agents. Only two are benchers of the law society, and they are there because, quite frankly, since paralegals are involved in legal work in courts and tribunals, I felt there should be some input to the governing of the group from lawyers.

Two of the members of the society are laypeople representing the public. One of them is to be appointed by the Minister of Colleges and Universities to assist in the development of the educational standards of the profession as such. To be effective, I have attempted to involve in the governing body the three primary interests: that is, the paralegals themselves, the public, of course, and lawyers, the majority of that body being paralegals. I hope that will allay some of the member's fears with regard to the composition of that body.

I particularly welcome the remarks of the member for Waterloo North in that he is a member of the government who has indicated his support for the bill. He has obviously concerned himself with the matter. He has done his homework. His facts and his comments were quite to the point and well researched.

In reply to one concern he did have about the educational standards for paralegal agents, I point out to him the remarks I made to the member for Ottawa Centre. The governing body will include a person appointed by the Minister of Colleges and Universities. As I see the thing develop, I see paralegal agents being educated and trained through our community college system, perhaps in a post-degree or post-diploma course.

Courses in this area are already offered by the community colleges. I suggest, though, that it should be a post-degree course for fully trained paralegals to ensure that relatively mature, older people go into the system and not the usual graduates from the community colleges, who are, I believe, in the neighbourhood of 18, 19 or 20 years of age. With the appointment of that person to help develop and organize the courses, the member's concern in this regard should be taken care of.

The member for Mississauga South referred to a flyer she has received, which I have also received and seen. I agree with her entirely that this kind of publication and offer to the public makes the case for the necessity of some regulations. If nothing else that has been said or done in the past does, that kind of tactic certainly does.

With regard to the concerns of the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere, I suggest that a different interpretation of the definition may be of some assistance. He will notice that a paralegal agent is a person who is not a lawyer and who is not acting under the supervision of a lawyer. My knowledge of the legal clinics is that lawyers are involved with them. Lawyers supervise the work of some of the other staff, particularly when those staff are involved in legal matters and giving legal advice. If that supervision was present, even in a general way, it would perhaps not be necessary for those particular people to be fully qualified, educated and certified paralegal agents. That definition could certainly extend to cover the community legal services situation.

In any event, the member might consider that it might be of some benefit to the legal clinics to have educated, well-trained, paralegal agents and that once the system was in effect there would be a growing pool of such people who would be available to fill the positions in those clinics, rather than the reverse that they would then be restricted as to staff. There might even be more people available of a better-qualified and better-trained nature.

I thank the members for their participation in this debate. I urge everybody to consider the remarks made this morning and to consider supporting this bill, including the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere, if I have in any way changed his mind. I hope I have. I hope he now can see his way clear to support this bill along with the majority of the balance of the members in the House.

Ms. Bryden: I have been informed that the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Pouliot) is unable to be present this morning and he has asked me to carry his ballot item. I ask the consent of the House to be permitted to carry the member's ballot item this morning.

The Deputy Speaker: Do we have unanimous consent that the member for Beaches-Woodbine carry second reading of Bill 46 in the absence of the member for Lake Nipigon?

Agreed to.

ONTARIO INSTITUTE FOR STUDIES IN EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT

Ms. Bryden moved, on behalf of Mr. Pouliot, second reading of Bill 46, An Act to amend the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education Act.

Ms. Bryden: I would like to reserve a portion of my time for a windup. This act simply adds one clause to the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education Act, which was originally passed in 1965. The new clause says that among its powers the board of the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education may "provide for the granting of and grant degrees, including honorary degrees, diplomas and certificates in education."

In the original act, the objects of the institute were set forth in section 3 as follows:

"(a) to study matters and problems relating to or affecting education, and to disseminate the results of and assist in the implementation of the findings of educational studies;

"(b) to establish and conduct courses leading to certificates of standing and graduate degrees in education."

In the early years clause 3(b), which I have just read, had been interpreted as giving OISE degree-granting powers. It actually did give an honorary degree to its first chairman of the board of governors, Bora Laskin, who later became Chief Justice of Canada. However, when OISE was created in 1965, it was an unknown institution and the board chose to seek an affiliation agreement with the University of Toronto for degree-granting powers to give its graduates the prestige of a degree from a well-established university in the province.

11 a.m.

In the first affiliation agreement, which lasted from 1965 to 1980, it was stated that OISE agreed to withhold the exercise of its degree-granting power for the duration of the agreement. However, in 1979 the Ministry of Education informed OISE that ministry solicitors, in the course of a review of degree-granting authority in Ontario, had concluded that OISE did not have the authority to grant its own degrees. This opinion has never been tested in the courts.

OISE signed a new affiliation agreement with the University of Toronto in 1981. It was to expire five years later on March 31, 1986. However, it has been extended for a year while negotiations continue on the terms of a new agreement with the University of Toronto. Unfortunately, the negotiations are more or less on hold since the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) announced in his October 24, 1985, budget, "As a step towards eliminating duplication in the public sector, the government will transfer the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education to the University of Toronto."

OISE was then 20 years old. It had established a worldwide reputation. It had developed into a unique educational institution in the province, combining graduate training, research and development and field services that brought the fruits of research into the classroom. It served the whole province, working with faculties of education in universities, with school trustees and boards of education and with a host of community groups involved in education. Its work in distance education brought remote areas in touch with research and world trends in education. Its special centres for women's studies, francophone education, educational evaluation, modern languages and applied cognitive science were unmatched anywhere else in the province.

OISE has its own board of governors under the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education Act. The board was widely representative of educational interest in the province. It had control of its own budget, which came mainly from the Ministry of Colleges and Universities under the formula grant to universities. It also received a $2-million research grant from the Ministry of Education and other research grants from external bodies. It received money from tuition fees, rentals and conferences, and the government provided it with its own building occupancy costs. The total budget was $29.5 million in 1985-86. That is not a great deal of money, but there has been a great deal of performance for that money.

The OISE board felt the proposal of the provincial Treasurer threatened its independence and budgetary and programmatic autonomy. It also felt its negotiating position with the University of Toronto for renewal of its affiliation agreement for degree granting was greatly weakened by the Treasurer's proposal. At a meeting of the OISE board of governors on January 28, 1986, the board set forth its objectives for further negotiations with the University of Toronto. These included retention of the name and an independent board of governors. They also included budgetary and programmatic autonomy and continuation of its mandate.

At that same meeting, the board set up a Status of OISE Committee with guidelines that contained the following statement on degree granting, "Among the options the committee should consider and plan toward are OISE as a free-standing, degree-granting institution, and OISE as an institution affiliated with the University of Toronto or, failing that possibility, another Ontario university." In other words, it put forth three options, including the one we are discussing today.

Why should OISE have degree-granting powers? One of the witnesses who appeared before the standing committee on general government, which has been holding extensive public hearings on the future of OISE, was Professor McCormack Smyth of Atkinson College at York University, a man of long experience in a variety of educational institutions. He came out strongly in favour of degree-granting powers for OISE in these words:

"My support for the granting of degree rights to OISE is based on my conviction that if Canadians are to resolve the variety of multifaceted problems that confront them on both the macro and the micro levels, new and vigorous initiatives are required in education. OISE could and should play a key role in ensuring that such new initiatives contribute to the resolution of the multifaceted problems before us."

Later he went on to say:

"If OISE is to serve as a pioneering centre for higher learning through education, it needs the freedom and public stature that only a freestanding institution of post-secondary education enjoys...

"It is extremely difficult, if not entirely impossible, to develop new educational approaches in established, ongoing universities...if one is to make a creative intervention in any education system, it is preferable that such intervention be made through an independent institution."

He also told the committee in the discussion on his brief that "we need a new catalyst in education in Ontario. I see that in an enhanced role for OISE."

He also put forth the view that "OISE should seek to do for education what the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the land grant colleges in the United States did for science and technology," that is, they "transformed America and gave it this tremendous industrial and technical capability," which it now shows.

He suggested that small is beautiful and differentiated institutions are often more cost effective.

He concluded, "The time has now come for the Legislature of Ontario to enable OISE to move to the essential next stage in its development as a free-standing institution of higher learning authorized to grant academic degrees in its own right."

Some arguments have been put up against giving OISE degree-granting status. The first is that it is not a university. That is true, and it clearly has no aspirations to become one. But the vast majority of degree-granting institutions in North America are not universities. In Ontario, 45 institutions have degree-granting power, but only 16 are universities. Most are single-faculty institutions operating through affiliation or federation with universities. OISE would be in a better position to negotiate such affiliations if it had independent stature.

The second argument against degree granting for OISE is the reluctance of governments in the past to increase the number of university-level institutions, mainly on the ground of economy. While I can see that a new institution starting from scratch could be costly, there would be no additional cost for OISE. It already has a mature administration and excellent facilities.

11:10 a.m.

The main argument for giving OISE degree-granting status is that it cannot carry out its very broad mandate if it is not an independent institution. Its mandate, as I mentioned, is "to study matters and problems relating to or affecting education, and to disseminate the results of and assist in the implementation of the findings of educational studies." To fulfil that, it must be a place where the voices of the teacher and the trustee are heard, where research is folded into the world of work, where access is based on professional experience and capacity as well as academic record and where there is a balance between theory and practice.

OISE merits degree-granting status. The standing committee on general government has learned a great deal during the past six months about OISE's contributions to education in Ontario. It has visited northern communities as well as hearing many briefs from other parts of the province. The committee has become aware that no other institution in Canada or abroad provides the full combination and range of comprehensive services OISE does. Few other institutions have a comparable level and scope of activity. It therefore merits degree-granting powers. I urge the House to vote for this amendment.

Mr. Cordiano: The act under consideration proposes to provide the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education with the authority to "provide for the granting of and grant degrees, including honorary degrees, diplomas and certificates in education." However, both the history of the institution since its establishment in 1965 and the current activities focused on bringing OISE and the University of Toronto together, lead one to the conclusion that the change proposed by Bill 46 would make no significant contribution to the calibre of study and work carried out in and by the institute. This change would in no way enhance the service provided by OISE to the people of Ontario.

I want to go over the history. The member for Beaches-Woodbine (Ms. Bryden) has done a very good job of going over some of the historical elements of this entire debate, but let me go over it in a cursory way.

At its establishment in 1965, OISE's objectives were "to study matters and problems relating to or affecting education, and to disseminate the results of and assist in the implementation of the findings of educational studies," and as well, "to establish and conduct courses leading to certificates of standing and graduate degrees in education." Since OISE's establishment, there have been three main areas of activity for the institute: graduate studies, research in education and field studies.

Through an affiliation agreement with the University of Toronto, OISE graduates receive U of T degrees. There is no evidence that OISE's important activities as outlined above have been impinged upon in any way by the fact that OISE itself does not have degree-granting powers. On the contrary, for the past 20 years, OISE has made significant contributions to education in Ontario. The institute has had a strong record of achievement in graduate studies, research in education and field services, as I have pointed out.

In such areas as French immersion, applied cognitive science, women's studies, adult education and curriculum, OISE has obtained a marvellous reputation worldwide. Indeed, degree-granting authority seems irrelevant to OISE's accomplishments.

I want to go over the current situation with regard to the merger between OISE and the University of Toronto. The bill we are considering seems particularly untimely in the light of the current activity focused on bringing together OISE and the University of Toronto.

It is the view of this government that bringing together these two outstanding institutions will provide enhanced opportunities for academic and research excellence in the field of education. The institute, with its nine field centres in graduate studies and research activities, fits with the well-established undergraduate programs at the University of Toronto in the faculty of education.

The government is seeking to ensure that the clear, potential benefits from integration of OISE and the University of Toronto are realized. It is, therefore, our hope the two institutions can work co-operatively in developing a detailed plan of union that can, in turn, be supported by both governing bodies.

Because this may take some time, the Treasurer has indicated that he is willing to delay the timing of the financial integration. In the meantime, the affiliation agreement between OISE and the University of Toronto, scheduled to expire on June 30, 1986, two days from now, has been extended for one year, as pointed out by the member for Beaches-Woodbine.

From this perspective, it seems ill-advised for the Legislature now to impose a fundamental change on the aspect of the multifaceted relationship which is under review and which is a priority to both parties involved in the integration.

As I understand it, the standing committee on general government has yet to table its report on the OISE/U of T issue. Again, this underlines the untimeliness of the actions proposed by Bill 46. Further, it should be noted that there has been no official request from either OISE or the U of T for the change proposed by Bill 46.

Mr. Grande: Is the member saying OISE does not support this?

Mr. Cordiano: I am saying there has been no official request. Both institutions are attempting to work out a detailed plan that will bring a level of co-operation to both institutions to work out those plans. It is far wiser for the two institutions to get together to proceed in the fashion they have been proceeding in order to reach a level of co-operation that is acceptable to both institutions.

What the bill proposes today is somehow to speed up the process, whereby it is not beneficial to OISE at this time to grant degrees. It is a question that does not involve the priority stated by both institutions; that is, that they get together to bring about integration.

Members of the third party and of the official opposition have stated their opposition to integration from both institutions. However, I think the period the Treasurer has indicated he is willing to extend, that is, one year, to allow both institutions to look at the problems in far greater detail and to come up with a detailed plan for integration is the better way to proceed at this point.

As I have said, degree-granting power is a separate issue entirely from the issue we are facing at this time and, as a result, I do not support the bill.

11:20 a.m.

Mr. McFadden: I rise in support of Bill 46. This bill would not have been before this House at this time if the Treasurer had not made his ill-conceived proposal in October's budget to transfer OISE to the University of Toronto. The Treasurer's proposal was made without consultation with either OISE or the university. It was also made without regard to the ongoing programs of OISE and the potential jeopardy in which these programs would be placed by such a transfer.

Based upon the Treasurer's statement to the standing committee on general government during the course of its recent public hearings on OISE, it is clear the budget proposal was based upon ill-founded views and prejudices developed from a government report that is now more than 10 years old, as well as on outdated information and conclusions as to what OISE is now doing and what it has achieved in recent years.

Like any institution, OISE undoubtedly had some growing pains during its first years of operation. This is natural and to be expected. Today, as Ontarians, we can be very proud that OISE has developed into a world-class educational institution with an excellent reputation for its work, not only in this province but also across Canada and around the world. The provision of degree-granting power to OISE, as envisaged by Bill 46, will recognize the stature achieved by the institute and its contribution to the enhancement of the quality of education in Ontario.

Since the controversy arose about the Treasurer's budget proposal, I have been impressed by the tremendous outpouring of support and endorsement for OISE. I have received hundreds of letters from students, elementary and high school teachers, university professors, education administrators and concerned individuals from across Ontario and from various parts of the United States and Europe. In this House we have received petitions signed by thousands of Ontarians endorsing OISE and urging that its current status as an independent institute be maintained.

In my view, the most impressive endorsement for OISE came during the hearings of the general government committee. One witness after another in our hearings in Toronto, Ottawa, North Bay and Thunder Bay came before the committee in person to endorse the outstanding work of OISE, to attest to the invaluable services the staff of the institute provide to the educational community throughout the province and to express opposition to the transfer of OISE to the University of Toronto. The wholehearted and unanimous endorsement OISE received from students, educators and administrators gave ample proof of the central importance of OISE to the education system in Ontario.

During the 21 years since it was founded by the Minister of Education of the day, the Honourable William Davis, OISE has achieved a standard of excellence in a broad range of programs, in research and development, in graduate studies and in field services. Some of its programs are of unique importance, such as those offered by the Franco-Ontarian Centre and by the Centre for Women's Studies in Education.

The field services offered by OISE deserve special mention since they provide invaluable service to educators throughout Ontario which are not available from any other institution. It was interesting to hear from teachers who came before us day after day during the course of our hearings to attest to the practical and very real assistance that OISE's field service program had been to them in their classrooms.

It was very interesting to see the various submissions received from administrators who are trained in the areas of government and of how the bureaucratic system works. It was interesting to hear from those administrators who warned us about moving OISE into such a large institution as the University of Toronto and the danger that would pose to the future security of the budget for the field service program and all the other excellent programs provided to educators across this province.

Having listened to the educators, the students, the administrators and the various people in the community who have come before the committee and sent in written submissions, I think it is clear that OISE can be justifiably proud of what it has been able to achieve since its establishment back in 1965.

Ontario can and should be proud of the real accomplishments of OISE and of the international reputation it has managed to achieve in 21 short years. The conferring of degree-granting status would recognize these achievements. It would recognize the hard work of Chairman Jones and his capable board of governors. It would also recognize the accomplishments of the faculty and staff of OISE.

Degree-granting status would give to the institute a much-needed sense of academic stability in the face of months of uncertainty that have followed the October budget. Therefore, I urge all members of this House to support Bill 46 and to endorse the kind of work OISE has been doing since 1965.

Mr. Allen: I rise to support my colleague's bill proposing degree-granting powers for the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, known as Bill 46.

It is not insignificant that this is 1986. It is exactly 21 years from the founding of the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. Twenty-one years used to be the coming of age, the age of majority, symbolizing accession to adulthood and full autonomy of person, with all the responsibilities that went with it. Although we have waffled with ages of 18 and 19 for various other categories of responsibility verging on adulthood, still, in many respects, it remains a symbolic number. The significant fact about OISE's history during those 21 years is that it has indeed grown up.

The original arrangements that were established to provide it with some legitimacy in the world at large, affiliating it with the University of Toronto, providing that university with the oversight of degree-granting powers for that institute, are no longer particularly germane or essential to that body's reputation, to the solidity of its record, to the need for some legitimacy that its graduates carry forward or to anything that bears any significant reality that one normally attaches to degrees and degree-granting powers.

The original discussions around the founding of the institute and for years afterward indicate there was much intention that OISE become a degree-granting institution. In fact, the affiliation arrangement it had with the University of Toronto is not to be found even within the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education Act.

In the course of time, this institution has, like many institutions, grown and expanded and outgrown the difficulties that attended the earlier years of development. I am not going to dwell on the latter. They were well expanded upon in the early years of that institution's development, but by common consent they no longer are part of our present reality. They are no longer part of what one thinks about when one thinks about this institution.

It has developed into a unique place. In its mix of graduate university studies, research and development and field services, it does things that are not common to most institutes or most bodies with which one might otherwise want to compare it.

11:30 a.m.

When we in the standing committee on general government undertook a search to discover how comparable it was with other institutions of its kind around the world, it stood out as a unique package, and it is precisely in its uniqueness that it has been able to accomplish what it has done in a very short space of time.

There is no doubt that the flood of letters to which the member just referred or that I or the member for Beaches-Woodbine has received has borne testimony, not only from Ontario or from across Canada but also from around the world, to the status and stature of the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. OISE has indeed grown up.

When one talks about degree-granting powers, a couple of things are often referred to. Of course, one is the need for the reputation that stands behind a degree to give it some currency. It is very interesting that at this point in OISE's history, its graduates, who fan out across the province, across the country and across the world, are known more for their attachment to the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education than for their being products of the University of Toronto per se. They are known as OISE graduates.

It is not surprising that when one looks at the list of visiting professors who go there, the pattern of international reputation is quite obvious. For example, there are professors who come from the Ministry of Education, Bogota, Colombia; Kyushu University, Japan; Bar-Ilan University, Israel; the Western Australian Institute of Technology; Islamic Development Bank in Jidda, Saudi Arabia, and Macquarie University, New South Wales. They come from the University of Aikato, New Zealand, and the National University of Singapore, as well as from various places in North America and Canada. There is a sense that this is an institution that can stand behind any degree that is worth giving to any student. There is no question about reputation.

The issue that has been raised about whether or not this is a university and therefore worthy of granting degrees is really a nonstarter. There are 16 universities in Ontario, but there are 43 degree-granting institutions. There are far more degree-granting institutions that are not universities than are universities in our province.

There were those who suggested there should be no more degree-granting institutions because to proliferate them would add cost to the government. That was the song in 1983 when we were limiting degree-granting powers in this province. To grant degree-granting powers to OISE is to grant powers to an existing institution that will be no more and no less costly to the government in its support either way, with or without degrees. The issue is a nonstarter.

If I might respond to the question of whether this is untimely or irrelevant to the current debate around OISE's future; in the first instance, it is quite clear OISE has been asking for degree-granting power as recently as June 18. I have a letter from the chairperson of the board of governors, who says: "Regardless of the outcome of talks with the University of Toronto, we still wish to pursue independent degree-granting powers for the institute. We appreciate your efforts in preparing Bill 46."

There has been a request. It has been made before the committee. It has been repeated many times. It is in writing. There is no question about the desire. With respect to the relevance of the current debate on the future status of OISE, in a certain sense that is a little bit beside the question, although obviously a complete merger of this institution with the University of Toronto would finally close off any option for independent degree-granting powers.

With regard to any other alternative one can think about, including the one that appears to receive principally the attention of the negotiating team at this time -- namely, a structure which would include the faculty of education of the university within the OISE structure and have an independent board and control of its own resources -- degree-granting powers are not incompatible with that or with any acceptable model that has been presented to the standing committee on general government or that emanates from any part of the educational community.

The notion that to grant degree-granting power at this time is somehow or other inimical to the best future of OISE or to acceptable models that can be worked out in the relationship with the University of Toronto is really to raise a red herring across the whole issue.

The central issue is the question whether the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education has matured to the degree that it now is capable of fielding graduate students and researchers for this province, personnel who will support the whole educational enterprise in this province, outside this province and around the world to such an extent and in such a fashion that there is no question they have been legitimately and fully trained and will withstand any test of scrutiny that anyone can bring against them. That, in short, is the issue.

I submit that this institution has achieved that reputation. One has only to look at the various bodies it houses that have international reputations themselves, such as the International Council for Adult Education, which is the centre for adult education across the world. OISE is synonymous with a worldwide reputation and the whole thrust of adult education around the world. That is repeated in area after area of this institution's existence, in its purpose and in its function.

The time has come in terms of the institution's own development, quite apart from the question of relations with the University of Toronto, for it to have degree-granting power.

Ms. Hart: I rise today to speak against Bill 46, a bill designed to give the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education degree-granting privileges and to render it fully autonomous from the University of Toronto.

As I am sure the members are aware, the relationship between OISE and the University of Toronto is based on an affiliation agreement whereby the University of Toronto grants degrees to OISE students, but the administration of programming and funding rests solely with the institute. There is no other arrangement in post-secondary education quite like this one. These two institutions, ideologically tied through the common goal of providing superlative educational facilities to their students, ought to come together under one institutional umbrella to provide both organizations with enhanced opportunities for academic and research excellence.

The University of Toronto has in the past successfully merged with neighbouring educational organizations. I cite as examples of that the federated colleges of Victoria, St. Michael's and Trinity and the colleges of the Toronto School of Theology. The various institutions and the university itself have benefited immensely from their closer association. I believe the same type of benefits will emerge from the integration of OISE with the University of Toronto.

In fact, the OISE-University of Toronto subcommittee preliminary report deals with full integration of OISE and the University of Toronto. It was released in March 1983 and it outlined various benefits it felt would likely occur from such a merger.

One of those benefits would be enhanced quality of teaching programs by drawing upon the experiences of the staffs of the two institutions. Second, there would be a more systematic relationship in research, a strengthening of their research capabilities through effective use of the methodological expertise and knowledge of both staffs. Third, there would be a pooling of resources and staffs to review curricular needs and program co-ordination. These are but a few of the potential benefits of such a union that I see.

OISE's closer association with the University of Toronto, one of the finest universities in Canada and one known throughout the world, not just in educational but in all circles, could only bring increased prestige to its already renowned reputation. The integration will consolidate the activities of the University of Toronto and OISE, making both organizations stronger in the field of education. Co-ordination of undergraduate and post-graduate programs can only enhance the delivery of superior services to those seeking post-secondary education.

11:40 a.m.

The criticism of the integration program flows from the perceived threat that this proposal could pose to the programs OISE has developed over the past 20 years or so, for example, the women's centre, the modern language program and the regional field offices.

The government has not imposed a specific regimented plan for integration. It has not advanced ideas on the continuation or discontinuation of any program. Rather, it is the government's intention to continue promotion and facilitation of negotiations between OISE and the University of Toronto so that they may come to a mutually beneficial agreement on the method for a smooth and successful integration.

The University of Toronto has made a proposal that would provide for a 50-50 split of authority between OISE and the University of Toronto administrations. A new council would be established where, among others, the dean of undergraduate studies from the University of Toronto, the dean of graduate studies and the OISE director would be present. It is also suggested that a new college of the University of Toronto be established, and it is not inconceivable that the new college would retain OISE's name.

Further, the OISE board would be maintained but the functions would be altered. It could be a granting council responsible for the allocation of funding from the Ministry of Education. This plan would maintain OISE's programs and would continue degree granting from the University of Toronto.

This is merely an example of what could come from a joint effort to create an integration model. As efforts about the University of Toronto and OISE have been concentrating on an integrated model and as a successful result requires time, the affiliation agreement has been extended to June 1987 and a comprehensive model for integration is hopeful at this stage.

Finally, I would like to reiterate and emphasize that the common goal of superior postsecondary school education facilities is an item of utmost priority. The responsibility lies with elected members such as ourselves to advance and support those programs which would ensure the realization of the common goal. The University of Toronto and the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education merger would serve to enshrine our goals by uniting two excellent institutions.

I will be opposing the bill put forward today as I believe it will interfere in a negative way with the constructive negotiations that are currently ongoing between the two institutions for their mutual benefit. I urge other members similarly to vote against the bill.

Mr. Dean: I am delighted to rise and take part in the debate on this bill which, when passed, would provide degree-granting power to the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.

I, too, am one of the members of the standing committee on general government which has listened over the past months to extensive briefs and oral submissions from people all over Ontario and, in a few cases, from beyond the borders of our province in support of the continuance of this excellent institution.

I recognize that the present bill does not speak directly to whether the institution remains as an independent body or whether it be merged with some other institution, which was suggested as a desirable thing by the Treasurer in his budget last fall. However, I believe the timeliness of the bill is exactly appropriate in that it underlines one of the features which, as we have heard from many presentations and from people directly connected with OISE itself, is considered by hundreds of people in the educational community to be an important adjunct to the continued and developing contribution OISE makes to education in our province.

The right to grant degrees, as has been stated by a previous speaker, is not given out with a free and open hand in this province. Having had some experience both as a member of a school board in years past and as a parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Education here during my time in the Legislature, I agree in general with that tight control on degree-granting powers. We are all familiar with the so-called degree mills we hear of from time to time which operate in the United States and which frequently attempt to extend tentacles into Ontario. It is proper that we have that strict surveillance of any application, any consideration for the right to grant a degree which would be recognized in this province as being comparable to degrees that our own institutions already grant.

I know the Ministry of Education has ongoing discussions and concerns brought about because of the steady stream of applications from institutions in other jurisdictions that crave two things. First, they crave to be recognized by the ministry and the government in this province, which is known for having a high standard of excellence in educational performance, for the degrees offered; and second, to have access to a lucrative market in Ontario for those who might be persuaded to pay fees to those external organizations in order to get a degree that might look good on paper but might not have much substance to it.

OISE does not fit in that group of money-grabbing, would-be-degree-granting institutions. As the previous speakers this morning have outlined well, OISE is held in the highest respect worldwide for all of its different activities which can, as the mover of the motion outlined, be divided roughly into three sections: research and development in education, the graduate degree program and field services. In the submissions which we had in the standing committee on general government on the topic of OISE's independence or otherwise, all three of those fields were covered.

I do not propose to spend any further time here on the favourable submissions we received on both the research and development and the field services which OISE does. Suffice it to say these are held to be desirable, almost essential, to the carrying on of the excellent degree of educational performance we expect from our educators in Ontario. OISE does offer courses in the PhD, doctor of education, master of arts and master of education fields. At present, there are 690 full-time students and more than 1,600 part-time students engaged in one or other of those courses.

OISE has received high ratings from the Ontario Council on Graduate Studies, which does a general overview of all degree-granting institutions in the graduate field in Ontario. Since its inception in 1965, OISE has granted, through the University of Toronto, 9,000 master of education degrees, mostly to teachers, and more than 1,000 doctorates to teachers and other educational officials.

In the course of doing this, OISE has developed innovative ways of providing service off-campus, which is important in a jurisdiction as large as Ontario where people are scattered over thousands of miles and cannot always conveniently take all the necessary time off to attend full time. This is an example, in the degree courses, of the kind of innovation and dedication to excellent educational directions, projects and programs for which OISE has come to be renowned.

11:50 a.m.

More specifically, the degree-granting power or privilege, because it is sort of a privilege in our province, is one of the six features that we judge is important to OISE from the submissions their own people have made. I do not necessarily mean the people who are employed there, but the people who have come to respect OISE for what it does and who have had direct experience in OISE. It is one of the six features they believe are essential for the continued effective operation of the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.

In that regard, it will aid it to continue functioning as an independent body. It is quite true we have the looming spectre of amalgamation if the Treasurer carries out his threat or promise, whichever it was, which was enunciated in his budget last fall. I am not trying to prejudge what the standing committee on general government will recommend to the Legislature after its extensive study, because that has not yet been completely formulated by the committee. However, my own personal opinion is that the power to grant degrees would be a considerable step in the right direction to support the good work and reputation OISE enjoys.

In summary, I am proud that the members of our caucus in the Legislature show their own confidence and support of OISE by recognizing its achievements in the field of graduate education as well as in the other roles it performs. Over the years, I believe OISE has earned the right to be recognized as a pre-eminent, unique, valuable component of our excellent education system. In supporting this bill, we grant OISE a tangible sign of that recognition it so well deserves. I urge all members to support this bill.

Mr. Warner: I am pleased to support this bill. Frankly, I remain puzzled as to the Treasurer's intent from the outset when he made his announcement.

OISE was established to serve a unique function. It continues to fulfil that function and to excel in quite a number of areas of educational research. It remains a world-class example of the kind of extremely important educational work that needs to be done. It is an entity that should be left separate and it should not be disturbed in any way.

Rather than attempting in some way to dismantle it, which appears to be the Treasurer's intent, we should be supporting it to a greater degree than we are. Part of that support is to enable OISE to grant diplomas, certificates, honorary degrees and degrees themselves. We should be trying to enhance the institution and not attempting to break it down. In a practical sense, members realize that if OISE becomes amalgamated with the University of Toronto, it will melt. It will simply become part of the fabric of the university and will lose its separate identity. It will no longer exist on its own merits. To me, that would be wrong.

I urge all members to support this excellent bill put forward by my colleague. We should try to support OISE rather than attack it.

Ms. Bryden: The members who have opposed this bill are claiming we do not need any change from the present situation and that OISE can continue to work out an affiliation agreement with the University of Toronto and carry on in a co-operative way. The present state of the negotiations does not lead us to believe that is necessarily going to happen, and they have been going on for a considerable period of time.

The other thing I want to point out is that this bill would not interrupt the negotiations or interfere with them; in fact, it would enhance the ability of both institutions to work out cooperative arrangements. The University of Toronto faculty of education and OISE need to work together; it would be beneficial for both of them. The simple fact is that if OISE does not have its own degree-granting powers, it cannot negotiate as an equal with the university. Anybody who has been connected with bargaining of any kind will recognize that.

If OISE has to rely on fixed-term affiliation agreements with the University of Toronto for degree-granting powers, it cannot plan for the future. It cannot develop new programs to meet the new conditions of human life which Professor McCormack Smyth mentioned in his presentation to the standing committee on general government. He mentioned the advent of nuclear power, the robotization of work, the transformation of our system of communications, what he called the video culture, which is replacing the print culture. He mentioned the widening sense of alienation and the feeling of powerlessness of a great many people in our society.

We need institutions flexible enough to be able to start to meet these needs. We need an independent OISE with the ability to turn the focus of education on to meeting these problems. It cannot do it without its independence, its programmatic autonomy and its own budget. These may be at risk in any future affiliation agreement if degree-granting powers are also on the line.

It is absolutely essential we recognize that OISE is 21 years old, that it does merit degree-granting powers of its own and that it be able to continue to expand and develop as an independent institution. That is what this bill is all about. I urge members to vote in support of it.

I also want to mention that one particular institute at OISE, the Women's Centre for Studies in Education, is a unique resource for all women in Ontario. It is a meeting place for women and a centre for finding new approaches to the development of the equality of women. It is producing a history of the contributions of women to our society. History in the past has usually focused on the male players in the business world, in the political world and in the world of work. That imbalance is now being redressed by the women's centre, which is producing a history of women in Ontario in various aspects.

That is one of the centres OISE would like to continue, but if it does not have programmatic autonomy and budgetary autonomy, it may not be able to ensure its continuation. Another centre at OISE is the Modern Language Centre, which does work with native languages. That is another unique area that is not covered by any of the programs at the University of Toronto and it may not be funded if OISE is merged with the University of Toronto.

12 noon

It is important to maintain OISE as an independent institution and to make it possible for it to negotiate affiliation agreements that will be fruitful to both OISE and the University of Toronto.

PARALEGAL AGENTS ACT

Mr. Speaker: Mr. O'Connor has moved second reading of Bill 42.

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will say "nay."

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for standing committee on administration of justice.

ONTARIO INSTITUTE FOR STUDIES IN EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT

The House divided on Mr. Pouliot's motion for second reading of Bill 46, which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes

Allen, Andrewes, Barlow, Bernier, Brandt, Bryden, Charlton, Cooke, D. S., Cousens, Davis, Dean, Gigantes, Gillies, Gordon, Grande, Gregory, Grier, Guindon, Harris, Hayes, Hennessy, Jackson, Lane, Laughren, Leluk;

Mackenzie, Marland, Martel, McCague, McFadden, McLean, McNeil, Morin-Strom, O'Connor, Partington, Philip, Pierce, Reville, Rowe, Runciman, Shymko, Sterling, Stevenson, K. R., Swart, Treleaven, Villeneuve, Warner, Wildman.

Nays

Bossy, Callahan, Cordiano, Epp, Ferraro, Fulton, Hart, Knight, Mancini, McGuigan, Miller, G. I., Morin, Nixon, Polsinelli, Reycraft, Smith, E. J.

Ayes 48; nays 16.

Bill ordered for committee of the whole House.

The House recessed at 12:12 p.m.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

TAX PAYMENTS

Mr. Andrewes: Today I have the pleasure of informing the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon), the Premier (Mr. Peterson) and, indeed, every wage earner in the province that as of tomorrow, after 178 days, they will have finished paying off all their taxes for 1986. June 27 is tax freedom day in Ontario, a day to be celebrated as taxpayers stop working for the government and can finally begin to enjoy the fruits of their labour themselves.

It is interesting to note that this year tax freedom day falls five days later than it did in 1984, the year in which the last Conservative budget was delivered. The Liberals' October budget raised taxes by a staggering $700 million, forcing the taxpayers of this province to work an additional week to fund the government's uncontrollable spending habits.

The Treasurer may be surprised to learn that taxpayers in only one other province have to work longer to pay off their taxes. The beleaguered taxpayers of Quebec, which is governed by a good friend of our Premier, have to wait until July 17 before they can celebrate. Meanwhile, taxpayers in Prince Edward Island celebrated their tax freedom day way back on May 13, Manitoba on June 1 and Newfoundland on June 13. That is hard to believe.

During this weekend of celebration, all Ontario taxpayers should think hard about how they want to spend all their tax-free money, provided they have any left after one year of Liberal government.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr. Laughren: I have a statement concerning the abysmal state of enforcement of our health and safety laws in Ontario by the Ministry of Labour. As an example of just how bad it is, I refer to the situation at Waferboard Corp., just west of Timmins. There was a serious accident there on August 4, 1985. It has taken the Ministry of Labour seven months to investigate what is a clear case of negligence. No charges have yet been laid, and the deadline for charges to be laid is August 3, 1986.

As if that were not bad enough, isocyanates have been in use in that plant since July 1985.

There have been repeated complaints by the workers about throat and eye irritation. In December, there was a recommendation by the Ministry of Labour occupational health hygienist that a control program was necessary and that an order should be issued. In January, a survey showed that the isocyanates level in the air exceeded the maximum levels in three out of seven areas tested, and as far as I know, no control order has been issued yet.

Finally, it appears that notice was provided to Waferboard prior to the January 16, 1986, air sampling that was done.

The minister has not provided leadership, nor has he made it clear that control orders cannot be ignored and that charges will be laid.

TWO-WAY HAT

Mr. Sargent: The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Grossman) had a one-way phone last week. Now we have for him a two-way hat that says: "I'm their leader. Which way did they go?"

TOURISM ADVERTISEMENT

Mr. Baetz: Come, Jane. See Dick. Look, Spot. Today we will learn a new word: incredible. The dictionary defines it as "surpassing belief." It is the key word in the new Ministry of Tourism and Recreation advertising program. Look, Jane. Look, Dick. Look, Spot. There on the corner of Yonge and Summerhill, on the big billboard along with the name of Ottawa and the picture of a waterfall, is our new word, "incredible."

In Ottawa, we are proud of our cultural attractions and spectacular sunsets, but incredible? Certainly the traffic jams on the Queensway, which the Premier (Mr. Peterson) promised would never happen, are incredible. They and the Premier's broken promise surpass all belief for the thousands of motorists trapped daily.

Look closer, Dick. Look, Jane and Spot, at the waterfall on the billboard. That is a picture of a phoney waterfall; it does not exist in Ottawa or even in Niagara Falls. In a province with so many beautiful waterfalls, the ad agency produced its own fake waterfall. Now, Dick, Jane and Spot, that is incredible. It is also incredible that the Minister of Tourism and Recreation (Mr. Eakins) would agree to spend more than $500,000 of taxpayers' money on such a phoney ad. It all surpasses belief.

Down, Spot, down; get away from the billboard post. No need to raise your leg. I know how you feel about that ad and that you understand our new word, "incredible."

INSURANCE RATES

Mr. Swart: The insurance crisis in this province is becoming increasingly bizarre. In 1985, liability premiums escalated by between 150 and 200 per cent. Statistics Canada has just reported that liability claims payments last year rose by only 11 per cent. Thus, in the first quarter of 1986, total revenue attributed to liability insurance was almost double the amount of liability claims. That assisted casualty and property insurance companies to hike their profits from $22 million in the first quarter of 1985 to $173 million in the first quarter of 1986, a 700 per cent increase; but the rate hikes continue unabated.

The insurance companies have simply never had it so good; they hike the premiums and eliminate the risk. They have honed to perfection the Reaganistic philosophy of Tory Barbara McDougall, the federal Minister of State for Finance, who said two days ago: "There's one underlying motivation in business. It's called greed. It's what keeps the world of commerce going. There's nothing wrong with that, and we support it."

Obviously, those are the sentiments of Ontario's Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Kwinter) as well. While he certainly solved the problems of the insurance companies, I think his obligation as consumer minister is to solve the problems of the insuring public.

ATTENDANCE OF MEMBERS

Mr. Callahan: I rise to address the opposition to determine how their picnic was at Ward's Island on the day we were voting on a very essential bill in this House. My recollection is that there were only 16 members here.

An hon. member: Thirteen.

Mr. Callahan: Sorry; there were 13 members. It seems to me their members were absent to a very large degree on a day when they should have been present in the House. Surely it behooves all of us to bring that to the attention of the public so the young men and women out there who are going to be helped by this funding can know that in no way, shape or form was it assisted by the opposition.

SOVIET REACTOR

Mr. Shymko: Three months ago today, the worst nuclear disaster in the peacetime history of man occurred in Chernobyl, Ukraine. With the generous assistance and co-operation of the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh), I have tabled the following resolution and would appreciate if, with the agreement of all three House leaders, we could adopt it unanimously today without debate as a humanitarian act of this Legislature on this tragic anniversary.

The resolution is as follows:

"That in the opinion of this House, the government of Ontario should urge the government of Canada to take the following urgently needed actions to defend the physical and mental health of peoples affected by the Chernobyl tragedy:

"1. That the United Nations form an international investigative committee of scientists and medical experts to enter Ukraine and to assess the extent of danger, both domestic and international;

"2. That Canada declare its preparedness to contribute emergency aid such as medicine, food and technical personnel to help in treating the Chernobyl disaster victims either in the USSR or in our own medical facilities in Canada;

"3. That Canada announce an open-door policy for family reunification and sponsorship of immigrants wishing to leave Ukraine; and

"4. That the USSR permit more direct communication between Canadians and their relatives or friends in Ukraine."

I hope that at some stage today we can have the agreement of all the members of the House and the three House leaders to pass this unanimously.

2:10 p.m.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

WHEEL-TRANS LABOUR DISPUTE

Hon. Mr. Wrye: As honourable members will recall, on April 25 this assembly passed legislation to bring to an end the labour dispute between All-Way Transportation Corp. and Local 113 of the Amalgamated Transit Union. All-Way's Wheel-Trans division provides public transportation services in Toronto to handicapped people. The terms of the legislation provided that an arbitrator would examine and decide on all matters in dispute between the parties. On May 1, Howard D. Brown was appointed arbitrator.

Today I would like to inform the House that the arbitration award has been issued and received by the parties. Essentially, the award applies the terms of the memorandum of settlement which was entered into by the parties on April 18. The memorandum provides for a wage increase of $1.37 per hour over two years for the drivers, who constitute the largest group of employees affected.

The award also applies the memorandum of settlement's provision requiring extra funding in the amount of $377,000 to be shared equally by the Ministry of Transportation and Communications and the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto. I am pleased to advise members that this funding condition has been met by both funding authorities.

In accordance with the legislation, the parties are now in a position to prepare collective agreements that will give effect to the arbitrator's decision.

ALLEGED CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: Two days ago in this House --

Mr. Brandt: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: We do not have copies of the statement.

An hon. member: Copies of the statement are being distributed at this moment.

Mr. Brandt: We were not aware of that, and we would like to have copies.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Everybody sit down till the copies are distributed.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Do the members have copies of the statement? Yes.

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: Two days ago in this House, the allegation was made that I am in breach of the government's conflict-of-interest guidelines because of my involvement with Golden Tiger Mining Exploration. I now wish to answer that allegation.

Golden Tiger was incorporated as a private company in Quebec in 1981 under the name Explorations Banque-Or Inc. In April 1984, the company name was changed to Golden Tiger. Golden Tiger is a mineral exploration company which has not made any discovery in Ontario or Quebec. The company first issued shares to the public on December 30, 1982. As a result of the public issue, shares owned by me were placed in escrow. I will now review in detail the disposition of those shares and shares owned by other members of my family.

On December 30, 1982, the company issued 19,080 common shares in my name. As required by the Quebec Securities Commission, these shares were placed directly in an approved escrow account in the name of Golden Tiger. They are under the trusteeship of Guaranty Trust, a trust company licensed under the provisions of the Ontario Loan and Trust Corporations Act. These shares can be released from escrow only with the approval of the Quebec Securities Commission upon the application of Golden Tiger. I cannot cause their release.

Since December 30, 1982, there has been only one release of some of these escrow shares. On February 7, 1983, upon the authorization of the Quebec Securities Commission, 1,908 shares, or 10 per cent of the escrow shares, were released from escrow. They were delivered into the custody of my broker Osler, Wills, Bickle. There has been no change in the escrow account since February 7, 1983. Today, there remain in escrow 17,172 shares.

I did not in 1983, and do not today, have any control over these escrow shares. They are in an escrow arrangement under the sole control of Guaranty Trust. If Golden Tiger should in future apply for a release of some of these shares, and should the release of the shares be approved by the Quebec Securities Commission, they will be transferred to the custody of Canada Trust, which is the trustee of my blind trust. They will be dealt with in my blind trust without my knowledge or direction. I have received advice that I cannot even now transfer the escrow shares into a blind trust because of the provisions of the escrow agreement.

It is correct that my disclosure filing does not list the escrow shares. When I prepared my filing for the Clerk of the House, I forgot to list the escrow shares. I am a businessman. I believe ownership means control and the ability to exercise or direct that control such that one can benefit from what one owns. I do not own these shares within that meaning. Furthermore, I did not have and never have had custody of the escrow share certificates. I have never received any dividends from these escrow shares. Moreover, since 1983, I have not received any statements from Guaranty Trust evidencing its holding of these escrow shares. In short, since February 1983, I have not in any way dealt with these escrow shares.

These shares have my name on them, but I cannot direct their release from escrow. I do not control them. I cannot determine whether I will receive any benefit from them. I cannot sell them. I am separated from them by two third parties over whom I have no control, Golden Tiger and Guaranty Trust.

I will now turn to the second lot of Golden Tiger shares. On December 1, 1985, I owned and controlled 45,354 shares, and my wife owned and controlled 3,000 shares. All of these shares were held in the custody of our broker Osler, Wills, Bickle in Montreal. Afrer reviewing with our legal advisers our option either to sell these shares or to place them in blind trusts, my wife and I decided to dispose of these shares.

Accordingly, because my wife and I owned and controlled these shares, in December 1985, I instructed Osler, Wills, Bickle to liquidate our holdings in Golden Tiger. My shares were sold over the period of December 10, 11 and 12, 1985. My wife's shares were sold on January 13, 1986. The allegation that any of these shares were sold on March 3, 1986, is false. I have today tabled with the Clerk the account statements from Osler, Wills, Bickle that verify the dates of these sales. I did not list any of these shares in my disclosure filing and was not required to list them, because as at January 31, 1986, neither my wife nor I owned or controlled any of these shares.

I will now review the third group of Golden Tiger shares, which are owned by my adult children. As at December 1, 1985, my adult children owned 26,500 shares of Golden Tiger. Twenty-four thousand of them were held at a bank in Hearst. In early December 1985, I called my bank to arrange for the transfer of these shares to the safekeeping of the Midland, Doherty stock brokerage firm. At that time, I learned that, in fact, 10,000 of my children's shares were registered by mistake in my wife's name. I gave instructions to advise Midland, Doherty that upon its receipt of the shares, it should immediately re-register the 10,000 shares in my children's names. Yesterday, as a result of the inquiries made by my legal advisers, I learned that my instructions were never followed. Midland, Doherty has failed to re-register the 10,000 shares. My solicitors have today reconfirmed to Midland, Doherty my December instructions.

My adult children own and control these shares. The conflict-of-interest guidelines do not require that holdings by adult children be directed or placed in a blind trust and, accordingly, these shareholdings were not listed in my disclosure statement filed with the Clerk.

I have now outlined to the members the manner in which the Golden Tiger shares owned and controlled by me and my family, and the Golden Tiger escrow shares registered in my name, have been dealt with since June 26, 1985. My legal counsel, Messrs. Blake, Cassels and Graydon, have advised that I have never been and am not now in a conflict of interest because of my duties as minister and my shareholding relationship with Golden Tiger.

I believe it is my duty now to bring to the attention of the members of this House four omissions from my disclosure statement filed with the Clerk on January 31, 1986. In May 1986, it came to my attention that I had not listed in my disclosure statement my shareholdings in two companies, Paladin Petroleum and Villeneuve Resources Ltd.

On December 1, 1985, I owned 1,200 shares of Paladin Petroleum and 5,000 shares of Villeneuve Resources. On December 5, 1985, I instructed my broker Jones, Gable to sell all my holdings in these two companies. I assumed that by January 31, 1986, these shares had been sold. In fact, my broker was unable to sell these until February. On February 5, 1986, my shares in Villeneuve were sold for $715. On February 13, 1986, my shares in Paladin were sold for $445. My broker has advised me that the shares could not be sold before those dates because there was no market for them.

I also own one share in a private company known as Les Industries Nordex. Nordex was established in Hearst to market peat moss. The company issued 50 shares to 50 people for $200 per share. The company now has no funds. It is inactive. My single share has no value. There is no market for the share; it is not an asset. None the less, I have today instructed my lawyers to transfer this single share to my blind trust.

Finally, I am owed approximately $13,000 by Evolution Hearst. I am also owed approximately $50,000 by United Sawmill and René Fontaine Holdings Ltd. I am told by my lawyers that I should list these items in my disclosure statement even though, since January 31, 1986, they have been in the sole control of my trustee.

I also wish to advise the House that yesterday, in reviewing my disclosure statement, my lawyers discovered two transcription errors in the statement. My disclosure statement lists 126 preferred shares of Claybelt Lumber. This should read 126 common shares of that company. The statement also lists one share of Evolution Hearst. This should read 100 shares of that company. As of January 31, 1986, all of these shares had been placed in my blind trust, which is administered by Canada Trust.

I have today put all the facts before the House. When I filed my disclosure statement on January 31, 1986, I believed I had complied with the conflict-of-interest guidelines. Other members of the House, on strict technical interpretation of the guidelines, may wish to reach a different conclusion. Therefore, I have delivered to the Clerk this afternoon two envelopes; one is addressed to you, Mr. Speaker, the other to the Premier (Mr. Peterson). These envelopes contain my resignations as the Minister of Northern Development and Mines and as the member of this assembly for Cochrane North.

It is alleged that I have breached the trust of the citizens of Cochrane North, placed in me on May 2, 1985, and I wish to be judged by my electors.

Mr. Brandt: Today is certainly a very sad day in this House. I have served for --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Brandt: With some sadness and a sense of some dismay, I listened to the member for Cochrane North (Mr. Fontaine) issue his statement today. It was extremely confusing and very difficult to interpret on this side of the House, in that it was fraught with a number of admissions that in some fashion, way, shape or form managed to escape the very close scrutiny of the Premier, who suggested back in January that all cabinet ministers would go through a very close check of any potential, possible, conflict-of-interest matters and that they were, in his words, "very squeaky clean" at that time.

Obviously, with four admissions and many more discussing the activities of his lawyer and the activities of his family, the member for Cochrane North finds himself today in a very awkward position. I want to make it very clear to the members on that side of the House that my comments with respect to that member's activities were singularly directed at his activities as the minister of mines, owning a mining company, and his involvement in a company he failed to disclose.

We did not call for his resignation on this side of the House or for his resignation as a private member. If the Premier and that member wish to force upon this province a competition in Cochrane North and subject the people of this province to that kind of cost, so be it. We are prepared to fight on the basis of the integrity of the members on this side of the House and on the fact that we have put before this House the facts as clearly and as succinctly as we know them. They have been answered today in a statement that does not in any way, shape or form cover off the kinds of problems the member has.

Mr. Wildman: It is with regret that I respond to the statement by the former Minister of Northern Development and Mines and member for Cochrane North, an honourable member, for whom I hold great personal regard, although as a member of the New Democratic Party, I have had serious political differences with him on occasion. The member has demonstrated in his short term of office tremendous energy and commitment to his duties. I regret that an apparent conflict developed for whatever reason and that the matter was not dealt with more expeditiously in the past.

There is no joy in this kind of political statement today.

M. Rae: Si je peux répondre très brièvement aux déclarations qui ont été faites aujourd'hui par l'ancien ministre, M. Fontaine, j'aimerais dire d'abord que du point de vue de notre parti, il est clairement et tout à fait inconvenant pour un ministre d'avoir un intérêt, même un intérêt indirect, dans une compagnie minière quand il est le ministre responsable des mines.

C'est peut-être une dure tâche de devoir le dire, mais à notre avis, c'est absolument certain qu'à l'époque moderne de notre politique, c'est absolument inconvenant et c'est quelque chose qui doit être résolu par la démission du ministre, ce qui vient de se produire.

Deuxièmement, je regrette que le ministre ait dû admettre aujourd'hui qu'il avait oublié non seulement de faire une déclaration, mais d'en faire quatre au total. Un tel fait dans une déclaration importante de la part d'un ministre qui s'adresse non seulement à l'Assemblée mais à toute la population ontarienne, encore une fois, c'est quelque chose que je regrette personnellement parce que nous ne voulons voir aucun collègue, à l'Assemblée, placé dans une telle position, mais c'est clair qu'il n'a pas déclaré ce qu'il aurait dû déclarer, et c'est une faute assez importante.

Troisièmement, il y a beaucoup de choses qu'on voudrait dire, mais nous savons qu'il y aura une élection partielle et je ne veux pas qu'aucune de mes déclarations n'apparaisse dans une brochure du candidat libéral. Je veux tout simplement dire que cette élection partielle n'est pas nécessaire. Le droit du député de Cochrane Nord de continuer comme député n'est pas mis en question. Il n'y a aucun doute là-dessus.

Je ne sais pas exactement pourquoi il l'a fait et ça n' a rien à voir avec la réalité d'une déclaration inadéquate, une déclaration qui ne reflétait pas tout à fait les faits. Je regrette profondément encore qu'en plus de démissionner de son poste, il ait décidé de démissionner comme député. Je crois que ça veut dire que nous aurons une élection partielle qui n'est pas nécessaire. Personne n'a encore dit qu'on devait avoir une élection suite à ça. Mais nous y serons, comme Nouveau Parti démocratique, si c'est ce que désire le député qui vient de démissionner.

Avec ces deux incidents, peut-être que ça mettra un terme au problème des conflits d'intérêts. Mais ça pose encore des problèmes pour le gouvernement, parce que c'est de plus en plus clair que les critères ne sont pas tout à fait établis, pas tout à fait connus et pas tout à fait respectés. Ça cause un problème de plus en plus grave pour notre vie publique.

MARINE AWARENESS PROGRAM

Hon. Mr. Keyes: The July 1 holiday has traditionally marked the start of the summer vacation period for many Ontario residents. Unfortunately, recent years have seen far too many of those holidays marred by boating mishaps. Indeed, problems created by impaired and disorderly boaters have become a major concern.

The fact that more than 100 people have been charged with alcohol-related offences since the start of the 1986 boating season highlights the need for stricter enforcement. That is why the Ontario Provincial Police has launched a marine awareness program. I am urging all members to support this worthy campaign.

Although the main focus of the marine awareness program is on education, the marine unit's 250 officers, with 105 vessels, will be more aggressive in addressing complaints. Each OPP boat will be equipped with an approved screening device to determine whether a boat operator has been consuming alcohol.

Statistics continue to show that approximately 42 per cent of the victims of fatal boating accidents had been drinking; 74 per cent of those were legally impaired.

The OPP will be keeping a close watch on boater behaviour and compliance with safety regulations. Community service officers will be in constant contact with cottage owner associations, boating clubs, children's camps and other groups to promote boating safety. A colour-coded navigational aid sticker will also be distributed during the course of the program.

I urge all members to support these efforts.

RESIGNATION OF MEMBER

Mr. Speaker: Although all members are aware of the letter I just received from the member for Cochrane North, it must be stated, for the record, that I am informing the House that a vacancy in the membership of the House has occurred by reason of the resignation of Mr. René Fontaine as member for Cochrane North.

2:35 p.m.

ORAL QUESTIONS

EXTRA BILLING

Mr. Grossman: I have a question for the Premier, as we begin the third week of the doctors' strike responding to Bill 94.

It is clear now, in spite of the earlier denials by the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston), that the government and the ministry have now offered resources, meaning in part money, to Women's College Hospital, in an attempt to buy more abortions. Is the Premier prepared to acknowledge that more than a serious problem or an inconvenience has developed for women seeking lawful abortions in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The minister can bring the member the full information on the subject he raises today.

Mr. Speaker: I understand the question is referred to the Minister of Health.

Hon. Mr. Elston: For the purposes of the public, I think it is quite clear that for some time we have been looking at the question of accessibility, and in situations where there have been allegations that certain pressures are being put on members of the therapeutic abortion committees in certain hospitals to carry out lawful abortions, we have made representations to Women's College to see if it needed resources with respect to any increased work load.

The member, having asked me the question yesterday about what we intend to do to provide assistance in situations such as that, will be pleased to know those inquiries have been made on an informal basis to see whether added resources are required. That was what was done, and I think members here will be pleased to know that ministry officials have been making every effort to ensure that the needs of women in this province are being taken care of and considered.

Mr. Grossman: We will come back to the question of the reality that the minister apparently was unaware of what was being offered and, second, the propriety of exactly how he chose to approach it.

How many hospitals has the minister approached to offer more resources to clear up an equally long, if not longer backlog in heart bypass surgery?

Hon. Mr. Elston: One of the concerns we have is that some people are not receiving elective procedures. We have undertaken to ensure to hospitals around the province that there will not be a need to provide layoffs of permanent staff. We have made it quite clear throughout the province that we are willing to see there are no layoffs of staff and that there are resources available for the hospitals to carry on their normal functions. I do not think it is any surprise to the member that we want to see the hospitals of this province well provided with resources. In particular, I have not made an inquiry myself with respect to bypass surgery.

Mr. Grossman: The minister now is telling us he has not made any inquiries in week three of the strike with regard to the cancellation and backlog of bypass surgery. The minister will surely be aware that there now will be an incredibly long waiting list for that surgery; the list has been exacerbated by this lengthy strike. How can the minister justify having taken action to sort out the backlog on abortions and then come to this House today and say he has not even asked the question and does not have the statistics to determine whether there is an equally serious problem facing bypass surgery, which may prove to be life threatening if he ignores it any longer?

Hon. Mr. Elston: I think the honourable gentleman would want to leave the question of what is life threatening to the physicians of this province. That is what we intend to do. In effect, they make those decisions and determinations. What is being planned at the hospital level is to provide facilities when those operations are undertaken by physicians on their own decision.

The member may want to intrude between the patients and the physicians to demand that the physicians do certain things, but he does not quite understand, even though he is a former Minister of Health, that the administrators and board members of the hospitals of this province make themselves aware of the needs they require to meet the demands for health care in the province. Even now, they are planning to deal with the question of providing the services that are required to assist physicians when they perform their surgeries.

I am watching very closely to see that the resources are in place to help any hospital deal with the provision of health care in the province, as is normal and as is required by my mandate as Minister of Health.

Mr. Grossman: Once again, we are going to try to see whether the Premier will answer a question relating to the doctors' strike.

The Premier has now heard his Minister of Health indicate he is trying to do something to alleviate the problems with regard to abortions that have been created by the strike. Given the actions of the Minister of Health, is the Premier prepared to acknowledge today that we now have more than an inconvenience and now are moving, in week three of the strike, to potentially dangerous circumstances?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I know the honourable member opposite has been trying to create that impression every day in the House, going back a couple of weeks. I do not agree with my friend's description.

Mr. Grossman: If he does not believe we are approaching dangerous circumstances, why did the minister suddenly offer, as he has just indicated, extra resources, meaning money, to Women's College Hospital in day 15 of the strike to clear up a backlog in abortions? Either there is a problem that he has dealt with or there is no problem. How can he explain that inconsistency?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The minister explained that to the member extremely well. We have been concerned, and it has been raised in this House many times, about access to therapeutic abortion services under the law, using the existing institutions. It is one of the things this government has been looking at and studying. We have been looking at the allocation of resources in that regard. I think it is quite clear.

Mr. Grossman: I hope the Premier will have an opportunity in the media scrum afterwards to deal with the question of whether the move he has made on abortions is related or unrelated to the doctors' strike, because he is not going to be able to get away with that suggestion.

My final question to the Premier is, if he is not prepared to admit that there is more than an inconvenience, how does he feel about the fact that Dr. Morgentaler's clinic, in response to telephone calls, is offering special deals on abortions during the currency of the strike, indicating that if a patient brings her Ontario health insurance plan card, she can get $40 off if her pregnancy is 12 weeks or less, or if it has progressed more than 12 weeks, she can get an $80-reduction? How does he feel about this circumstance that he has played a major part in creating? What is he going to do about it?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I realize the honourable member would like to blame me for everything in this province, and that is fair enough; that is his prerogative. The answer is, I have not heard of the facts he raises, and I do not like the situation at all.

This government does not favour freestanding abortion clinics. Abortions can be pursued under the law. We do not favour pursuing abortions under illegal circumstances. We are doing exactly what Roy McMurtry did; the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) is doing exactly the same thing.

Mr. Rae: I have a question of the Premier. It concerns the terrible appearance that is now taking place with respect to the application of the law -- who is covered, who is not covered, how it is going to be enforced and how it is not going to be enforced.

Can the Premier confirm the reports that are widely reported in the newspapers that he specifically offered that the government would not prosecute doctors, even if they broke the law, if certain other conditions were met? Did he make that offer? Can he tell us why he would make that offer?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am glad the member asked me that question, because the answer is a clear, categorical no, I did not make that offer.

Mr. Rae: Perhaps the Premier can explain something said by Dr. Railton and Dr. Scully, with whom I have disagreed on a number of occasions, but who I think, when they say things, tend to be pretty straight shooters in how they recount events. Is he saying they are not telling the truth when they make the very clear accusation that he made an offer on the telephone to Dr. Railton that there would not be prosecutions for doctors who extra billed, in exchange for the Ontario Medical Association executive indicating to its members it felt they should comply with the law?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am glad the member asked me, because it is very clear there were no government offers. I shook Dr. Scully's hand the other day, but I have not talked to him in months. How he gets his information, I have no idea.

The member will also be aware that a lot of remarks in this whole discussion have been attributed to me that I can assure him were not mine. They get quoted and they sometimes take on a currency that, frankly, they do not deserve. My honourable friend will know I have not chosen to respond to every personal remark that has been made about me, the minister or even himself, for that matter, in this entire discussion.

I do not think that is constructive as we discuss these things.

Let me assure the member again that no offers were made. Discussions were held about options. We had a meeting with the Attorney General, the Minister of Health, Mr. Trevino, Dr. Moran and Dr. Railton. He subsequently phoned me the next night at home, but I can tell the member there were no offers on the table.

Mr. Rae: May we take it that it is the government's intention, as of Friday, to prosecute doctors who insist on extra payments from their patients? Is that the policy of the government?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The answer is that Bill 94 is the law of the land, the law of this province, and it will be fulfilled. With respect to prosecution, as I said in this House some days ago, we intend to be fair and flexible in the implementation. There is an adjustment of the bookkeeping systems, and there are two levels of redress in a sense. One is a financial deduction and the other is a fining system.

I repeat to my honourable friend that we are not interested in fining doctors; we are interested in ending extra billing. I assure my friend the law is in full force and efficacy.

2:50 p.m.

Mr. Rae: I do not think the Premier has quite interpreted the law as it is set out in Bill 94. Under section 49 of the Health Disciplines Act, the Minister of Health has the power to review the activities of the council of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario and the power to "request the council to undertake activities that, in the opinion of the minister, are necessary and advisable to carry out the intent of this act."

The following statements were made by the council on June 16: "It is unacceptable to have a serious disruption of emergency capabilities in referral or tertiary care institutions. These special institutions with regionally agreed-upon specialized programs provide unique and essential services."

Can the Premier explain why the cabinet or the Minister of Health has not specifically asked the council of the college of physicians and surgeons to discuss the fact that with the withdrawal of emergency services at Mount Sinai Hospital and the same taking effect at the Wellesley Hospital, there has been a direct flouting of this particular circular of the college?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The Minister of Health can bring the member up to date on the discussions with the college in that regard. May I refer the question to him?

Hon. Mr. Elston: We have had continuing discussions with the college, as the honourable gentleman knows. The college has made representations with respect to emergency services. We know emergency services are being maintained and provided on the basis of attendance in the emergency areas by physicians.

In addition, I think it would be helpful for the members if I quoted from a release of today's date by the college, in which it has warned medical practitioners to "maintain the availability of essential medical care in the hospitals during the current withdrawal of services by members of the Ontario Medical Association." In addition, the college indicated that "no physicians should withdraw their professional services within a hospital without giving notice adequate in the circumstance if such action were to compromise the availability of essential medical services in that hospital."

The college of physicians and surgeons has been active, continues to be active and I have its undertaking to be very much more active in this particular situation.

Mr. Rae: Perhaps the minister can explain why in today's circular the college of physicians and surgeons completely reinterprets the law and does not refer specifically to any of the regulations of the Public Hospitals Act. Instead, it puts in much milder, wet noodle language, to replace the very specific language of the act. If the college could not enforce and uphold its circular of June 16 nor its later circulars, which deal specifically with the problems we are addressing, why should the public of Ontario believe it is really prepared to do what has to be done to ensure that the patients of this province get access to the emergency services and other services they deserve and need and that so far they have not been getting because the college has not been able to do its job?

Hon. Mr. Elston: I must disagree with the honourable gentleman. These people have been doing a lot more work and engaging in a lot more activity. They have undertaken more efforts to ensure medical care is available. They have received requests for activity and investigation. Under the circumstances, when incidents have been brought to their attention, they have intervened and sent inspectors to facilities to deal with the question.

The circular of today's date, which the member noted, indicates they have clearly and very reasonably taken steps to deal with the York County Hospital situation, where they were able to get a specialist in internal medicine to come back to that facility to ensure there were services available there.

The college has been performing its role and working on fulfilling its role in the public interest.

Mr. Rae: There is a clear sense by the public of this province that there is one group of people that is entirely above the law. One of the reasons it is above the law is that the only instrument the government has chosen with which to enforce the law in this province is a college that is incapable of enforcing the law as it exists. Nurses are being laid off. They cannot go out on strike because they are essential. Dieticians are being laid off. They cannot go out on strike because they are essential. Apparently, the only people who are not essential to the government of this province are the doctors and they are a so-called self-governing profession.

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Rae: It is a sick joke when it comes to how the law is perceived in this province.

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr Rae: Can the minister tell us what he intends to do about the circular, sent around more than two weeks ago, which deals with the shutdown of emergency services at teaching hospitals and which will also affect the threatened shutdown and action mentioned by Dr. Myers yesterday to be taken with respect to the Hospital for Sick Children? What is the minister going to do to make sure this circular at least stands up and that people get access to the emergency services they deserve?

Hon. Mr. Elston: With respect to the indications of the honourable gentleman, it is my understanding that there was a press conference held at one o'clock. I have not received the details of it, but I understand the essence of the information is that there is not going to be a shutdown of the emergency facilities at Sick Children's Hospital and that the medical staff has decided to continue providing services there. Because of that, I think the circular has had its effect. Although the member would perhaps like to cause more problems for the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, under the circumstances I think it is doing a job that has to be done. It is not an easy one and, under circumstances where there are pressures of time, the college has taken investigative opportunities in hand and, I am sure, will be dealing with the situations.

Mr. Andrewes: My question is to the Minister of Health. On January 31, he stated, in response to a question by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Grossman), that he was in the process of speaking to dentists about various agreements on fees. Dental surgeons withdrew their services this past Monday. Six months after the minister started this process, we have moved from a situation where these services were available to people in the province to one in which they are completely unavailable. What is he going to do about this problem of health care inaccessibility?

Hon. Mr. Elston: I met with the dentists in my office Tuesday afternoon and we had discussions in which we reflected on certain issues that had been brought up. I think they were to meet again this morning at nine o'clock. I was not in the office at nine o'clock. I was at the Grey-Bruce Regional Health Centre opening and have not yet received a report on the meeting. I am very serious about dealing with the concerns and questions the dentists have raised with me.

Mr. Andrewes: The minister knew well in advance that the dentists were going to withdraw their services. He has known that for several months now. This whole issue "got lost in the shuffle," to quote one of his personal staff. It seems to me quite obvious that he did not do his homework. Now he is running around trying to make a deal with the dentists in the same manner he is trying to make a deal with the doctors at Women's College Hospital.

He is the minister responsible for health services in Ontario. Will he give us some guarantees that he will now go to work, negotiate in good faith and try to resolve this problem of health care inaccessibility?

Hon. Mr. Elston: I always negotiate in good faith. In fact, we have been doing that.

RENT REVIEW

Mr. Reville: I have a question for the Minister of Housing concerning rent review. On Tuesday my leader and I had a little sport with the ministry's cute acronyms, BOCI, building operating cost index, and RCCI, residential complex cost index. Unfortunately, the answers of the minister left the tenants of Ontario as much in the dark as they left this Legislature.

Will the minister stand in the House today and tell us and the tenants of Ontario what kind of knockout punch the tenants are going to get when their rents increase on January 1, 1987? To make it absolutely clear, perhaps he can use a $500 rent at this moment and tell us what the increase will be as of January 1, 1987.

Hon. Mr. Curling: I thank the honourable member for his question. I do not make a sport of people's lives, as the member and his leader may be wanting to do. I take the landlords' and tenants' concerns very seriously.

Mr. McClellan: Try to answer just one question.

3 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Curling: If the member will give me a chance, I will answer it. I do not think he needs the answer, as a matter of fact. Increases in the past were exorbitant. Previously, not all tenants were covered under the rent review process. We have now covered all tenants and have given protection to all tenants in Ontario under our rent review process.

Specifically, the member asked for the percentage increase. He knows Bill 51 is coming before the House very shortly. If it is approved, then we will be able to determine the percentage.

Mr. Reville: First, let the record show that I made sport of the ministry's cute acronyms, not of people's problems. I do not want to take the time of the House on that matter.

I gave the minister the clear option of answering a question about a rent of $500 today and what would happen to that rent on January 1, 1987. I will give it another try. For those tenants in Ontario who have not yet heard the good news from the ministry air show, will the minister tell the House what my rent will be on January 1, 1987, if I pay $500 a month today, and will he tell me what percentage that is?

Hon. Mr. Curling: I expect the honourable member to know the procedure of the House much better than I.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Curling: He knows Bill 51 is before the House. When it is passed, we will be able to determine the rate by which it will be increased in January 1987.

ALLEGED CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Mr. Grossman: My question is for the Premier. The now former member for Cochrane North has indicated both in his statement and outside that he believes he did nothing wrong. Can the Premier tell me whether he shares that point of view?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I have looked at these facts, and while I recognize the member feels he has not violated the conflict-of-interest guidelines, I also recognize there is another construction that will be put on that situation. I think he has taken the honourable course in the circumstances. I do not expect the honourable member would ever agree with me or with him on these circumstances, but surely he will respect it and will stand up in this House and acknowledge he did the honourable thing.

Mr. Grossman: The resignation of his seat was totally unnecessary. A proper handling of this matter would have been for a Premier who cared about his standard of conduct to get his resignation from cabinet but not from his riding.

The Premier is quite correct in saying he and I will not agree with regard to the question of whether the former minister complied with the guidelines on conflict of interest. I believe he did not. Does the Premier believe he did?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Is the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Grossman) telling me he did not violate the conflict-of-interest guidelines? Is that what he is saying in the House? I can understand that on a strict technical construction --

Mr. Grossman: We want to know what the Premier thinks.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I believe the honourable minister believes he did not. I guess the member is focusing on the --

An hon. member: The Premier would believe anything.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I can understand those who disagree with the opinion.

Mr. Grossman: We want to know what the Premier thinks.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: What is implicit in the conflict-of-interest guidelines is some benefit. Did he benefit from it? I can understand the member taking the interpretation on a strict technical construction --

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Can the member do that again to the troops? I thank him for getting silence over there.

It is one of those difficult situations. I can understand that what we are talking about is the definition of those escrow shares over which he felt he had no control, which were in the hands of Guaranty Trust, which was tantamount in a sense to a blind trust. Under the conflict-of-interest guidelines, there is no provision to deal with that kind of situation.

I have to take some responsibility in the sense that the conflict-of-interest guidelines we inherited, and that we have tried to work with and try to comply with, are not tight enough. No one is sure about these kinds of situations.

Mr. Runciman: The Premier watered them down.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: That is not right. Perhaps we need a thorough discussion with all members of this House. It is not impossible that in 42 years the Conservatives could be back over here and might have to deal with these situations themselves. I believe it is something all members of this House have an interest in. What about the conflict of interest of other members of this House who are not members of the executive council? Those are questions that have to be raised also.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Wildman: I have a question for the Premier. Will he clarify for us whether he believes that in circumstances such as these it is the proper course for a minister of the crown to resign, not only his responsibilities in the executive council but also his seat, and have the electorate decide rather than his peers in the Legislature?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The honourable member has to put himself in the position of the minister. I appreciate the charitable words the member used with respect to my colleague, because I believe a lot of us feel the very same way he so eloquently expressed. I do not think anyone wishes him personal ill, and that is not the question. I believe he believes he complied with the conflict-of-interest guidelines. I can also understand those who may take a different interpretation of the situation. Therefore, he felt attacked.

There is not a more dedicated minister in the House, believe me. The honourable member has never been in this circumstance. It is not very much fun to stand up and have one's integrity attacked as if one were benefiting in some untoward way from this situation. That is the implication. It may not be the specific charge, but it is the optics. He felt that as a matter of honour he should do what he has done. We all have to respect that. It is the honourable course. It is a very tough course, but when men of honour, such as he, are serving in public life, then I believe we all benefit.

Mr. Wildman: With respect, the Premier did not answer the question. When there may be apparent conflicts, for whatever reason, how should that matter be dealt with by the House to resolve whether the guidelines were violated?

Hon. Mr. Scott: Let the people judge him.

Mr. Grossman: We want the Premier to judge him.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: That is a fair question, but I do not know the answer to it. Perhaps we should have some committee of this House dealing with those situations. As the honourable member knows, it is a highly political forum. The member knows and I know what the motive is of the members opposite. We are currently facing a situation like that. Should we all stand in judgement of our peers in these matters? Should we have an independent tribunal? As I understand it, the federal government had a committee to look at this type of thing and recommended a so-called independent ethics commissioner.

I have a very open mind on this question because, believe me, I would love to have advice on these matters. I am not suggesting we are perfect by any stretch of the imagination. I am not suggesting errors in judgement have not been made. What should be the punishment in that circumstance? Resignation or what? Who should pass judgement? Should it be done in a partisan way or in an independent kind of way? I am searching for advice on the matter.

I would like to see this matter discussed by one of the committees of the House. I do not know which is the appropriate one -- perhaps the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly. I would be very happy to share what I know about the subject.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: If the chairman can take the time.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: If the chairman is not tied up doing other things. We may want to look at this question, get advice and get fair rules for all. Nothing troubles me more.

As I said before, the essence of a conflict of interest is that there is some benefit accruing to the minister as a result of ministerial participation. I am persuaded that is not the case, but we now are going through some difficult situations.

3:10 p.m.

STABILIZATION PAYMENTS

Mr. McKessock: I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. Because Ontario potato producers have been hard pressed for proper funding as a result of low prices for their commodity, and imports from other provinces, what does his ministry have in mind to assist the producers through these hard times?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the members show a little respect for the House? I will wait. If the members want to waste their time, they can go ahead and waste it.

Hon. Mr. Riddell: Judging by the reaction across the House, it is unfortunate the official opposition has been so preoccupied in matters that are tantamount to cheap politics that it forgets about the things that are important.

I am pleased to inform my colleague, who does have an interest in agriculture, that I have met several times with representatives of the Ontario potato producers to see whether we can work out some kind of retroactive stabilization payment to address the low prices that potato producers received in 1985. I also tried to get the federal government to participate in a retroactive program for the potato producers but was unable to get any kind of consent from my counterpart in Ottawa.

I then sent the potato producers to the Farm Income Stabilization Commission of Ontario to see whether some program could be worked out whereby potato producers would receive a retroactive payment for the 1985 crop. The commission received the farmers favourably, and I am waiting for a report from the commission with its recommendations.

Mr. McKessock: I am pleased to hear what the ministry is doing for 1985, but I am also concerned about the future. What does the minister have in mind to help the potato business on a national basis?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: The eastern Canadian provinces and Ontario are currently meeting to discuss a national potato agency. I sincerely hope they will get the co-operation of my counterpart in Ottawa for a national agency. I am very supportive of a national agency for potato producers, as it could control the supply of potatoes and the producers could expect a more reasonable price. We are striving for a national potato agency.

ALLEGED CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Mr. Grossman: My question is for the Premier. I want to begin by reminding him that the question with regard to his ministers is not what the other members of the House believe in terms of the standard of conduct; we set ours out for the public. The Premier chooses the cabinet ministers. He passes judgement on their competence and ability to serve as ministers. He decides whether someone should remain in cabinet.

What is in question is the standards he has for his ministers. The member for York South (Mr. Rae) can set out the standards he would hold to for his ministers, and I can do the same for mine.

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Grossman: The question is what the standards are. Specifically, does the Premier agree with the former member for Cochrane North when he says he did not violate the conflict-of-interest guidelines?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I believe the minister demonstrated sensitivity to charges that have been levelled against him. As I said, I take his explanation at face value. Frankly, he has demonstrated a higher code of honour in this House than I have seen in a very long time around here. I accept his resignation, and now we will have to move on from there. He has made a significant move, and I think we have to accept it as that.

Mr. Grossman: I wish to ask the Premier for the fourth time whether he believes the former member for Cochrane North complied with the conflict-of-interest guidelines.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: We went through this several times before. I do not believe he achieved any benefit. I believe he believed those escrow shares were quite in order. But he also understood, as I do, the difference of opinion of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Grossman) and his wanting to embarrass him, which is fair enough; that is his prerogative. Out of respect for that, and because he has great faith in his own honour, and I have great faith in his honour, he has done the honourable thing. Why will the Leader of the Opposition not respect that rather than trying to continue to throw --

Mr. Speaker: New question; the member for Sudbury East.

EXPOSURE TO ASBESTOS

Mr. Martel: I have a question for the Minister of Labour regarding asbestos. Nothing has changed in this province since July 1982, when I asked a question of the then Minister of Labour about the removal of asbestos at Surrey Place. Work goes on in government buildings and public buildings even today with respect to the removal where no one notifies the contractors that there is asbestos. Can the minister tell me why he and the Ministry of Government Services continue to allow this to occur? They allowed it in Surrey Place as they are doing in the Perley Hospital now. When is the minister going to get serious about the proper removal of asbestos, particularly when it involves the Ministry of Government Services, which continues to flout the law every day?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: All I can tell the honourable member is that this ministry and this minister are very serious about making sure the law is not flouted. Anyone who violates the law will be subject to possible prosecution; that includes not only private enterprise but government as well. It is very important that this government, in terms of health and safety as in so many other areas, leads by example.

Mr. Martel: I am pleased to hear that. The minister will be aware of the work being done at the Middlesex courthouse in London, where last week there was a stop-work order, because of the asbestos removal, initiated by a worker who is a member of the Ontario Public Service Employees Union. The Ministry of Labour and the Ministry of Government Services have known since 1980 that the courthouse contains asbestos. The contractor was not advised when he undertook the contract. He could not advise his workers to wear protective equipment. The public was not provided with protective equipment. Does the minister intend to lay charges against the Ministry of Government Services, or is this going to sink into the swamp like everything else?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I share the honourable member's concern about this matter, and I have had substantial briefings with my staff on this. As well, I have had some discussions with my colleague the acting Minister of Government Services, the Minister of Education (Mr. Conway). The honourable member is right; asbestos was identified in 1980, and in Dr. Sullivan's report it was identified that it was safe as long as nothing was done to disturb it.

It is clear that contracting work had begun on the second and eighth floors at the Middlesex courthouse at the time we were called in. Whether it was by a complaint from an OPSEU worker or from an MGS management employee, I am not sure. Stop-work orders have now been issued by both the construction health and safety branch and the industrial health and safety branch. I can assure the honourable member and those workers that we are going to make sure, before any stop-work orders are lifted, that the proper assessments are done and that the proper plans are in place for removal of the asbestos. I assure the honourable member, with respect to possible prosecution, we take the matter of ignoring the 1980 advice very seriously.

3:20 p.m.

PRISON FACILITIES

Mr. Callahan: My question is addressed to the Solicitor General. In the Ombudsman's report, which was filed yesterday or the day before, there was mention made about the conditions at the correctional institutions not being quite up to par because of the Young Offenders Act. Is that situation continuing, and what steps are being taken to remedy that?

Hon. Mr. Keyes: I suggest the honourable member's question should be directed to the Minister of Correctional Services rather than to the Solicitor General. I will do my best to answer when I put on my other hat. I defer to the Minister of Correctional Services.

Speaking as Minister of Correctional Services, I know there are some conditions in some of our institutions today that do not meet the type of requirements any of us would want to see. As the members know, we have seen increasing numbers of convictions and confinements in the province. However, upon taking the ministry role, we have developed a very long-range plan known as the corporate plan, which shows what we plan to do over the next five years about trying to improve the lot of the people who are put into our institutions.

We are also working to try to create many facilities outside of the regular, known, 47 institutions we currently have. That large-scale plan of renovation to institutions has been completed and put before Management Board. We feel confident this government will provide moneys to upgrade the facilities that have been left neglected by the previous government for so long.

Mr. Callahan: Since the Young Offenders Act is basically a new federal statute, have there been any steps taken or any discussions with the Solicitor General of Canada with respect to some contribution he might make with reference to the increase in facilities required by the Young Offenders Act?

Hon. Mr. Keyes: We have ongoing negotiations with my counterpart the Honourable Perrin Beatty, the federal Solicitor General, with regard to the Young Offenders Act. We do collect some moneys for them for specific purposes related to the administration of that act.

In co-operation with the Ministry of Community and Social Services, we are hoping to acquire some of its excess-capacity facilities in the very near future. As soon as Management Board concurs with our renovation plans for those facilities, we will relieve what is considered and seen by some to be slight overcrowding in some of those institutions.

ALLEGED CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Mr. Grossman: I have another question for the Premier. In answering one of my earlier questions with regard to the former member for Cochrane North and the Premier's own conflict-of-interest guidelines, the Premier indicated the question somehow related to whether a minister did, in fact, benefit from a situation. Does the Premier think a minister contravenes the conflict-of-interest guidelines only if he does or could benefit?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Clearly that is not the case, but that is the logical reason and the logical extension of why one has conflict-of-interest guidelines: to prevent someone having a benefit. On the other hand, I recognize the optical question as well, that people who are involved in this kind of work must appear not to be benefiting. I recognize how appearances can vary from time to time, and I recognize how certain people would like to take advantage of those appearances to create certain impressions. I was discussing in theoretical terms the nature and the reason for conflict-of-interest guidelines.

Mr. Grossman: With respect, I believe the Premier shows lack of understanding of the whole purpose of conflict-of-interest guidelines. The whole point of them was to remove the perception problem by ensuring that in every jurisdiction of this land a minister would file all his holdings; not where he did benefit but where he could benefit. Therefore, all of the public would know, with regard to the holdings, that there would be no secrets and where there were certain activities that could occur due to control, that would be in a blind trust or whatever.

Surely the Premier must endorse the principle behind conflict-of-interest guidelines, which is not that a minister violates them when he does benefit but when he could benefit. Would the Premier not agree with me that is the whole point behind the conflict-of-interest guidelines?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I said that is one of the reasons, the perceptions or the optics of the situation. My honourable friend occasionally must turn just perceptions into substance as well. One has to look at the substantive basis as well as the perceptual side; I think I said that. Unless he has more insights to share on this matter, I think I have answered his question.

INSURANCE RATES

Mr. Swart: My question is to the Minister of Financial Institutions. He will know from Statistics Canada that the casualty and property insurance companies increased their profits by more than 700 per cent in the first quarter of 1986 over the first quarter of 1985. He will also know that the liability claims increased by only 11.2 per cent last year. Premium income on liability insurance plus interest income was almost double the payout.

Given that satisfactory performance of the insurance companies, even in his terms, how can he, as consumer minister, condone the continuing second round of massive increases that are now being applied on liability insurance?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I do not like to answer a question with a question, but in a free market system, if everybody were making that much money, there would be somebody in there saying, "I can make as much" -- not the 700 per cent he quotes, but maybe 600 per cent -- "and I will cut the price." As a result, it depends on how one takes the calculations.

My information is that when it comes to the liability business, they are not making nearly those figures the member is quoting.

Mr. Swart: It is nice to hear the minister supporting a system that has increased liability premiums by 200 per cent in one year. Is the minister not aware that the Ontario Hospital Association, starting July 1, is having the liability premium for its associated hospitals increased from $21 million to $40 million? The Durham Board of Education saw its premiums for liability insurance go up from $63,000 to $217,000 last month. The Canadian National Exhibition, as he knows, cannot get adequate liability insurance for the midway.

By his own permission and collusion, the minister has solved the problems of the insurance companies. Why does he not act as a consumer minister and protect the insuring public of this province by capping the present rates and rolling back all the second-round increases?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The member will know we are currently receiving submissions in response to the Slater task force report. They have until July 31 to do that, and then we will be addressing those problems.

As far as the three items he mentions are concerned, I would like to spend a little bit of time discussing them. We have set up the availability of reciprocal pools so that hospitals and school boards can self-insure. When it comes to the CNE specifically, the member should know that it had $3 million of liability. It felt it could not afford to pay any more. It went to Metro and asked for help. Metro decided it would accept the $3 million. It has coverage. That is the situation. The member may not like it, but that is the case.

COURTHOUSES

Mr. Callahan: I would like to address my question to the Attorney General. In Peel county, a provincial court building that was formerly leased under the administration of the Conservative government provided for a 25-year lease, and I believe it was at a net cost of $2.5 million a year.

What steps are being taken to bring that courthouse up to snuff, particularly in view of some of the investigations that have been made in terms of the air quality, security and so on? What steps are being taken to provide an alternative facility, because this marvellous facility we had provided only 12 parking spots?

3:30 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Scott: I thought we were supposed to have warning of these questions.

I am well aware, as is the honourable member, and indeed he has persistently brought it to my attention, that the provincial court facilities in Brampton are not adequate for the needs of the community.

Mr. Andrewes: Why does the government not break the lease and rent another building?

Hon. Mr. Scott: It is true, we are locked into a very significant lease to local interests, which will tie us into Brampton for about 25 years at a very high rent. Notwithstanding that, we are looking at other opportunities in the community.

It is not the highest-priority location in the province. There are other communities on the list as well. I hope to be able to tell the member very shortly

Mr. McClellan: The member just wants a better office for himself.

Hon. Mr. Scott: No. He wants to make a better deal for the community than the previous minister.

Mr. Speaker: Interjections are out of order.

Mr. Callahan: In the absence of the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston), I cannot ask him a question. I will ask a supplementary of the Attorney General.

In addition to the rather tragic lease that was negotiated by the previous government with reference to the provincial court building, there is also a considerable backlog in the court administration in the district court. Our facility has outgrown its capacity for people who have moved into my delightful region. What steps have been taken to look into that?

Hon. Mr. Scott: In my riding, we thought Brampton had it all its own way for 25 years. I am surprised to hear these complaints about conditions in Brampton.

I am aware the provincial courthouse facilities there are not adequate to the needs. We have them on the list, and they will be reviewed. We hope to have that completed very shortly, which will establish priorities for the next five or six years.

EXTRA BILLING

Mr. Rowe: I have a question of the Minister of Tourism and Recreation (Mr. Eakins). In his absence, I will direct it to the Premier.

Yesterday morning, American radio news in New York state warned potential tourists to our province, "If you travel to Ontario, you are taking your life into your own hands because of the doctors' strike."

In a province that boasts the finest health care system in the world, a health care system studied and envied by our American friends, the Premier and his government have managed in one short year to denigrate that health care system to the present state. What does he intend to do about this kind of campaign, telling American tourists into Ontario, "Do not come here because it is not safe?"

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I could be misinformed, but I thought I read in the newspaper this morning that the person who was alleged to have said that said he did not say it. Am I right?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: That is right.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I hope the member will stand up in the House and make a retraction of what he has just said and say there are no problems. I hope he will use the great credibility he has achieved in a short time in this House to persuade people here, in New York and in other states that there are no problems here. This is still the wonderful province it has always been.

Mr. Rowe: The radio station was WTOJ, 103 FM in Watertown, New York. The item was there on Wednesday morning at 8:30. It was picked off the wire service. It was on the air; the Premier does not need to worry about that.

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Rowe: What does he intend to do about it? Nothing, as he obviously has done before?

Does he intend to do anything about this kind of advertising on the American side for our tourists, or is he just going to sit there and let it go?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I do not want the member to get his exercise by throwing his Smurf ball at me over there. I personally listen to CBC, and it reports rationally on all these things. I recommend it to the member.

If he listens to one of the American stations -- it sounds like a rock station; they tell me it affects the ears and, eventually, listening to that music can affect the mind -- then I recommend that the member not listen and tell his friends not to listen to that radio station any more. He should listen to CBC. It will tell him everything is fine in Ontario.

COURTHOUSES

Mr. Allen: I have a question for the Attorney General. Before he turns to Brampton's problems, he might look to Hamilton's. For a number of years, Hamilton has had a very dispersed provincial court system scattered all over the western half of the region, with poorly planned facilities, poor states of repair, cells desperately crowded, judges having their libraries inaccessible for ready reference, no private interview space on many days unless one uses the washrooms, etc. Officers cannot even deliver the prisoners to the cells, because the van cannot get in the doorway.

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Allen: The Attorney General knows these problems. He has known of them for some time. Will he please stand up and tell us now when he is going to give us a new central court facility for Hamilton and region?

Hon. Mr. Scott: That is a very good question. We have already taken initiatives with respect to the unified family court building in Hamilton, which was in a deplorable state. We have made arrangements to deal with that. We are dealing with North Bay. We are dealing with some other matters.

I must tell the member that an extraordinary feature of my job is that I was hardly in office a week before members on all sides of the House came to me saying the courthouses in their areas were in deplorable condition. I heard complaints about it even in York South.

Mr. Rae: I do not have a courthouse in York South.

Hon. Mr. Scott: The complaint was that they did not even have one in York South.

I went out across the province, and I visited 40 counties. Do members know what? Members opposite who said they needed new courthouses in their communities were right. After 40 years the condition of the courthouses in this province is absolutely shocking. It has been said many times. I pledge to this House that we will double, as we have already doubled, the rate at which they are being constructed and the rate at which they are being repaired. My goodness, there is a mountain of work to be accomplished.

Mr. Allen: I think the member is aware there is a Hamilton mountain.

Mr. Speaker: Is that your supplementary?

Mr. Allen: I am pleased to hear that the minister will be addressing that issue.

Within three weeks after the CBC's recent series on this issue, a member of the Ministry of Government Services showed up in Hamilton with the plan to do a little bit of repair on one of the courts. The local community and the legal community were not very amused, because the time has passed for Band-Aids.

Can the Attorney General tell the Hamilton region by what approximate date it can expect an announcement with respect to his response to this particular local mountain?

Hon. Mr. Scott: I cannot answer that question because the survey has not been done. I am conscious of the problem in Hamilton. I have seen it and it is serious, but the member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris) tells me the courthouse situation in North Bay is of crisis proportions. The member for Oxford (Mr. Treleaven), a long-time Conservative, tells me it is calamitous in Woodstock, and he is right. The Conservatives go on and on that they do not have courthouses that are any good in their ridings. I am not going to put members of the New Democratic Party first just because they signed the accord.

VISITOR

Hon. Mr. Scott: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Would the members of the Legislature permit me to intrude on their time to introduce to the House one of the great Canadians of our generation, who is in the gallery? I refer to Mr. Justice Emmett Hall.

3:40 p.m.

He is a famous Canadian for at least three reasons. The first is that he was a judge in Saskatchewan for years. He was one of the most distinguished judges in our time in the Supreme Court of Canada for a decade. He was the writer, the draftsman, the signatory of the famous report which founded the Canada Health Act, about which we have heard so much in this House in the past few weeks and upon which Bill 94 is based. He is the author for the government of Canada and this is the particularly important point today -- of the momentous, monumental and important settlement that was made for the native people of our province at the English and Wabigoon rivers.

Mr. Speaker: I gather the Attorney General had unanimous consent.

PETITION

NATUROPATHY

Ms. Fish: I have a petition signed by approximately 10 residents of the city of Toronto, which reads as follows:

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

"We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows: "Whereas it is our constitutional right to have available and to choose the health care system of our preference;

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

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

REPORT BY COMMITTEE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON
THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

Mr. Breaugh from the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly presented a report on appointments in the public sector and moved the adoption of its recommendations.

Mr. Breaugh: I want to take a moment today to thank all the people who made presentations to the committee on the appointments process. In particular, I want to thank the members of the committee who went through a long and difficult process to get it to the report stage.

We now have a set of recommendations contained in this report that we think are a viable, workable way to go about making appointments in the public sector. We recognize we are proposing a substantial change from the way things have always been done. It is not a radical thought, but the very thought that appointments in the public sector would have a public process is quite a new thought in Canadian politics. I hope the members will look at the report, consider it and give us their wise advice about it later. Although the recommendations were difficult, we found that once we got to the acceptance factor of the idea that there would be a public process attached to all these appointments, they flowed rather smoothly.

I point out we have exercised one of the new standing orders, standing order 32(d), which requests that the government make a formal response to this report within 120 days.

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

MOTION

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved that the standing committee on public accounts be authorized to meet in the morning, following routine proceedings and from eight to 10:30 in the evening of Wednesday, July 2, 1986, and following routine proceedings and from eight to 10:30 in the evening of Thursday, July 3, 1986.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

INSTITUTE OF CERTIFIED MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS OF ONTARIO ACT

Mr. McFadden moved first reading of Bill Pr24, An Act to change the name of the Institute of Management Consultants of Ontario to the Institute of Certified Management Consultants of Ontario.

Motion agreed to.

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Breaugh moved first reading of Bill 110, An Act to amend the Municipal Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Breaugh: The purpose of the bill is to authorize municipalities to provide retired employees with a range of benefits including health insurance, nursing and dental services, and accident and sickness insurance.

CITY OF BRANTFORD ACT

Mr. Gillies moved first reading of Bill Pr27, An Act respecting the City of Brantford.

Motion agreed to.

CEDARHURST GOLF CLUB ACT

Mr. Stevenson moved first reading of Bill Pr22, An Act to revive the Cedarhurst Golf Club.

Motion agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The member for High Park-Swansea (Mr. Shymko) indicated during members' statements that he was requesting unanimous consent for the House to consider a motion standing in his name, being number 48 in Orders and Notices. I believe there is unanimous consent for a brief consideration of that. As far as we are concerned, we would like to advise the member to call that resolution for a brief consideration at this time.

SOVIET REACTOR

Mr. Shymko: I thank the government House leader and the House leaders of Her Majesty's opposition and the third party for the support they have given to this resolution.

Mr. Shymko moved resolution 48:

That in the opinion of this House, the government of Ontario should urge the government of Canada to take the following urgently needed actions to defend the physical and mental health of people affected by the Chernobyl tragedy:

1. That the United Nations form an international investigative committee of scientists and medical experts to enter Ukraine to assess the extent of danger, both domestic and international;

2. That Canada declare its preparedness to contribute emergency aid, such as medicine, food and technical personnel, to help in treating the Chernobyl disaster victims either in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics or in our own medical facilities in Canada;

3. That Canada announce an open-door policy for family reunification and sponsorship of immigrants wishing to leave Ukraine; and

4. That the USSR permit more direct communication between Canadians and their relatives or friends in Ukraine.

Mr. Shymko: I would like to thank the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh), who initiated this concern under resolution 44. I have somehow expanded on that initiative and that resolution and I thank him for his co-operation.

3:50 p.m.

As of today, three months since that tragedy, 26 individuals have died and approximately 300 individuals are in a very critical state. We have seen a tenfold increase in the tragedy in the past three months. Most likely, the unfortunate victims and the numbers will increase. Close to 100,000 people have been evacuated from the region and 250,000 children have been evacuated from Kiev.

Notwithstanding the political consequences -- internal, domestic and international -- to the government of the USSR, on which I do not want to comment, there are now 19 similar graphite reactor plants in the USSR. I believe there is only one elsewhere in the world. My concern is that two such reactors are close to such cities as Leningrad. The reason these reactors have been dismantled outside the USSR is safety; the reason they exist in the USSR, apparently, is that they produce plutonium, which is used in nuclear weapons, in the fastest and cheapest way.

In the light of the initiatives that humanity is taking towards peace and disarmament, it is our hope that the international commission referred to -- and we asked Canada to urge the creation of such a commission -- will look seriously at the consequences of another such nuclear disaster, which crosses all borders and nations and affects all of humanity.

In the light of this tragedy, we are now giving greater weight to such environmental organizations as Energy Probe and Pollution Probe. We realize the vast importance of these organizations in conveying to our citizens the need to assure the maximum safety precautions in nuclear power plants. I have never appreciated the functioning of these organizations more than I do today. Unfortunately, they do not exist in jurisdictions such as the Soviet Union.

Tourists who have recently returned from the Soviet Union inform me that people who refer to Chernobyl in private or in public and to fears of its consequences -- as we are speaking of them in this House -- are liable to prosecution under the criminal code for anti-Soviet agitation and propaganda. I have never appreciated more the lobbying for public accountability of such institutions as Ontario Hydro to maximize the safety of our nuclear plants.

Once again, I want to thank members for their support. They must realize that 250,000 children and tens of thousands of other victims will need medical assistance. Some of it can be provided here in Canada. Notwithstanding the problems we may have in assisting, I know this province will make a humanitarian gesture if help and treatment can be provided in its institutions. I thank members for their co-operation to pass unanimously this resolution on this important anniversary.

Mr. Breaugh: I was pleased to accommodate the member for High Park-Swansea (Mr. Shymko) in putting this motion before the House. I should point out that it is not my motion either. It came from constituents of mine who are of Ukrainian descent and who have friends and family in Ukraine. They are gravely concerned about what is happening to loved ones in a land far away from here. It is very difficult for them even to get what we would consider to be normal information, let alone provide assistance to their relatives in Ukraine.

I took it upon myself to table it in the Legislature just to make members aware. I hoped that what has happened would happen, that someone would pick it up, the House leaders would get together and set aside our business for a few minutes to offer our measure of consideration here. I have taken the liberty of forwarding the resolution to every legislative assembly in the country, because it has brought to my attention that although this is a matter that in a sense is a long way away, in another country which operates under a completely different system, it is in reality here too.

Food in grocery stores in Toronto, on the west coast and on the east coast, has had to be removed from store shelves because of radiation contamination. It is here on our front door as well. We have an obligation to people in Ukraine who do not have the rights and freedoms we have to try to do whatever we can to reach out, to inform them that we care and that we will be prepared to do our part to assist them.

I thank all members for getting this on the agenda for today, for setting aside their business. In particular, I thank the House leaders and the member for High Park-Swansea, who assisted me and were very accommodating in making these arrangements. I hope there will be consent on all sides to pass the resolution this afternoon.

Hon. Mr. Ruprecht: The government supports the resolution by the member for High Park-Swansea and the member for Oshawa.

The Chernobyl disaster brings home to all of us the fact that no country can be considered an island and that we are truly an interdependent world. The concept of Spaceship Earth best brings home to all of us the idea that whatever happens in one part of the world truly affects everyone.

It is obvious we should try to do whatever we can to support the government of the Soviet Union and, directly, the people of Ukraine. I would like it noted that Ontario Hydro is willing, ready and able to supply as much expertise as possible to mitigate the suffering of the Ukrainian people.

Hon. Ms. Munro: I rise to support the resolution, supporting the three colleagues before me and everyone else in the House.

The Chernobyl disaster was a terrible tragedy, and measures must be taken to ensure that nuclear accidents cannot happen again anywhere. All Ontarians, indeed all people everywhere, feel shock and great sympathy for the families of the victims and especially for those survivors who have to face the continuing horrors of having been affected by nuclear fallout.

The member for High Park-Swansea has called on the Legislature to urge the government of Canada to take special action to help those affected. I am sure the federal government will provide whatever assistance -- scientific, medical, etc. -- may be required.

As far as the open-door policy for family reunification is concerned, immigration is strictly a federal matter, but I know the Ontario government will provide whatever support is necessary to settle newcomers who may come to our province as a result of this tragedy. We are renowned in Ontario for the support systems we have in place for those arriving here from other lands, and it does not matter whether they come as result of war, of this disaster or of free choice.

In Ontario, we have many citizens of Ukrainian descent. I know they are aware, are confident, have come forward and will join with the government to provide help and support for any of their fellow countrymen and women who should come to Ontario.

Motion agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 79, An Act to amend the Municipal Act.

Mr. Partington: I am pleased to continue the debate and to speak in support of Bill 79 and the amendments tabled by the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Grandmâitre).

As I indicated yesterday, the bill prohibiting bonuses in aid of manufacturing or commercial enterprises continues the prohibition against bonusing that was in the previous section but goes further to describe types of activities that would be considered bonusing and prohibited.

I confirm that the continuation of this policy is in the public interest for the reasons I stated. The limitation on intervention by municipalities in assisting manufacturing or business confirms the general agreement that the business of municipalities is to levy and collect taxes, to plan and rezone the communities and not to interfere with the free enterprise system.

I indicated I would like to trace for a moment the history of bonusing in Ontario. The power to provide bonusing assistance was first provided in this province around 1897 and was continued until 1924.

4 p.m.

Mr. McClellan: Is this a filibuster?

Mr. Partington: No, I am not filibustering. I just want to provide some background to the current legislation. I find it interesting.

The bonuses at that time permitted the promotion of manufacturing and certain general activities in the community and, during the period 1920-24, permitted a very wide range of assistance, including grants, gifts of land, partial exemption for municipal taxation and fixing of assessments.

In 1924, the Bonus Limitation Act was enacted. This permitted bonuses to manufacturing only, and only in the form of fixed assessments.

In 1950, the Bonus Limitation Act was repealed, and its provisions were incorporated into the Municipal Act. In 1961, the Municipal Act was amended to repeal the section permitting fixed assessments; so in 1961, bonuses in general became prohibited.

In 1962, the Municipal Act was amended to prohibit all bonuses to manufacturing businesses or other industrial or commercial enterprises. Of course, the prohibition against bonuses continues to the present time, or was supposed to continue to the present time. That is one of the reasons the amendment to section 112 adds the four clauses which more particularly describe what is a bonus and what is prohibited by the act.

That further definition was needed because there are many examples in the province where municipalities, in an attempt to attract industry or business to their jurisdictions, would hold out what they might not think was a bonus but clearly was. An example is where one municipality, in pursuit of a manufacturer requiring substantial acreage, was alleged to have offered a site for $1. Certainly the temptation is there to attract industry and business to a jurisdiction to provide jobs for the employees.

As I indicated, the act now is meant to be much more specific. It is basically saying bonuses in any form are again prohibited, although the act goes further and does permit some exceptions, albeit minor exceptions, to that rule.

Today, all municipalities want to play an active role in the economic life of their communities. They want to be seen to encourage the growth of business and to assist new business to locate within their boundaries. We see daily that municipalities now undertake sophisticated advertising and sales campaigns on the desirability of locating in their areas. They talk about the amenities, schools, hospitals, recreation facilities and, often, the serviced land available.

Municipalities employ professional staff. Most of them have industrial development commissioners who meet with industry and, to some degree, travel afield to try to convince businesses with potential to locate in the community. We have known many areas where municipalities will engage in buying and servicing industrial land where the incentive often is not there for a private entrepreneur to acquire the land and service it. The communities will operate seminars and assist businesses in their dealings with government at all levels in an attempt to assist them to obtain federal and provincial grants in the construction of their business.

The question that arises continually is how far municipalities should be permitted to engage in an entrepreneurial role in developing their communities. Many things can be done: They can invest in private business; they can operate the businesses. They can provide tax relief and, of course, establish incubators similar to the Ontario-sponsored enterprise centres. That is one of the provisions in Bill 79, which the minister has introduced.

Subsection 112a(1) of Bill 79 states, "The council of a municipality may provide for the establishment of a counselling service to small businesses." This bill takes one step that is a bit aside from the general prohibition against bonuses or assistance, in saying under the subsection, notwithstanding that a council cannot assist business or industry, the council may set up a counselling service to help fledgling business people to learn the ropes of how to go about starting a business and selling their wares or manufacturing their products for sale.

I believe, as I am sure the minister does, that such activity is in the public good. In doing that, the municipality is not at risk; it is not putting up any money it may lose. It is merely providing a climate to make members of the business community, and particularly new members of that community, feel comfortable in their struggle to establish themselves and to grow.

The act goes on in subsection 112a(2) to indicate that the council may establish programs

"to encourage the establishment and initial growth of small businesses" and "may participate in programs established and administered by the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology to encourage the establishment and initial growth of small businesses."

Subsection 112a(4) sets out many steps that councils may take to that end, which include acquiring land and erecting buildings, making grants to a nonprofit corporation which would administer this delivery service to assist small businesses, entering into leases of property and selling or disposing of personal property of the municipality to any eligible small business. That is one thing we will get to a little later.

The minister has indicated this bill is directed to small businesses that might be located in the basement of someone's house, probably operating in contravention of local zoning bylaws. The idea is to encourage these people to get into larger premises and to try to develop their businesses in a businesslike manner. It is something I think every member of this House should encourage, because it provides growth in jobs for us all.

The bill goes on in subsection 112a(6) to say the type of assistance that will be available is assistance with rental property at less than fair market value for a period of 36 months following the day a small business first occupies the property.

The exact wording in subsection 6 was, "Notwithstanding section 112, a lease, disposition of property or use of property or services of employees of the municipality by an eligible small business or a corporation described in clause (4)(d) may be made or provided at less than fair market value."

I had a discussion with the minister and suggested the clause was a little vague and required some clarification. I am pleased to see the minister has moved his third amendment, which adds clarity to that section.

I would like to hear from the minister in his reply in regard to the following. The bill is meant to encourage the growth of small businesses, and I am advised by the minister that a small business means a business resident within the municipality. That eliminates the concern many people have about one municipality attempting to lure business from a municipality nearby, or even distant, although the act does not indicate that.

4:10 p.m.

I have another question I would appreciate being answered by the minister. The bill indicates that personal property of the municipality can be disposed of at less than fair market value. Perhaps the answer will be included in the regulations, but the question is, how much of a discount and what is the value of the property? For example, can the municipality sell $10 million worth of personal property for $2 million? I would like the minister to address that question. I assume, because we are talking about small business, the figures would be in keeping with the size of the business. Perhaps the minister can also make some comment on what is the size of an eligible small business.

Some concern was also expressed by individuals about municipalities having no business being involved in the rental of commercial property; this should be left with private enterprise and, by engaging in that, it is competing with taxpayers in the community. The comment was that they should not be engaged in it at all.

The next comment raised was that even if it is acknowledged that they can engage in such competition, they should be doing it at fair market value and not at less than fair market value. I appreciate the need and the desire of a community, in getting a fledgling business going, perhaps to offer it some encouragement in moving to proper facilities. I appreciate the clause on fair market value and the period of up to 36 months. Perhaps the minister can comment on that.

I support the bill, and it is my position that in getting involved in this type of assistance to an individual or to business, the municipality is not engaging in entrepreneurial activity. It is not risking a financial commitment. The main purpose is to help small business. The purpose of the municipality is not to invest money for profit. That is the difference and that is the reasonable justification for the municipality making this commitment.

I support the bill because it confirms the policy that municipalities should not engage in assisting business or industry by providing bonuses of any kind, and the assistance that is provided encourages the growth of small business. We should all be in favour of the growth of small business.

Finally, I ask the minister to speak on the limitation requirement that the business or industry be located in the community. It is important to assure municipalities that they will not be trying to compete one against the other for the business that is available. Our economic growth tends to be not from attracting new business but from the growth of existing businesses within a community.

I commend the minister for introducing this bill. It attempts to get those individuals who are trying to become independent businessmen, who perhaps are currently working at one job but do not have their business to a sufficient size to devote full-time attention to it, to get that business going and out of their home.

It reminds me of a case in St. Catharines, a company called McGee Marking Devices; it was formerly Snider Engraved Specialty. The business was started many years ago by a gentleman in his basement, and he worked at it for some time. It was an industrious Donald Snider who owned the company. He was a very industrious and capable individual who was well liked. He was a great sportsman, a professional hockey player. He eventually was able to move that business out of his basement -- without government assistance, I might add. Perhaps if assistance had been available at the time, it might have enabled him to move a little faster, and at this point he would have been a little bigger.

He was one of those fortunate individuals who had the talent and the initiative, and with hard work, he was able to take the step on his own. Today his is probably the largest business in the Niagara Peninsula that makes decals, legal seals, stamps and signs, and a whole array of labelling devices for our economy. That is an example of what can happen when we encourage people to move from a startup job into full-time operation.

I am sure this bill will do it. It is in the best interests of the people of Ontario. I am pleased to support the bill.

Mr. Sterling: I would like to participate briefly in the debate to bring to the discussion an aspect that perhaps was not experienced by some of the previous speakers on this matter.

I am fortunate enough to have in my riding an enterprise or incubation centre in the city of Kanata. The city of Kanata put forward a proposal some time ago through its business association and was successful about a year and a half ago in getting approval for an enterprise centre.

In looking over the documentation from the ministry, I noticed that, generally speaking, the kind of community that was receiving this kind of assistance was not very large municipalities, but they were not small municipalities either. I look to places such as Brantford, the Kitchener area or the Cambridge area and even the Kanata area. While I wish them well in each and every one of those centres, I also know that things right now are booming pretty well in Cambridge and in Brantford, notwithstanding the problems they had in that municipality some time ago. The city of Kanata is now feeling a little bit of pain, but the minister should know they are selling industrial lots in the industrial park in Kanata quite readily at this time.

I want to contrast that situation with municipalities that are not doing as well. I guess the fortunate thing of the structure of my constituency of Carleton-Grenville is that I have seen high technology in terms of Kanata, a very progressive municipality that has grown at a very rapid pace in the past and continues to grow at a very rapid pace, compared to a town such as Prescott in the southern part of my riding, some 60 miles away on the northern shore of the St. Lawrence, which has stayed virtually the same size since the end of the construction of the St. Lawrence Seaway, at a population of about 5,000 people.

4:20 p.m.

What worries me is the apparent pickup of the program by municipalities that can afford to be in the program and the apparent lack of pickup of the program by municipalities that probably need it more than those that already have it. I think it is a good idea. As the member for Brock (Mr. Partington) has put it so well, the idea of encouraging a fellow to be able to progress the next step up from his basement into larger premises with some of the kind of assistance he might need to make his business successful is very worth while. But in these kinds of programs, we have to be cautious that the areas where we need the few innovators who might be ready to expand into larger premises have that opportunity.

Therefore, I hope that when the minister is summing up the discussion of second reading of the bill, he will outline to the Legislature the various levels of assistance in going into the incubator model. I realize this is a permissive piece of legislation, and perhaps the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology would be more appropriate for making those kinds of suggestions or comments. However, by having the permission in this legislation, the other is going to happen.

It is sort of a two-stage thing, and the second stage is probably almost more important than the initial stage. This is permissive. The second stage will impact to a greater degree than this piece of legislation will: the program the government puts forward so that small municipalities such as Prescott, or any other municipality in Ontario with a high unemployment rate that is having difficulty attracting industry, will be put on an equal footing with the larger and more sophisticated municipalities that have the money and the expertise to take up on a program that is being offered by the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology.

It is also important to pay heed to the comments by my friend the member for Brock about the definition of a resident industry or a resident business so we can be sure that those who have been able to take up on the program -- those who are, let us say, richer than those who do not have the assets and the wherewithal to put this kind of program together -- are not penalized by a neighbour who is doing a little bit better than they are in terms of a municipal structure or a municipality. Let us not let the rich get richer at the cost of the areas where unemployment rates are higher than in the municipalities that are taking up on the programs.

There is another problem. I do not know whether it was raised by my friend the member for Cambridge (Mr. Barlow). He indicated that one may participate in these programs, but it is not a right to participate in them; therefore, a program can be put out by the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology. I hope he will make some comments about how the priority will be picked from the various applicants as to who gets first crack at a particular program.

Going back to my initial comments about how the programs should be set up, I hope that, in terms of amounts of money that would be given over to a smaller, less sophisticated and poorer municipality, the priority would be based on the unemployment rates in Ontario, the industrial activity in the area and other economic factors.

I believe the program in the enterprise centres is very rich in terms of provincial government funding. I would invite the minister's comments -- or perhaps he would attempt to get them from the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. O'Neil) -- on whether his government would be willing to have a scale of rates of how much would be available to various municipalities based on economic factors in the area.

If a municipality is "doing very well, thank you" and does not have a high unemployment rate, if there seems to be a lot of activity in the area and a lot of commercial space already available in the private sector, if there are all those factors, I believe the support for that kind of community should be less than for a community that has a lot of problems attracting, maintaining and scoring employment opportunities in its area.

We know there are pockets of such communities not only in eastern Ontario, of which the minister would be very much aware because of the location of his riding, his not being far from mine in eastern Ontario, but I imagine that would also be the situation in northern Ontario.

I would also like to say that I would hope his government, in considering pieces of legislation such as this one, would consider other kinds of programs that would assist industries to locate in areas where we would like to have them, where the unemployment rate is high and where there is constant migration of the younger people from those communities.

We have had a very successful industrial parks program, which our government instituted, but during the past few years we were starting to consider whether that program could continue to exist in larger municipalities where there was sufficient industrial land in the private sector and municipalities were continuing to develop industrial land on their own for the industrial parks program. Because they give significant financial benefit to the eventual purchaser of that land, those kinds of programs should be pointed towards the smaller municipalities and municipalities that do not have industrial land available and where they cannot get a private developer to service land because the prospects are not that great.

4:30 p.m.

The minister may also want to talk over with his colleagues an idea I had heard of -- actually, it came out of West Germany -- whereby when a government industrial complex of some magnitude is created, there is some requirement for a component to deal with day care. In a small way, an enterprise centre is an industrial development that is basically being sponsored by a municipality. My feeling is that when government gets involved in an industrial development program, the quid pro quo, the balance-off, should be some kind of social service to assist the provincial government and the taxpayers of Ontario in the long range to deal with the very serious problem of providing adequate day care for those who work in that complex. I hope -- and I am just throwing this out -- that when the government is considering future legislation dealing with industrial development opportunities and programs, it will consider asking, as a condition of financing these kinds of arrangements, that they provide that kind of social service.

I do not know how the minister is going to deal with the complaint if someone from a competing service sector comes forward to the government and says: "You have helped my competition to get established. That is fine for my competition, but how is it going to affect my business?" If we allow this individual to get into the market and give him lower-than-market rent, how are we going to explain the equity in this situation to the existing businesses?

I do not know whether the minister has addressed this or whether he has an answer to it, but I would appreciate his considering that. Perhaps when he responds, he can give me some kind of answer. As an MPP, I know that when any government program is introduced, this is the kind of question that will get thrown back on us. Because Kanata is involved in this kind of program, I would like to understand what answer I am supposed to give to the service sector, which will come forward and ask that question.

The legislation indicates there is some discretion on the part of the government to allow a municipality to enter into this program or not. Will the minister share with us the criteria that are being developed and table in the Legislature the qualifications a municipality must have to qualify for the program? It is important for everyone to know what the rules are and to have those policy statements in a concrete form so MPPs such as me can go to their smaller municipalities, where they do not have the expertise and where I am required to take on a larger role in this matter, and tell them how they can get involved in this program and tell the chamber of commerce how it can get involved, what they must put up and what the government will put up. I realize this legislation covers both. If the minister cannot provide all that information to me, I will defer to his promise to get it for me.

My colleagues in our caucus have indicated we will support this legislation. Frankly, I look forward to other initiatives on the part of this government -- new initiatives, because this initiative really has evolved from an idea of the last government in terms of the enterprise centres. It is cleaning up the legalities of putting the enterprise centres in place and allowing municipalities to participate in them. I will therefore give the minister my full support and wish him a safe trip home to Ottawa this afternoon.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: I thank the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh), the member for Brock and the member for Carleton-Grenville (Mr. Sterling) for their understanding of the amendment and of this new program. I will try briefly to answer some of their questions.

Perhaps I can start with the member for Carleton-Grenville. He talked about Kanata and smaller municipalities having the opportunity to get involved in such a program. The amendments brought forward to section 112 of the Municipal Act will provide a smaller municipality with the opportunity, not to be competitive with its next-door municipality but to be on at least the same level as its next-door municipality.

This is a pilot project. Three municipalities have successfully competed. Out of 17 proposals, three municipalities were chosen. I hope, after reviewing the program three years from now or before the three years have come to an end, we will be forced to provide more dollars and expand the program.

The intention of the amendment brought to the Municipal Act is to make it clearer to municipalities that they can be competitive but also that they have limitations. These limitations or exceptions will be provided in the three amendments. It is about time this level of government recognized the importance of the participation of local municipalities not only in competing for business. They are our greatest source of job creators, and I think they should be encouraged to do more.

I was asked the definition of a small business, and all these definitions will be part of the regulations. We are trying to encourage local business people not only to expand their present businesses but also to create new employment centres. The local residency clause is part of the regulations.

I can wind up by saying it is a pilot project and I hope I will have to come back to provide municipalities with more incentives to become better job creators sooner than three years from now.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for committee of the whole House.

House in committee of the whole.

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT

Consideration of Bill 79, An Act to amend the Municipal Act.

On section 1:

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Grandmaître moves that section 112 of the act, as set out in section 1 of the bill, be amended by adding thereto the following subsection:

"(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to a council that is exercising any of its power or authority under subsection 28(6) or (7) of the Planning Act, 1983 where the power or authority is exercised with the approval of the minister."

4:40 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: I have another amendment

Mr. Breaugh: Can we vote on this before the minister puts another one?

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: Why not?

Mr. Barlow: Why not move all the amendments?

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: All three amendments?

Mr. Chairman: Will the minister please speak on the first amendment?

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: I have no comments on the first amendment.

Mr. Barlow: This is not on the amendment, but it is on section 112. I asked yesterday about the resolution passed by the Cambridge city council, asking for a definition of the words "levy, charge or fee" in subsection 112(d). The concern was that the council not long ago passed a bylaw or resolution that would allow multiple family residential projects in and around the core area that could become exempt from unit levies or impost charges. That is why they were wondering and wanting clarification and perhaps even a definition of what the "levy, charge or fee" might mean. I wonder whether the minister has any comments on that before we deal with this amendment.

Mr. Breaugh: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: I do not mean to intervene, but when a member starts by saying "not on the amendment," that ought to be a clue he is out of order. We are dealing with an amendment.

Mr. Barlow: I am on the right section. This amendment got in before I had a chance to speak. I had asked for clarification on this yesterday when I spoke on the bill.

Mr. Chairman: Order. Minister, do you wish to respond to that, if it is on the amendment or close to it?

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: As my friend knows, municipalities can charge a levy or fee. The words "exemption from any levy, charge or fee" are an example that it is prohibited by municipalities.

Mr. Partington: I have one question for clarification. I appreciate the minister put in the amendment to allay any suggestion there may be a conflict between the section of the Planning Act and the bill, but it seems to me the thrust of subsections 28(6) and (7) of the act concerns community improvement plans, whereas section 112 is where grants or assistance are made for the purpose of assisting business or industry.

Can the minister comment on whether, without the amendment, the act would be in conflict with the section of the Planning Act?

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: I do not have a copy of the Planning Act. Did the member say section 128?

Mr. Partington: Subsections 28(6) and (7). I am not opposing the amendment; I just wondered whether the minister had any comments on this.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: No, I do not, for the simple reason that I do not have a copy of the Planning Act in front of me. However, I am assured by our legal people that there is no conflict.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: There is a further amendment.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: I have another amendment.

I move that subsection 112a(6) of the act, as set out in section 1 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted therefor --

Mr. Breaugh: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: The minister is reading the wrong amendment. He has an amendment amending subsection 112a(4) of the act that he probably wants to put before he puts the amendment on subsection 112a(6).

Mr. Chairman: The one that starts at the top, "Section 1, subsection 112a(4)."

Mr. Breaugh: While we are waiting, I have some difficulty in moving motions, chairing the session and being an opposition critic, and I would appreciate a little help here. Maybe the minister could play his role. That would assist me somewhat.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Grandmaître moves that subsection 112a(4) of the act, as set out in section 1 of the bill, be amended by striking out "and" at the end of clause (f and by adding thereto the following clauses:

"(h) may appoint one or more of the directors of a corporation described in clause (d); and "(i) may apply under the Corporations Act for letters incorporating a corporation described in clause (d) having such objects and powers as may be approved by the minister."

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Grandmaître moves that subsection 112a(6) of the act as set out in section 1 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

"(6) Notwithstanding section 112,

"(a) a lease of real property under clause 4(c) or (d) or subsection 5,

"(b) a sale, lease or other disposition of personal property under clause 4(e); or

"(c) the use of personal property or services of employees of the municipality pursuant to clauses 4(e) and (f may be made or provided for at less than fair market value but this subsection ceases to apply to an eligible small business at the end of 36 months following the day it first occupies premises leased to it under this section."

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Partington: This is a question I raised earlier. Under clause 112a(6)(b), a sale, lease or other disposition of personal property under clause 4(e) may be made within 36 months. A sale or lease is, of course, an ultimate disposition. Can the minister advise at this time what type of personal property, the magnitude of that, how much, and what sort of a discount he has in mind?

Of course, the sale can be to an eligible small business. He has indicated it is going to be in the regulations, but can he provide us with a more complete definition of what an eligible small business is?

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: As I said previously, a small business is described in the regulations. Also, we respect the guidelines of the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology; as we know, one has to apply to that ministry, and we use the very same definitions or regulations as MITT would.

4:50 p.m.

Mr. Partington: I have one more question. I accept that answer with respect to eligible small businesses, but there is the question of selling personal property. What are the guidelines with respect to that? Dollar value?

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: In the regulations, we do mention a total dollar value. It could be on a number of businesses, but there is attached to these dealings a total number of dollars; they are included in the regulations.

Motion agreed to.

Section 1, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 2 and 3 agreed to.

Bill, as amended, ordered to be reported.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Grandmaître, the committee of the whole House reported one bill with certain amendments.

ENGLISH AND WABIGOON RIVER SYSTEMS MERCURY CONTAMINATION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Scott moved second reading of Bill 76, An Act to implement the Terms of a Settlement of all Claims arising out of the Contamination by Mercury and other Pollutants of the English and Wabigoon and Related River Systems.

Hon. Mr. Scott: It is a pleasure to take almost the ultimate step in the final settlement of this difficult matter. I have already noted the presence in the gallery of Mr. Justice Hall, who was the federal negotiator in this matter, and I note the presence on the opposition benches of the member for Kenora (Mr. Bernier), who has some familiarity with the issues in dispute.

As honourable members know from the statement when the bill was introduced and the compendium that is before them, an agreement has been achieved in which the two governments will pay a substantial sum of moneys to the native people under the agreement.

One of the provisions of the agreement calls for the establishment of a board to provide compensation to those whose lives have been affected by the prospect of mercury pollution damage. The board will make determinations, and a fund has been established of some $2 million, $1 million contributed by each of the bands out of the proceeds of the settlement.

I will deal with the major features of the bill very briefly. First of all, as I said, a fund has been established in the total sum of $2 million, plus accrued interest. The money has already been paid in escrow and will be paid out when the act here and the federal act are passed.

Once the fund is established, applicants will apply to the fund and will be successful if they are able to demonstrate both exposure to mercury and neurological conditions consistent with mercury poisoning. The members of the third party in particular, who I hope are listening, will be interested in the phrase "conditions consistent with mercury pollution," because that will separate out and not compel the board to deal with the kind of difficult issues that sometimes confront the Workers' Compensation Board.

The fund will make monthly payments in appropriate cases, ranging between $250 and $800 a month. The board, which is called the Grassy Narrows and Islington Bands Mercury Disability Board, is composed of some seven members: a chairman, two band representatives, two physicians and two other persons who will be appointed by a search committee composed of appointees from each of the bands and the Ontario and federal governments. The administrative costs of the board will be borne equally by the governments and the two bands.

The fund will be terminated by the board when a period of three consecutive years passes without the making of a fresh award from the fund but not, however, in any event before January 1, 2001. When the fund is terminated, the administrator will purchase a life annuity for every applicant in receipt of an award. The administrator will then repay Ontario for any advances that were paid to the fund to maintain the fund at a level of not more than $100,000, as provided for in the settlement. The administrator is then to pay any remaining balance to the two bands in equal amounts.

Lastly, in consideration of the benefits conferred by the terms of the settlement, all existing and future rights of action of the bands and their past, present or future members in respect of claims and causes of action that are the subject of a settlement are abolished.

I wish to make the point that the bill has a certain emergency because the funds are being held in escrow and cannot be released until the bill is passed. The second point is that, as I understand it, the federal government has already passed its companion piece.

The third point to be made is that the bill, because it flows from the memorandum of settlement, is in a sense a negotiated bill; that is to say, all parties to the settlement have negotiated with some finesse the language of the bill and have approved it in its present form. I am obliged to tell the House, although of course it does not affect the House's right to act, that any amendment to the bill may present significant difficulties in so far as the parties are concerned.

The last thing I would like to note is to congratulate all, and not least the negotiators for the bands and the other parties, who in the end, after a very long time, have made this important settlement possible.

Mr. Wildman: Too long.

Hon. Mr. Scott: Too long, perhaps.

As I say, Mr. Justice Hall is present, and his contribution was very great.

I plead to a modest conflict of interest in this case, because when I was in the practice of law, I had occasion to issue the writ against the government of Ontario that started this litigation. I probably named the member for Kenora in it. That action came to nothing, but it perhaps played a small part in launching the negotiations which today are so close to their ultimate conclusion.

I earnestly invite the House to join in supporting this bill.

5 p.m.

Mr. Bernier: I am very pleased to be able to add some comment to the consideration of Bill 76 as we move towards its passing and, of course, ratifying the agreement that has been reached between the government of Ontario, the government of Canada, Reed Paper, Great Lakes Forest Products, the Islington Indian Band and the Grassy Narrows Indian Band.

I want to join the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) in recognizing in the Speaker's gallery Chief Justice Emmett Hall, who played a major role in achieving an agreement in this very complex situation.

I also want to recognize counsel for Islington Indian band, Glenn Sigurdson, who is with Chief Justice Emmett Hall in the gallery. Mr. Sigurdson is with the firm of Taylor Brazzell McCaffrey, barristers and solicitors in Winnipeg. Both of these gentlemen played a major part in achieving this settlement.

I must admit at the outset that in my 20 years as a member of this House as the representative of the great Kenora riding, this issue has been a most difficult and frustrating one for me. It is truly a human issue; it is a health issue and certainly a social issue.

From my own involvement with this matter, I know the agreement was difficult to arrive at, and I commend the Attorney General for his efforts in bringing this problem to a conclusion. After more than a decade of talks, I am glad that a settlement has been reached.

Along with the hardships that many Canadian Indian tribes have endured, such as the loss of faith and community ties, and the forced abandonment of traditions, territory and self-determination, the Grassy Narrows and Islington bands have had their river systems, their source of food and livelihood, contaminated with mercury.

The impact of the mercury contamination has been far-reaching. Commercial fishing was banned, tourist guiding opportunities dropped sharply, a primary staple food source was made unfit, the community's social fabric was ravaged and violence, alcoholism, welfare use and social breakdown increased sharply.

I realize the proposed settlement hardly compensates for the hardship and despair that has been suffered by the bands for the past 16 years, but it is my hope it will encourage the rebuilding of morale in their communities and the creation of a secure and stable future for the people who have lost so much of their past.

There will be no delay from me or from members of our party in passing this bill. We regret it has taken so long to reach this agreement, and we want this settlement to be ratified and put into effect very quickly. Our party's critic on native affairs, the member for High Park-Swansea (Mr. Shymko), will be making a significant and specific contribution, which will again encourage an early passage of this bill.

I am glad to see the government has carried out a task that was initiated by my party when in government. The previous administration was actively involved for more than 10 years in assisting both bands to recover from the economic and social problems that have plagued their communities.

As long ago as 1978, the governments of Ontario and Canada signed a memorandum of understanding with both bands to develop social and resource-based programs, to assist in the restoration of the economic base of these communities, which had been affected adversely by a number of social and environmental problems, including the contamination of the English and Wabigoon river systems.

As part of the understanding, we were successful in getting Reed Paper, which then was the owner of the Dryden paper mill, and Ontario Hydro to agree that each would begin negotiations with the bands to work out appropriate settlements to compensate for the environmental damage caused to the reserves by their organizations.

The agreement by Reed Paper to negotiate a compensation agreement with the bands was assumed by Great Lakes Forest Products at the time of its purchase of Reed's assets in the Dryden mill in 1979.

Much of the credit for this agreement must go to my colleague the member for Muskoka (Mr. F. S. Miller), at that time Treasurer of Ontario, who facilitated the sale of the Dryden mill to Great Lakes by offering --

Mr. McClellan: The member for Kenora should not press his luck.

Mr. Bernier: The member does not know a thing about it. He was not even involved. I can tell him that, whoever is speaking.

Mr. McClellan: I was speaking. I was here from 1975 when the former government stonewalled and stonewalled.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Bernier: The member does not know a thing that was going on. He was not even involved.

Mr. McClellan: I know the roles of this member and the member for Muskoka, and they are nothing to boast about.

Mr. Bernier: He facilitated the sale of the Dryden mill to Great Lakes.

Mr. Wildman: Broken-down freezers and rotten fish.

Mr. Bernier: Yes, and who aggravated the situation if it was not the leader of the New Democratic Party, who went up there to stir up all the trouble? Does the member remember the freezers?

Mr. McClellan: I remember them well.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the member for Kenora take his seat? There will be time after the debate for comments and questions.

Mr. Bernier: I was pointing out that it was the member for Muskoka who facilitated the sale of the Dryden mill to Great Lakes by offering to cover liabilities of over $15 million resulting from the pollution of the English and Wabigoon river systems from the Dryden paper mill. This was believed to have been in the best interests of all concerned.

In 1983, the member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope), then Minister of Natural Resources, negotiated a settlement in principle with the Whitedog band and Ontario Hydro. This settlement resulted from the flooding of homes and burial grounds because of a dam built in the 195Os. The agreement was ratified by the band in December 1985. We attempted to conclude a similar agreement with the Grassy Narrows band. With respect to the band's negotiations with Great Lakes, we made a number of interventions to try to facilitate a successful conclusion.

On learning in 1982 that the parties had reached an impasse over the company's requirement that any settlement be conditional on full release by the bands of any future claims for both health and environmental damage, Russ Ramsay, the then minister responsible for native affairs, provided a letter to Great Lakes clarifying that under the Ontario indemnification commitment, the province would assume responsibility for any damages after $15 million had been paid by the company. Such claims would include personal injury, property damage and economic claims. It was our understanding that this assurance by Ontario would result in the resumption of negotiations between the bands and Great Lakes. Unfortunately, this was not the case.

At the request of the bands in 1984, we appointed a legal representative to work with the lawyers representing the bands and Great Lakes to facilitate the development of a compensation agreement acceptable to the bands. The Provincial Secretary for Resources Development at that time made a wise selection in appointing Peter Jacobsen for the task. I understand he was instrumental in assisting the parties to reach this equitable settlement, and I commend him for his fine efforts.

At that time, we encouraged the federal government to make a similar appointment. Hence, we welcomed its appointment early in 1985 of Chief Justice Emmett Hall, a great Canadian with a great reputation, to assist with the negotiation process. I know he was also a major contributor in arriving at this settlement, and I was pleased to spend some time with Chief Justice Hall personally discussing this very issue just about a year ago.

Supporting the proposed settlement is the least we can do for those people, who have suffered so much upheaval and disruption. I know the settlement was not designed with the idea that it could totally compensate for all the damage done to these communities, but I believe it provides them with opportunities to begin to reinvest in their future by encouraging new development, new industry and new employment opportunities. The spirit and enthusiasm of these people is astounding, considering what they have been through.

I was pleased to hear of their plans to enter the tourist business, establish a wild rice harvesting plant and a garment factory, and improve transportation between the reserves and Kenora. I am glad we can be of assistance, even in a small way, in seeing these plans through. This settlement is one way in which we can help the natives of the Grassy Narrows and Whitedog reserves to regain a sense of direction and self-worth.

Such a tragedy can never be allowed to happen again. I hope it has taught us how important it is for a good relationship to exist between a community and its industries. It is only by a partnership based on understanding and awareness that this type of tragedy can be avoided in the future.

The patience and understanding of the numerous chiefs who led the people of their respective bands through these long and sensitive negotiations must be recognized, and they must be thanked publicly today. They are Chief Pony Henry of the Whitedog band and Chief Steve Fobister of the Grassy Narrows band. We must also recognize former Chief Roy McDonald and former Chief Isaac Mandamin of Whitedog, and Arnold Pelly, Tom Keesick and Simon Fobister, former chiefs of the Grassy Narrows band.

5:10 p.m.

In conclusion, I want to point out that I have monitored the health testing carefully and to my knowledge no person demonstrated clinical or laboratory evidence of mercury poisoning. I hope and pray that no evidence is ever found in any band member in the future.

I am pleased to offer my party's support for the bill that is before us today. We may now finally close the book dealing with that chapter of the history of the Grassy Narrows and the Whitedog Indian reserves.

Mr. Wildman: I refrained from commenting on the contribution of the previous speaker because I believe this is a time for serious reflection on how an advanced industrialized society, such as ours, can inflict harm on a more traditional way of life.

I wonder whether any of us in this House would agree that the establishing of a fund can in some way assist the victims of health defects resulting from this kind of pollution and degradation of the environment and whether it responds in any way adequately to what is a major tragedy for two communities.

I want to add my congratulations to the courageous people of Whitedog and Grassy Narrows for the way they have endured over the past number of years since the initial impacts of mercury pollution were detected and for the way they have fought for what they believe to be a just settlement in the face of serious and concerted opposition from both the private sector and the public sector.

We all recognize this environmental tragedy is far more than what we normally term to be environmental; in fact, it affected a whole way of life. The previous speaker indicated the effects of mercury in the English and Wabigoon river systems brought an end to commercial fishing and harmed the tourist industry to the extent that those Indian people who had been traditionally employed as guides in that industry were all put out of work; but it is far wider and far greater in its effects than that.

If one destroys the whole economic fibre of a community, it cannot but also affect the social fibre. We have to look at the effects this process has had on the family life and on the community life of these two bands to understand how courageous their leadership and the ordinary members of the band have been to be able finally to bring about this settlement.

I congratulate the governments of this province and of Canada, as well as the bands for their part in finally bringing about a resolution, for bringing Reed Paper and Great Lakes Forest Products to understand they owe a debt to the people of Whitedog and Grassy Narrows. I want to recognize too the role of the various negotiators who worked for the bands and for both levels of government in this process. We have heard tributes today to Chief Justice Hall, and I think we all owe him a great debt for his efforts.

The question this bill raises is, why did it take so long? I want to emphasize that I am not looking in hindsight when I ask that question. Mr. Speaker, you will know that question has been asked repeatedly in this House since 1975. We have had a succession of ministers who have responded in such inadequate ways as to be beyond description.

Today, approximately a year after a change of government, we have a settlement. I recognize that prior to the change of government, efforts were being made by both levels of government in conjunction with the bands to resolve this matter once and for all. However, we should understand this problem was first understood in the early 1970s by the people of the communities and by members of the general public, but it took many years for that understanding to be accepted by either the governments involved or, certainly, the private companies involved.

We have heard repeatedly in this House, and we heard it today again, "There were no actual symptoms of Minamata disease, mercury poisoning." Frankly, I am surprised we would hear that repeated during this debate, and I will respond in this manner: To have it suggested that my former leader, the former member for Scarborough West, Stephen Lewis, somehow exacerbated this situation by raising the matter in the House is despicable. If it had not been for Stephen Lewis, this matter would not have been publicized beyond the northwest. Too often, problems in the north remain problems in the north. They are not understood or appreciated by people who live south of the French River. It is unforgivable that it should be a Metro member who, as leader of a party in this House, is the one who has to raise this matter in this House, rather than the members from the area that is affected.

All of us recognize that it was not Stephen Lewis, even in his untiring efforts, who made it possible for us to reach a settlement. It was the chiefs, the councillors, the elders and the band members themselves who had the stamina to deal with the stonewalling they experienced at every level for far too many years.

5:20 p.m.

As I was preparing for this debate, I thought of the number of times members of the Legislature had raised this matter, the number of times we had met with chiefs, councillors and negotiators and the problems we had discussed. I came to the conclusion that there was no way I could adequately describe the experience.

I thought of the succession of ministers with whom we dealt: the member for Kenora; the previous member for Cochrane North, René Brunelle; the previous member for Lambton; the previous member for Sault Ste. Marie, and in the late days, the member for Carleton-Grenville (Mr. Sterling) and subsequently the member for Muskoka and the member for Cochrane South.

It was not easy to remain even-tempered in this whole process, even for me, who is known to be very temperate and mild. However, I wonder how the members of the bands were able to remain so reasonable -- I am not sure whether that is an adequate word -- that they would accept even this agreement.

I can remember statements at one point to the effect that there was no evidence the company was polluting.

Mr. McClellan: That was after.

Mr. Wildman: Yes. That was five years after. I can remember statements that when the assets changed hands, the new company somehow did not have any responsibility for what had happened before. I can remember statements to the effect that the provincial government was prepared to cover the cost of compensation over and above a certain figure if the private sector would cover the lesser amount, as if that was a great concession on the part of the government of this province. I can remember discussions about greenhouses and wild rice.

Mr. Mancini: I am interested in the greenhouses.

Mr. Wildman: I do not think it is necessary for me to go into a long description of what the previous member for Lambton felt was a justifiable approach to dealing with the economic base of the community involved. Suffice it to say I believe it was that member, when he was the minister responsible for native affairs under the Conservative government -- I think he was called the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development at that time -- who indicated that Indian people were "the children of the federal government."

Can one imagine, as late as the 1970s, having a responsible minister of the crown refer to the Indian people of this province as children? That very attitude explains one of the reasons it took so long to get that government to move. To have a person with that kind of approach, that patronizing attitude, involved in the negotiations of such a delicate problem doomed it from the beginning.

I can remember the suggestion being made in this House that perhaps the harvesting of wild rice should be reserved for the Indian people of the northwest and the response being: "We cannot do that. They will not do the job. They will not harvest all the rice. They will waste a lot. They may not get out to do it. It is just not practical and it is not ensuring a proper end use." Of course, those kinds of arguments ignored the fact that the fluctuating water levels in the area made it very difficult to have a decent crop of wild rice on many occasions.

To refer to the question of wild rice again leads me to the name Stephen Lewis. If there was ever a champion of the Indian people's right to determine their own destiny and develop their own economy, it was the former member for Scarborough West. We all know the kind of contribution he has gone on to make on behalf of this country in international forums. If we all owe a debt to anyone for raising and dramatizing the issue before the public and the media of this province, for co-operating in the strenuous efforts of the chiefs and councils to bring this matter before the public, for ensuring that the private sector companies responsible for the pollution made restitution and compensation, and for ensuring that the public sector played a role in bringing about a resolution of the problem, we owe it to Stephen Lewis.

I suppose I should welcome the statements made by the member for Kenora in response to the introduction of this bill for second reading. I welcome the fact that he says on behalf of his party that it does not intend to slow down the passage of this legislation. They do not intend to hold it up. It is 1986. Where were those comments in 1976? By God, they had better not hold up this legislation, because they have held up a resolution of this problem for the past 16 years.

I do not think we can ever pay back properly the debt we owe the people of the Whitedog and Grassy Narrows bands. I do not think we as a society can ever give proper recognition of the economic, social and health problems that have resulted from the destruction of their way of life, economic base and social structure. This bill goes some way. It certainly recognizes that we owe a debt. It implements an agreement that has been accepted by the bands and makes it possible for the provincial government to participate in the Grassy Narrows and Islington Bands mercury disability fund.

5:30 p.m.

All of us recognize that money, no matter how well-intentioned, cannot rebuild a society and cannot put lives back together again. This fund and this bill will not do it. What will do it is the bands continuing to work as hard as they have in the past to develop an economic base and a social structure that will serve the band members, and the political will of this Legislature to do everything we can to assist and to facilitate the rebuilding of those communities.

For too many years that political will was missing. I trust we will begin today to ensure that this rebuilding process will be successful and that we have the will to make it happen.

Mr. Bernier: As I said in my remarks, it is our desire to move this bill through as quickly as possible. Therefore, I will refrain from responding to some of the very silly and provocative comments of the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman).

Mr. Wildman: I thank the member for Kenora for his comments. I trust he is sincere in his desire to resolve the problem and to ensure that this bill passes quickly. I stand by the comments I made. The record is there; I do not have to point it out. I could have gone through long recitations from Hansard but I do not think that is necessary. All the people involved, all the people of the province, know the record.

I suppose this is not a time for us to look back, other than to understand what we owe as a result of the problems, the difficulties, the mistakes of the past. It is a time to look forward, to go forward with the bands in support of their efforts, because they are the people who will decide their future, and to ensure that anything we can do and should do to assist them in their efforts is done.

Mr. Shymko: I join in this debate as someone who was elected in 1981 and who did not witness the emotional nature of the very sincere remarks of concerned members of this Legislature trying to provide a settlement to a tragic situation that had existed far too long. I have a great deal of respect for the member for Algoma and note, at times, an emotional aspect to his remarks. I do not doubt his sincerity, as I hope members will not doubt the sincerity of the member for Kenora in being pleased with the speed with which we are trying to resolve the tragic circumstances that have affected our natives.

I also want to compliment all members of the Legislature. I join the member for Algoma -- and I am sure the member for Kenora will agree, notwithstanding personal criticisms we may hear and allegations of non-co-operation or whatever -- in recognizing that the former member for Scarborough West, Stephen Lewis, made a major contribution in informing our citizens, and especially the members of this Legislature, of the crying need to settle this very urgent problem.

I know the action was set, perhaps with greater speed, following the recommendations of the royal commission under Mr. Justice Patrick Hartt in 1978, three years before I was elected. In addition, the involvement of our guest today in the members' side of our chamber, Mr. Justice Hall, appointed in 1984 as the federal negotiator, had a major contribution in the announcement we heard in November and in what is happening today.

I do not want in any way, because of the fact that I was not present for all of these years, to comment on the reasons this dragged, but it is unforgivable and there is no excuse for that.

It is ironic that it takes such a tragedy and so many victims to provide moneys to advance the social and economic development of two Indian bands. I hope that some day the millions of dollars that are being provided now to both the Islington Indian band and the Grassy Narrows band could be provided to all our bands in Ontario for economic and social development to alleviate the plight and the tragedies we see today in the living conditions of a trapped population; trapped because of historical circumstances, trapped perhaps because of governments sometimes not addressing their needs or, if addressing them, addressing them in patronizing ways.

I look at the sincere concerns we have for people in other parts of the world and I wonder why, before preaching to others, we do not clean up our own house, especially in our dealings with our natives.

As I indicated when the bill was introduced, we have the co-operation of everyone on this side of the House. I indicated that on June 11. I do not want the remarks I will be making and the concern I will be expressing to be interpreted in any way as opening the door to complications.

My concern relates to section 21 of the bill, which I may address later as we go through the sections. It addresses one aspect; namely, that the decision of the board in allocating the compensation to the victims of mercury poisoning is final and binding, it is not subject to any review and, subject to this act, shall be given effect by the administrator.

The concern I have with this may be in the form of a question that I will be asking the Attorney General. I have spoken to him previously and I understand the nature of this bill, which can be described as a vehicle to a negotiated agreement, a negotiated agreement which took 16 years.

5:40 p.m.

Notwithstanding that this is a vehicle to implement that agreement, we should guarantee in a maximum way that the victims of mercury poisoning will be given the maximum protection this agreement should deliver in compensation.

We are all fallible human beings and the parties that negotiate this are fallible. There may well be a situation when the board, composed as I understand of the chairman, two members of the native bands, two physicians and two members representing lay people who are neither physicians nor members of bands, will be making decisions that will not satisfy all the victims, all the complainants and all the applicants for compensation. For some reason, a victim of mercury poisoning might feel the decision of the board was not fair when it has refused to compensate him. Since members of the board are fallible, as are all human beings, it is quite possible such a situation or circumstance may exist.

I would not want to have the recourse available to all other citizens in other cases of compensation for injury and for injured health to be denied any native who was subject to mercury poisoning, where the decision of the board may not have agreed with his or her claim.

We have compensation for injured workers through the Workers' Compensation Act, which encompasses and includes contributions from employers in the private sector, as in this case with the two companies involved. We give compensation through the Compensation for Victims of Crime Act to victims of criminal acts, where federal moneys are involved.

In these cases, there is nothing in the relevant act that says, if the Workers' Compensation Board and all the aspects of appeal that are provided are exhausted, that the Ombudsman may intervene. There is no reference in the Workers' Compensation Act. There is nothing in the Compensation for Victims of Crime Act indicating that, when all the channels of appeal for a victim of a criminal act are exhausted, the Ombudsman has the jurisdiction and the right to interfere. It is well understood that appeal to the Ombudsman is open and available. It is implied in those acts.

One may say we are dealing with status Indians. I can tell members that 60 per cent of all the claims to the Ombudsman in northern Ontario come from status natives, whether they are cases through correctional institutions or others.

Mr. McClellan: What is the member's point?

Mr. Shymko: My colleague the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McCleIlan) asks what my point is.

Mr. McClellan: I am not being facetious. I do not understand.

Mr. Shymko: I am not being facetious at all. This is my point: I want to ask the Attorney General if this bill, and the individuals affected, are subject to the Ombudsman Act or an appeal to the Ombudsman.

Mr. McClellan: Of course.

Mr. Philip: Of course.

Mr. Shymko: My colleague who sits on the standing committee on the Ombudsman -- and I refer to no other than my good friend the member for Etobicoke (Mr. Philip) -- and the member for Bellwoods, who is not on the Ombudsman committee, both answered my question, "Yes, of course it is."

That is the reaction of legislators who either sit on the standing committee on the Ombudsman or do not sit, but through their years of experience would not even envisage this bill not going through the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman.

Mr. Philip: Somebody who has read the Ombudsman Act. That is all it is.

Mr. Shymko: Rightly so. I would like to read the Ombudsman Act because I had intended to introduce an amendment to section 21 of the bill, saying that nothing in subsection 1 would affect the application of the Ombudsman Act. We know this cannot go to court, but I had intended to do this. As is the normal procedure of planning to introduce an amendment, particularly to a bill that has been awaited for 16 years, I would not have wanted in any way to jeopardize the speedy passage of this bill so I asked the Attorney General, whose wisdom I have always respected and hopefully will continue to respect, for his opinion about whether I, a humble member of this chamber, could introduce an amendment to this bill.

Hon. Mr. Scott: Get off it, Yuri. Ask your question.

Mr. Shymko: I hear the words, "Get off." "Get off" was approximately the answer when I spoke to the Attorney General. That is from the point of view that: "If you should introduce such an amendment, I will simply pull the bill. You are complicating; you cannot change this because it is a negotiated agreement and any amendment to this bill simply cannot be done. It will jeopardize the agreement."

I am concerned by such an answer because I hope the impression my honourable colleague the member for Etobicoke has, which is shared by my honourable colleague and House leader of the third party, the member for Bellwoods, understands there is absolutely nothing to prevent a native who is refused compensation from appealing to the Ombudsman and that the Ombudsman, through the Ombudsman Act, has jurisdiction.

I had sought the opinion of the Ombudsman who, unfortunately, could not be reached. I had asked for the opinion of the executive director of the Office of the Ombudsman a week and a half ago and had not received an answer. So, in a panic, I called the legal counsel of the Ombudsman's office, who indicated to me that this is an anomaly. This bill would be very unusual if it were interpreted that an individual claimant cannot go to the Ombudsman.

I was told by the Attorney General privately -- and I hope he will change his opinion publicly in a response -- that in no way is this bill subject to the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman.

My question is whether, in the last 60 minutes or an hour and a half or so since I asked for that personal opinion, the Attorney General still shares the personal view that this is not subject to the Ombudsman Act?

Mr. McClellan: Read section 15(3) of the Ombudsman Act.

Mr. Shymko: I would like to read subsection 15(3) of the Ombudsman Act.

Hon. Mr. Scott: The member should not read what they tell him to read.

5:50 p.m.

Mr. Shymko: I never read what they tell me to read. I had this great voluminous book, the Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1980, open to page 842 some time ago to read subsection 15(3) of the Ombudsman Act. Although I respect the wisdom of the Attorney General, maybe he should read the Ombudsman Act before making any private statements or opinions. I warn him before he makes any public response to be aware, and I will have all the honourable colleagues read along with me.

"The powers conferred on the Ombudsman by this act may be exercised notwithstanding any provision in any act to the effect that any such decision, recommendation, act or omission is final, or that no appeal lies in respect thereof, or that no proceeding or decision of the person or organization whose decision, recommendation, act or omission it is shall be challenged, reviewed, quashed or called in question."

I ask the Attorney General if anything could be clearer than that.

Mr. McClellan: What is the purpose of the speech?

Mr. Shymko: The purpose of the speech is that it is the opinion of the minister who has introduced this bill that it is not appealable to the Ombudsman.

Mr. McClellan: Horse feathers.

Mr. Shymko: "Horse feathers" is right. There may be other, more parliamentary, expressions that I may use. If "horse feathers" is acceptable, that is the right reply to such an opinion.

No act refers to the right of the Ombudsman to have jurisdiction except for one, and that is the Metropolitan Police Force Complaints Project Act, soon to be the Police Force Complaints Act. My colleague the member for Etobicoke, who is the expert in the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman can correct me. I understand it is the only act that says specifically the Ombudsman cannot interfere and has no jurisdiction.

Mr. Philip: The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act has that.

Mr. Shymko: It is not an act yet. I congratulate my colleague the member for Etobicoke who so eloquently presented the view of the standing committee on the Ombudsman to a certain committee with regard to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, soon to be passed, so that it may include some of our concerns.

However, at present there is only one act that says specifically there will be no jurisdiction by the Ombudsman. Every year, as the Ombudsman committee sits, a ministry says to the Ombudsman: "You have no jurisdiction. You have no right to review this case. You have no right to move in on this crown agency or board."

An individual minister can have his own opinions, but it is the act that supersedes the personal opinion of a cabinet minister. Sometimes a minister will appear before the Ombudsman's committee with a retinue of his experts and legal counsel and so on, questioning the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman, and in many cases they are wrong.

Notwithstanding what I may hear soon from the Attorney General with regard to the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman, this act states clearly that unless it is stated specifically in this bill or the act, when the bill becomes an act, the Ombudsman has jurisdiction. The province is surely involved. The over $2 million that will be provided to compensate is to be increased until 2004, to guarantee that there will always be a reserve fund of $100,000. We are heavily involved, believe me. We are more involved than the federal government, which has no terms of assuring a $100,000 compensation fund until 2004. We are involved for many years at much more than $2,167,000, definitely more. It is quite possible that the $2.16 million will disappear quickly, in two or three years, in compensating the victims. It is quite possible that the reserve fund may be just $10,000 or $20,000 in 1989. We will have to provide the extra $70,000 or $80,000 in 1989 and continue to provide more in 1990 and 1991.

There is no doubt the federal jurisdiction is involved. Unfortunately, to this day there is no federal Ombudsman. Had there been a federal Ombudsman institution at the national level, I am sure if the act federally were the same as our provincial Ombudsman Act, he too would have had jurisdiction notwithstanding the private sector and private corporate involvement which we find in the Workers' Compensation Board in compensation to injured workers.

My concern is that in similar cases of compensation -- be it injury in the place of employment or be it injury as a result of the commission of a criminal act where a person is injured and seeks compensation -- we cannot have one law for one category of victims and another law for another category of victims. I would not want this bill to be interpreted as being in any way discriminatory to certain natives who are victims of certain health problems, while others have an access of compensation that gives them access to the Ombudsman.

As members know, the Ombudsman can only recommend. If he is involved in one or two or whatever number of cases, should they occur, where the board has refused to provide compensation, he will be recommending it. If the board refuses to implement the recommendation of the Ombudsman -- that is all it will be, a recommendation to the board -- should the board still refuse, the Ombudsman appeals to the Legislative Assembly as a recommendation-denied case and we get involved. The onus, no doubt, is on the board to implement his recommendation in the case when the Ombudsman gets involved.

In speaking to the legal counsel to the bands and in speaking to others who were involved in a major way in the negotiations and in the consultation and advice they provided for the drafts -- there may have been many drafts of this bill before the final product that we see -- I understand that concern may have been expressed or some thought may or may not have been given to the Ombudsman's jurisdiction. Perhaps it may have been implied automatically, or the thing may have gone without much thought having been given to it, thinking there would be no situation or circumstance in which a native would not have the maximum review of board decisions. I understand it when a board decides there may be some form of another review, but the board's decision is final.

6 p.m.

I also understand that in the composition of the board a maximum effort will be given so the two native bands are consulted, and that it will not be a situation of the two native representatives versus the other four, who will be the majority and who may in some way have a greater power of decision that could be harmful to or not reflect the views of the two native representatives on the board. It may well be that one of the doctors would be a native. It may well be that one of the laymen would be a native. Should that be the case, to some degree I am much happier that there will be at least four native opinions on the board versus two non-native. That may be something to which consideration may be given in the process of selection for appointment of the board. I applaud that approach.

Notwithstanding this, we do not know specifically who will be appointed as the seven members of the board. I would like to ask the Attorney General whether he will reaffirm and reiterate what he has told me privately, which is that this bill is not subject to the Ombudsman's jurisdiction.

Is that the opinion of the Attorney General, after having listened to the responses from honourable colleagues, including the member for Bellwoods and the member for Etobicoke? I am sure all honourable colleagues share my concerns, including the Minister of Housing (Mr. Curling), who was sitting on this side discussing certain important issues in Bill 11 or whatever.

If that should be the case, if the Attorney General's response to my question -- a question which is shared by others -- says he has no jurisdiction, I will not be introducing an amendment if it complicates the process. I assure him I do not want to create obstacles. I want this passed, as do we all. I assure him I will refer and raise this in the standing committee on the Ombudsman. We will ask the Ombudsman's opinion of his jurisdiction on this bill, which I hope will become an act very soon -- I hope today.

If that is the case, it is the responsibility of all of us to make sure an amendment is introduced some time in the near future, not today, to guarantee equity of access, because there are no first-class or second-class citizens in this province; there should not be, particularly when we talk about natives who unfortunately have been for too long second-class and third-class citizens of our province.

I am concluding my remarks with the reaffirmation that he will share my concern that if that happens, we should introduce an amendment some time in the very near future so the Ombudsman will have jurisdiction, an amendment that most likely would come under section 21, stating as subsection 3 that nothing in subsection 1 affects the application of the Ombudsman Act. That is all I wanted to say. If that complicates the issue, I do not want to do that.

I was appalled by the arrogance of the Attorney General saying, "Do not introduce an amendment because you have no right to do so, because that jeopardizes the agreement."

I do not know whether the agreement would be jeopardized. As elected members of this assembly, we all have rights to discuss our concerns and yes, to introduce amendments if we think, sincerely, that amendment is paramount to providing the equity of protection that is offered to all other citizens.

Mr. McClellan: Very briefly, this is a very historic opportunity we have this afternoon.

I really want to say only one or two things. I came into politics in 1975 largely because of my experience in working with native communities in northern Ontario with the provincial government. I had the opportunity in 1969 to visit Grassy Narrows and Whitedog. I remember those communities before they were devastated, when they were still able to pursue the traditional economy and were very coherent and vibrant traditional communities. In a few short years, those communities were completely wrecked in what was the first major environmental disaster to hit this province.

Next to the tragedy that befell the communities themselves, one of the most appalling things was the sheer inadequacy of the public response to the tragedy. When I was elected, about five years after the mercury pollution began, the government of the day was still basically denying there was anything particularly wrong, that there was any responsibility to be assigned to anybody in particular in the public or the private sector. It was basically denying and stonewalling and attacking those who were trying to address, raise concerns about and publicize the problem.

We had a little bit of that again this afternoon from the member for Kenora, who once again attacked the former member for Scarborough West because he had raised the issue during the 1970s. The member for Kenora obviously does not understand in 1986, any more than he understood in 1976 or 1970, what this is all about.

Mr. Bernier: He tried to exploit them. The member knows that.

Mr. McClellan: He said under his breath that the former member had tried to exploit it. He thinks that is all the issue was about -- political exploitation. Ten or 15 years later, he has no more understanding of what was involved and what is involved in this tragedy than he did so many years ago.

I am absolutely convinced it was necessary for a change of government to take place in this province in order that this settlement could be achieved. I am absolutely convinced we would not have Bill 76 before us had there not been a change of government. I think that is a reality. It is reinforced by the kind of debate that has taken place in this assembly.

There is nothing to celebrate in the passage of this bill, except to say that perhaps in some small way some of the debt will begin to be paid. Nothing can bring back what has been destroyed in Grassy Narrows and Whitedog. Nothing can bring back the traditional way of life that has been destroyed for ever. Nothing can bring back the fabric of those communities. Nothing can bring back the shattered lives. Nothing can bring back those who have died because of the terrible, devastating destruction of those two communities.

I look forward to the passage of this bill and to its passage quickly, I hope this afternoon. I say to the Attorney General that we have been waiting for this bill to be called by the government. We intend to support it. We intend to waive the requirement of delay between second and third reading. We want this bill passed. We want it passed quickly. We want it passed today. We want it proclaimed today.

The Deputy Speaker: Are there questions or comments? Does any other honourable member wish to participate in the debate? If not, I recognize the minister, and this closes the debate.

6:10 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Scott: I will be relatively brief. There are a couple of things I would like to say in response to the matters that have been raised.

First, the Ombudsman Act has nothing to do with this. As the honourable members will know if they read the Ombudsman Act, this proposed act and the agreement, this is a fund created at this moment not with government money but with money the native people will be getting under a settlement. It is in that sense their money and they have created a board that will distribute their money, the fund, in a way that they have selected. The board is given its authority from the agreement which is confirmed by a statutory enactment. In other words, it is not the creation of a governmental agency in the sense that is referred to by the Ombudsman Act. The Ombudsman Act could have no application to this exercise whether it was referred to in it or not. I simply leave that there.

The member for Algoma asked why it took so long. He did not ask that entirely rhetorically, because had there been more time I think he would have attempted a detailed answer. History will provide an answer. Revisionism is at large, as it is in all human events. I will say nothing about it because I do not want to spoil the importance of this occasion for anybody who is anxious to participate in it. However, there will be an answer as to why this took so long.

I join with the member for Bellwoods when he points out -- and I think this is critical -- that this is not an occasion for celebration. We are carrying on here as if we are doing something great when in fact we are not. We are making a modest reparation for a very grave, now historic, injustice.

The member for Algoma was right to focus as he did on the strength, resourcefulness, energy and dedication that the native people of these two bands exhibited over many years, constantly faced with a frustration that few members of our society face.

For me it is a moving thing to look at the writ -- it is in the compendium -- that I am proud to say our firm issued on June 30, 1977, when the battle was half over. The requirements of the writ were that we had to list all the people who might benefit from this litigation. We could not say, "...and all members of the band." For particularity, we had to list all their names, all the names of their children and the names of all the people who had died since the thing happened.

People were dispatched to the Grassy Narrows and the Whitedog reserves to get those names, and there they all are today. There are hundreds of them, page after page; not names of corporations or entities or partnerships or associations, but real names of living people. Isaac Mandamin, Charles Carpenter, George Bunting, Douglas McDonald, Roy McDonald, Josephine Mandamin, James Land, Baptiste Bigblood, Harriet Bigblood, and so on for pages and pages. These people have suffered enormously. They have shown enormous energy and resource. Today, we make a guilt offering by passing this act.

As Attorney General, I get to do some wonderful things which I am proud to do and which I am anxious to do well. I answer questions about why we do not have better courthouses, why the judges' salaries are not higher, why there is not a bailiff here and a bailiff there and a justice of the peace. Those are all very important matters that I am proud to attempt to discharge.

However, I am certain honourable members may agree that when we come to the year 2000 and people look back at what we were doing, there will be two fundamental issues they will ask about. The first issue will be how we dealt with human rights and the second issue will be how we dealt with the environment. How we dealt with the Woodstock courthouse, begging your pardon, will recede in importance in the year 2000 when our children look back and say, "How did you deal with those two issues?" Those will be the issues that matter, the issues of human rights and the environment. Those two issues intersect more perfectly in terms of the native people in our province than anywhere else.

When we are talking about the native people, we are not talking simply about the bands. We are talking about nonstatus people and Metis people; we are talking about people who live in the country and in the north and people who live in the cities. My riding, St. David, is the second or third most heavily populated native riding in Ontario. Those people are the brothers and sisters of the people at Grassy Narrows and in the north.

The important thing, and one of the ways we will be judged, is how we deal with the three critical issues on the agenda for native people. The first is the entrenchment of aboriginal self-government in our Constitution, a matter that must be resolved next year.

The second is the introduction of self-government systems to the native people, in the bands on the reserve and off the reserve, in a way that meets their needs, a terribly difficult task which has already begun under this government with the Nishnawbe-Aski nation negotiations.

The third thing is developing a way to bring the public services to which all Ontario people are entitled because they are Ontarians to the native people, wherever they may live, in a delivery method that is satisfactory to their needs and that responds to their concerns. I believe that 20 years from now, when our friends look back at what we said, if we have not begun to deal with human rights and environmental matters and if we have not begun to focus on those in that crucible where they are found, the native people of Ontario, if I build 11 courthouses or somebody else encourages me to appoint nine justices of the peace, it will not matter a tinker's damn.

I am very grateful for the support of the honourable members in passing this bill.

I want to say only that Peter Jacobsen, who used to be with the law staff of the Ministry of the Attorney General and who has played a major role in the negotiation of this agreement, is present. I want to tell him how grateful I am for his help and his support. That is all I have to say.

Mr. Shymko: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I want a clarification from the Attorney General. Did I understand the Attorney General to say that --

Mr. Wildman: Out of order.

Mr. Shymko: No, I just want to understand. I asked the Attorney General to answer a question.

The Deputy Speaker: No, that is not a point of order. Would you please refer to what standing order is involved if it is a point of order.

Mr. Shymko: Am I not entitled to two minutes after the Attorney General's remarks?

The Deputy Speaker: No, you are not.

Mr. Wildman: Not after a wrapup.

The Deputy Speaker: No, not after the wrapup. Thank you.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for third reading.

6:20 p.m.

ENGLISH AND WABIGOON RIVER SYSTEMS MERCURY CONTAMINATION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Scott moved third reading of Bill 76, An Act to implement the Terms of a Settlement arising out of the Contamination by Mercury and other Pollutants of the English and Wabigoon and Related River Systems.

Mr. Shymko: I want to indicate that I am quite saddened if the interpretation by the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) is that a native individual who has suffered neurological deficiencies consistent with mercury poisoning and has applied for compensation to the board will be denied such compensation because of the opinion of the doctors on the board or other evidence contrary to the evidence that he provided and that, let us say, of other doctors, and that he would not have access to seek leave to appeal with the Office of the Ombudsman.

Is it my understanding that an individual in this predicament would not be able to appeal the decision of that board to the Ombudsman? If not, it is sad.

The Deputy Speaker: Are there questions or comments?

Hon. Mr. Scott: I think the difficulty is that the honourable member does not understand the bill.

Mr. Wildman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I want to make a comment --

Hon. Mr. Scott: I am sorry; I was responding.

The Deputy Speaker: This is questions and comments. I did not see the member standing up.

Hon. Mr. Scott: The honourable member perhaps does not fully understand what the bill does. We are not here creating a governmental organization to which the Ombudsman Act would respond. We are not providing any public money for this under this bill. The native people are providing $2 million of their money -- we are providing none, except some administrative costs -- and they want us to participate with them in creating a scheme to administer the money and pay it out. It is their money.

They want their board, which is going to pay the money out, to have statutory placement. In my opinion, it is not a governmental organization under the Ombudsman Act. Even if it were, if one were to complain to the Ombudsman, what could he do? He could not go to the native people and ask them to pay over some more money.

Mr. Shymko: Everything is the people's money; the workers' or the Workers' Compensation Board's.

Mr. Wildman: In supporting this legislation I want to say on behalf of our caucus that we have faith in the goodwill of the Indian people to ensure that this system works for the benefit of band members. For too long in this society we have not been prepared to put our faith in the ability of Indian people to handle their own affairs with alacrity. I believe it is about time we started to feel that way. Instead of arguing or debating, what we should be saying in response to the passage of this bill is, "Meegwetch."

The Deputy Speaker: Does the member for High Park-Swansea wish to reply?

Mr. Shymko: No, thank you.

Motion agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Scott: The House will not sit on Monday and Tuesday in accordance with standing order 2(d).

On the afternoons of Wednesday, July 2, and Thursday, July 3, we will continue with the legislation on today's Orders and Notices which has not been completed today and, if time permits, other legislation to be announced.

On Thursday morning private members' business standing in the names of the member for Lambton (Mr. D. W. Smith) and the member for Lanark (Mr. Wiseman) is scheduled.

The Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) would like to wish all members a pleasant Canada Day weekend.

Mr. McClellan: Where is the Treasurer now?

Hon. Mr. Scott: On his pleasant Canada Day weekend.

The House adjourned at 6:24 p.m.

26 juin 1986